Firearms and the Mentally Ill -- We've Got to Do Something NOW

The world's deadliest sniper was killed by a troubled vet he was trying to help.

If there ever were a tragic event that should bring into focus the fact that gun safety is not about outlawing guns but about controlling who has access to them, it is the death of ex-Seal sniper Chris Kyle at the hand of a young Iraqi War veteran who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

At this moment, individuals who are suffering from emotional or mental disorders who have not been involuntarily committed by court order are not restricted from owning, or coming into contact with, a firearm. However, allowing veterans suffering from PTSD access to their weapons has resulted in countless suicides, and now a tragic double murder.

We need legislation requiring individuals who are suffering from severe depression, paranoia, schizophrenia, or a similar ailment to sell, transfer, or surrender their firearms until they can be deemed fit. Legislation such as this would have legally prevented Chris Kyle from bringing his murderer to the gun range that day, and he would still be alive. Similarly, it would have impeded Adam Lanza's mother from providing her troubled son with access to the weapons he used in the Newtown massacre, and twenty-six people, including twenty young children, would still be alive.

We really need to spread the word that guns and emotional or mental instability cannot coexist. If we live with someone who suffers any of these ailments we need to do whatever we can to separate them from their weapons so that they are less likely to hurt themselves and others.

However, this is often incredibly difficult to do. Someone suffering from paranoia will likely become severely agitated if you try to take away a gun that makes them feel safe, perhaps with violent results. Currently, the authorities cannot intervene until the mentally ill person has done something that demonstrates that they are a danger to themselves or others. However, this threshold may be too high to increase public safety.

As a starting point, we should lower the threshold by which someone's actions initiate a process of court-ordered psychological review. For example, as I write this a deranged man in Alabama is holding a five year old boy hostage, who he took off of a school bus after shooting and killing the bus driver. However, this man showed numerous signs of mental instability, such as beating to death a dog that wandered onto his property and shooting into the air to scare off neighbors who ventured too close to his property line. The local authorities in Alabama should have been empowered to order an immediate psychological evaluation for this man. However, this did not happen, and now a bus driver is dead and a family is in anguish because they may never see their son again.

Also, we need to start a discussion with school administrators and the medical community about how they can help us identify those individuals in our midst who are not equipped to be allowed to own or otherwise possess a firearm. For example, the Ph.D student in Aurora, Colorado who unleashed a barrage at a midnight showing of a Batman movie had written a letter to his psychiatrist expressing a desire to inflict pain on others. Sadly, since no prompt action was taken twelve people were killed and over fifty others were wounded.

What is it going to take before we take the measures that need to be taken to identify those people around us who are literally "ticking time bombs" and disarm them??

Gun are ubiquitous and gun control is not the answer. The answer is cooperation by school officials, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and the courts to get these at-risk people identified, evaluated, and kept away from dangerous weapons.