Tag Archives: mental health

crime news

These issues aren’t mutually exclusive

Let’s try to comprehend what I believe is a simple proposition, which is that fighting mental health issues and seeking to legislate meaningful laws restricting gun ownership are not mutually exclusive.

I touched on that in an earlier blog post in the wake of the shooting rampage in Allen, Texas, this past weekend; eight people were shot to death before an Allen police officer killed the loon who opened fire with an AR-15.

I salute the officer’s swift response. I also want to offer a comment on “competing” solutions being offered by leading politicians.

One of them, Democratic President Biden wants Congress to ban AR-15s outright; he wants Congress to enact universal background checks on those seeking to buy a firearm; and he wants Congress to increase the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years.

Is the president dismissing the need to deal forthrightly with mental health concerns? Of course not!

The other is Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott who wants to concentrate on mental health research while shoving gun control proposals to the back burner.

Is the governor saying “hell no!” to any legislation? I didn’t hear him say that.

Let me state once more: These two approaches can be handled simultaneously. We need not ignore one while working exclusively on the other.

The issue continues, in my mind at least, to be the easy access to guns. The Allen mall shooter reportedly was discharged from the Army because of “mental health issues.” Why, then, was he allowed to reportedly own an AR-15, a high-capacity semi-automatic rifle capable of killing a lot of human beings in a matter of seconds?

If you have seen an AR-15 up close you might need to know that the weapon is eerily similar to an M-16, the rifle we were issued when we reported for duty in Vietnam. They are weapons of war.

Furthermore, there is nothing in President Biden’s priority list that contradicts the Second Amendment’s guarantee for citizens to “keep and bear arms.” He just wants to be sure that those of us who obey the law and who aren’t pre-disposed to harming other human beings don’t have access to these weapons.

What in the name of humanity is wrong with that?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

POTUS speaks to two of three critical issues

Donald J. Trump went on the air this morning to offer the stricken nation his deep condolences over the latest school massacre that killed 17 people in Parkland, Fla.

The president offered on behalf of the nation his love and support for the victims and their families. Their grief is borne by the entire nation, he said. “We are one American family,” said the president.

He spoke also correctly about the need to address mental health issues. The gunman who opened fire at the high school had been expelled from the school for disciplinary reasons. He reportedly had exhibited some warning signs that went unheeded by those who know him.

Indeed, we do need to heed these signs. We mustn’t let them go.

Trump also spoke to the compelling need to boost school safety. That, too, is important. As the president noted, parents must not worry about the safety of their children “when they kiss them goodbye” each morning.

School safety. Mental health. Those are valid and important issues.

The president, though, left one critical issue unaddressed this morning. He didn’t mention gun violence. He didn’t speak at all to the need to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who exhibit the warning signs that the alleged gunman reportedly did.

Trump vowed to take on the “difficult issue of mental health.” Fine. What about gun violence, Mr. President? When in the name of political sanity are our elected leaders going to take on that “difficult issue”?

I continue to believe there are ways to toughen requirements for legal firearms purchases without impeding Second Amendment guarantees that citizens have the right to “keep and bear arms.”

That, too, needs a nation’s attention. If only the president had started that discussion today.

State news

Guns and mental health both played a part

Donald Trump believes the hideous massacre in Sutherland Springs, Texas, is a “mental health issue,” not a “guns issue.”

I’ve been trying to process the president’s statement, which he delivered in Japan. I am coming up empty with that notion.

You see, I happen to believe the lunatic shooter who killed 26 people at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs had no business packing the weapon he used to commit the carnage.

In other words, “mental health” and “guns” aren’t mutually exclusive issues as they relate to this horrific episode in our nation’s history.

The shooter was an Air Force veteran who received a bad conduct discharge after he assaulted his wife and young child. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has pointed out that the gunman applied for a concealed handgun permit, but was denied the permit because of his criminal record.

And that begs the question: How did this sicko get his mitts on an assault rifle? And, yes, I expect to hear the argument that will come forth that bad guys will obtain guns no matter how many laws we have on the books.

The debate on this hideous deed will commence fully in due course. The nation will grieve and a community will bury its victims. I don’t want to wait too long before this debate gets under way.

The president can lead that debate by acknowledging what I believe is painfully obvious about what has transpired. It is that guns need to be part of the discussion topics, right alongside the issue of mental health care.

These issues are not mutually exclusive.

national news, political news

Law-abiding gun owners can relax; your guns are safe

gun over american flag

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this notion.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say so explicitly, but my strong hunch is that the men who wrote that amendment intended for it to apply to law-abiding Americans.

Now we hear the president of the United States suggesting that we need to tighten laws in an effort to ensure greater gun safety.

He said clearly and unequivocally: We aren’t going to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens who have guns for the right reasons . . . to hunt or to shoot at targets.

The target — if you’ll pardon the intentional pun — are the criminals who are able to purchase guns through loopholes in current state and federal law.

Thus, President Obama has acted.

Measures outlined.

I’m certain I heard him say he believes in the Second Amendment. He noted that it’s written “on paper.” It’s on the record. His support of the amendment will stand forever.

He noted quite correctly that we register our cars. Why can’t we register our guns? he asked. If the law-abiding folks want to own guns, they are able to do so. No problem. No issue here.

Obama said he wants those who sell guns to go through extended background checks. He wants to hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He wants Congress to authorize more money for mental health care.

Does any of that suggest that the president is going to dispatch storm troopers across the land to take away the guns of those who own them, who use them properly, who want to defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

I do not believe that will happen.

Ever.

 

medical news, military news, national news

Vets get long-needed help from government

It can be stated clearly: Tom Coburn’s greatest public service accomplishment occurred the day he retired from the U.S. Senate.

The Oklahoma Republican — for reasons that remain a mystery to many observers — continually blocked legislation aimed at helping returning veterans cope with post-traumatic stress disorder that tragically led to suicide.

Coburn is gone from the Senate. So, what did his former colleagues do? They approved a bill — in a 99-0 vote! — that seeks to improve suicide prevention efforts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was a stunning display of bipartisan cooperation on an issue that clearly should transcend partisan differences.

As the New York Times noted in an editorial: “The bill calls for regular independent evaluations of the V.A.’s suicide prevention and mental health programs to ensure the most effective approaches are used in its hospitals and clinics. Other provisions include a pilot program to match returning veterans with colleagues whom they can confide in about mental health concerns, and a website to make it easier for veterans and their families to find help. Another provision would help psychiatrists who work for the V.A. repay medical school debt, which could ease the chronic shortage of mental health professionals.”

And yet … Sen. Coburn — using the Senate’s procedural trickery that allows a single senator to block legislation at will — kept this legislation from getting a vote on the floor of the upper congressional chamber.

What’s more, Tom Coburn’s other profession — besides blocking legislation in the Senate — is as a physician. It’s astonishing, therefore, that he would take such an obstructionist view on this issue.

The Senate has turned an important corner and America’s veterans are better served as a result.