What do recent mass terrorizers Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, and James Holmes have in common?
1. They all had a documented history of mental illness.
2. They all had reasonably easy access to legally owned firearms.
For many people, their preferred response is to imply, or draw the conclusion that, had these perpetrators received the proper medical treatment and monitoring, these horrific tragedies could have been prevented. The logical response is then to improve our handling of these mentally ill people. Not only could this prevent future tragedies from occurring, but then even if they do, we know that we will have done all that we reasonably could have to prevent them.
However, I find this a wholly disingenuous argument. To demonstrate this, I would like to advance the following hypothetical cases:
A. Let's assume Elliot Rodger was receiving the proper medical and psychiatric treatment, to be considered by a reasonable subset of the population to be receiving the adequate level of care required for his mental issues. Therapy, medication, constant supervision, all of that. Let's also assume that he still has reasonably easy access to legally owned firearms.
B. Let's assume Elliot Rodger was not receiving any medical or psychiatric treatment, so that a reasonable subset of the population do not believe he is receiving the adequate level of care required for his mental issues. However, his access to legally owned firearms was extremely restricted, so that he would have to resort to illegal, or unreasonably extreme measures to gain access to a firearm.
The question then is, in which case would you feel most comfortable around Elliot Rodger?
Intellectually, most of us would say that based on all reasonable assumptions, we should feel at least as safe around someone who is A as we are around someone who is B. However, viscerally, if we are being honest with ourselves, a lot of us would still feel more threatened in one case or the other.
I think this highlights the true approach we, as a society should use in response to tragedies such as the mass terrorizing by Elliot Rodger, and how we look to prevent them from happening again.
As a society, we must seek a level of both mental health care and gun control, so that a majority of Americans feel as reasonably comfortable around the A group as they do the B group.
However, where my own personal opinion comes in, is that there is no equivalence between our inadequate mental health support and our inadequate gun controls. For our society to reach the next level of safety from these terrorizers, we must focus on restricting the access to guns. Addressing the mental health factors is not enough.
Comprehensive mental health care will never substitute comprehensive gun safety regulations. After all, nobody chooses their mental illnesses, but every gun owner and user chooses to be one. The former, then, is far more likely to seek treatment if available, than the latter is likely to abide by any more safety regulation than is required by law.
This is not to say that there aren't substantial improvements that can be made to our mental health system. As much emphasis as we put on physical health, and researching treatments for physical illnesses, I find it quite remarkable that we do not dedicate at least as much resources to our mental health, something that is probably far more important. However, it's not like we get recommendations to see therapists like we get recommended to see doctors, and I think society as a whole bears a lot of responsibility for stigmas and prejudices that prevent more people from seeking mental treatment, for themselves or their loves ones.
And I don't want to imply that people with mental illness should be automatically prohibited from owning or using firearms. If anything, connecting mass shootings to mental disorders does a disservice to the community of Americans dealing with their mental disorders in obscurity without burdening the rest of us. I don't think they should be targeted for restricting their rights any more than any other subset of Americans.
However, let's not allow the inadequate care and monitoring we provide for the mentally ill become a scapegoat for the real issue, which is the inadequate care and monitoring we provide for gun safety in our society.
It is true that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional and, to many people, sacred right of every American. However, that is all the more reason we as a society are obligated to make sure this right is not warped and abused to victimize other Americans, as much as possible. Like any other basic right as an American, if we choose to exercise that right, we should make sure we use it responsibly, and for the benefit of all our fellow Americans. And I do not think we have yet reached that level of responsible gun ownership.
I'm no idealist. I don't think any level of gun control will ever put an end to mass terrorizers like Elliot Rodger. Neither will any level of mental treatment and monitoring. And if we truly want to be the nation of freedom we aspire and proclaim to be, then situations that allow these unfortunate disasters to transpire will always be present, and we have to be cognizant of that.
However, we must not let perfect become the enemy of the good. Society must always seek to improve the conditions by which we all live. Otherwise, what right do we have to seek to improve our conditions individually?