A group of 20 bipartisan Senators reached a tentative gun control related agreement yesterday that is being widely hailed as the most significant progress in decades. Many of the details of the plan are still to be sorted out and maintaining support for it throughout the legislative process will be challenging.
What’s not in the bill: a provision to expand background checks, a ban on military-style assault weapons and no change to the minimum age to purchase guns, which is 18 years old.
What’s in:
Gun Safety
-
a federal grant program to encourage states to implement “red flag” laws (see more at https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/10/ask-politifact-what-are-red-flag-gun-laws-and-do-t/) that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others
-
note that a question or finding that someone might pose a threat to themselves or others does not necessitate a connection with or finding of mental illness. NYAPRS agrees with NAMI National in its support for Red Flags (technically called Extreme Risk Protection Orders or ERPOs) that “focus on specific, current behaviors and evidence-based risk factors for violence” and that… do not target, single out, or discriminate against people with mental health conditions.”
-
In fact, see the attached letter from national disability rights organizations and NYAPRS that was sent to Congressional leaders last Friday
-
See below for a broad array of risk factors that are not connected with ‘traditional’ mental illnesses*
-
-
federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice and mental health records for the first time.
-
Prevention of gun sales to domestic violence offenders beyond just spouses, closing what is often called the “boyfriend loophole”;
-
Clarification as to which gun sellers are required to register as federal firearms dealers and, thus, run background checks on their customers;
-
Establishment of new federal offenses related to gun trafficking.
Mental Health related provisions
-
Funneling of billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding behavioral intervention programs, new campus infrastructure and armed officers.
-
The language refers to “access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery.” This recalls recommendations we made in a NYT piece we submitted after Newtown (https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/17/can-mental-health-care-reduce-gun-violence/it-shouldnt-take-a-tragedy-to-improve-mental-health-care.
-
Our hope that New York can its share of such funding to significantly jump start and add more crisis stabilization centers along with follow along peer bridger and crisis respite programs….again, unconnected with any linkage to as false conflation of violence and a diagnosis of mental illness.
-
One cornerstone of the deal is legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics,” though the framework does not yet include an agreed funding level for that program or others….
-
Additionally, the legislation would provide resources “to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including: early identification and intervention programs and school based mental health and wrap-around services.”
School Security
-
The lawmakers said in their release that the proposal provides money “to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools,” while also supporting “school violence prevention efforts” and training for school employees and students.
Next Steps
-
Aides have cautioned that until the legislation was finalized, it was not certain that each of the components could draw the 60 votes necessary to move forward. Negotiators must now translate the broad principles of the framework into legislative text, a far more fraught process, and secure enough support in both chambers for the legislation to become law.
-
The Houses have two weeks left to act — before lawmakers leave Washington for a two-week Independence Day recess, according to sponsor Chris Murphy. “But meeting even that timeline would require a framework for a deal to be put in place quickly, Murphy said, citing the likelihood that gun rights supporters in the Senate would seek to erect procedural hurdles to any potential legislation.”
More Resources
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/
——————–
Senators Strike Bipartisan Gun Deal, Heralding Potential Breakthrough (excerpts by NYAPRS)
By Mike DeBonis and Leigh Ann Caldwell Washington Post June 12, 2022
A bipartisan group of senators announced Sunday that it had reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.
Twenty senators — 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans — signed a statement announcing the framework deal. That indicated that the agreement could have enough GOP support to defeat a filibuster, the Senate supermajority rule that has impeded prior gun legislation.
“Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities,” the statement read in part. “Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.”
Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to implement “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice and mental health records for the first time.
Other provisions would prevent gun sales to domestic violence offenders beyond just spouses, closing what is often called the “boyfriend loophole”; clarify which gun sellers are required to register as federal firearms dealers and, thus, run background checks on their customers; and establish new federal offenses related to gun trafficking.
The agreement does not include a provision supported by President Biden, congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-over age limit.
Other provisions would funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding behavioral intervention programs, new campus infrastructure and armed officers. One cornerstone of the deal is legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics,” though the framework does not yet include an agreed funding level for that program or others….
….Key pitfalls remain: The framework announced Sunday amounts to a statement of principles, not a fully written bill. While people involved in the process said last week that significant chunks of the legislation have already been written, new points of friction frequently arise in Congress as the drafting process is finalized.
Red-flag laws, in particular, have raised many conservative Republicans’ hackles, though negotiators said last week that they believed there would be sufficient GOP support to pass any deal. The “boyfriend loophole” and firearms licensee provisions have also been subject to prior bipartisan talks that did not produce agreements.
“The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions,” said a GOP aide familiar with the talks. “One or more of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.”
The Republican signers of Sunday’s statement were Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), who led the talks for the GOP, as well as Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan M. Collins (Maine), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.).
Democrats in the group included leaders Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), as well as Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Christopher A. Coons (Del.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, also signed.
Biden also indicated his support: “Obviously, it does not do everything that I think is needed, but it reflects important steps in the right direction, and would be the most significant gun safety legislation to pass Congress in decades,” he said in a statement released by the White House on Sunday.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he planned to “put this bill on the floor as soon as possible” once the legislative drafting is completed, a process that aides said could take several days. Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not formally endorse the deal in a statement Sunday but offered encouragement to the negotiators: “I continue to hope their discussions yield a bipartisan product that makes significant headway on key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, earns broad support in the Senate, and makes a difference for our country.”
…House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled Friday that the Democratic-controlled House would move to enact whatever bill the Senate managed to pass. “If it’s life-saving and can make a difference, and they have bipartisan support for it, then we would welcome it, even though it won’t be everything that we want,” she said at a news conference.
…The last substantial new federal gun-control laws were passed in the mid-1990s — the “Brady bill” of 1993, which created the national instant background check system, and the assault weapons ban of 1994, which outlawed some military-style semiautomatic rifles and handguns. The latter bill expired 10 years later and has not been renewed.
In recent decades, Washington has acted mainly to expand gun rights. In 2005, for instance, Congress immunized the firearms industry against product liability lawsuits, and in 2008, the Supreme Court enshrined an individual’s right to possess guns in the landmark case D.C. v. Heller. A 2013 push in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to expand background checks to cover more gun transactions, including gun-show and internet sales, fell six votes short in the Senate.
In an interview Thursday, Murphy said he believed that the chamber had two weeks left to act — before lawmakers leave Washington for a two-week Independence Day recess.
But meeting even that timeline would require a framework for a deal to be put in place quickly, Murphy said, citing the likelihood that gun rights supporters in the Senate would seek to erect procedural hurdles to any potential legislation.
“We can’t come to agreement the last week we’re here,” he said. “There are people in the Senate that are no doubt going to use every rule available to them to hold this up and slow it down.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/12/senate-gun-deal-framework/
==============
*School Shootings, 10 Risk Factors You Need to Know
Red Dot Alert https://reddotalert.com/school-shootings-10-risk-factors-you-need-to-know/
….The Youth Violence Commission & International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), (2018), recently released a report identifying ten key personal and environmental risk factors to help the public understand why acts of extreme violence occur, and to help inform policy makers.
Personal risk factors
1) Gender
Young men commit most of the violent crimes and the vast majority of mass shootings. Biological differences and perceptions of control or power associated with masculinity norms appear to be contributing factors for extreme violence.
2) Aggressive behavior early in childhood
Research has consistently found that early aggressive behavior during childhood is a predictor of later aggressive, antisocial, violent, and criminal behavior, including mass shootings.
3) “Dark” Personality traits and emotion regulation
Some people are more prone to aggression and violence than others. Youth who are characteristically angry tend to more aggressive and violent. Furthermore, those who have poor emotion regulation, have difficulty managing their anger. Typically, someone who has poor anger regulation will get angry often and quickly and experience intense anger for a prolonged period of time (has trouble cooling off).
Researchers have also found four “dark” personality traits related to violent behavior (NYAPRS: note that none of these conditions relate to more commonly called ‘serious thought or mood related conditions”
-
Narcissism involves having grandiose self-views, a selfish orientation and a lack of empathy for others. When narcissist don’t get the respect or recognition, they feel they deserve, they can turn violent. Recent research has found narcissism is associated with mass shootings.
-
Psychopathy is a term commonly used to describe deceitful, callous and manipulative individuals who have no regard to laws or norms, have no remorse and often commit violent crimes.
-
Machiavellianism involves a mindset that ruthlessly focuses on gaining personal success and power by any means necessary, even if it means using aggression and violence.
-
Sadists experience pleasure after hurting an innocent person.
4) Obsession with weapons or death and mass shootings
The person has an intense interest or fixation with guns, bombs, or explosives. School shooters tend to have a fascination with previous shootings and glamorize previous incidents (Haeney, Ash & Galletly, 2018).
Environmental risk factors
5) Easy access to guns
Research consistently shows that easy access to guns is a strong risk factors for violence. Moreover, firearms with large-capacity magazines allow the perpetrator to kill a greater number of victims in a shorter amount of time. On a psychological level, guns give the shooter the feeling of distance between him and his victims, making killing easier.
6) Social exclusion and isolation
Bullying, regular victimization, marginalization or being ostracized by peers are risk factors for youth violence. Victims of bullying in particular, may develop feelings of resentment for a particular group of individuals or for a community (perhaps the school he goes to), which may contribute to engaging in acts of extreme violence such as mass shootings.
7) Family and neighborhood characteristics
Some of the family characteristics that contribute to youth violence include divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, being on welfare and having a mother who is young or unemployed. Growing up in a violent neighborhood and witnessing crime are also risk factors for violence.
8) Media violence
Whether violent films, music, TV programs or video games cause mass shootings often lead to controversial debates. Research shows that although violent media is not the sole cause of aggressive and violent behavior, including mass shootings, it is an important risk factor that can not only contribute to more aggressive and violent behaviors but also lead to fewer prosocial behaviors (Bushman & Anderson, 2015).
9) School characteristics
School shootings are more likely to occur in schools that have a large class size and a high student-to-teacher and student-to-counselor ratio. In the ISRA Report of the Youth Violence Commission (2018), the authors point out that those characteristics can lead to students to feel socially isolated and feel that help would be difficult to get. Conversely, schools with a strong sense of community or spirit, may reduce the likelihood of school shootings.
10) Stressful events
Stressful events and aggression are strongly linked and can elicit anger and violent behavior.
Gaining a better understanding of the multiple factors that contribute to school shootings can help prevention efforts at every level. Whether it translates into implementing into new laws and policies or whether it helps us identify and treat individuals at risk of perpetrating violence, understanding the “why” of school shootings can help us protect our children and communities.
If you’re concerned about someone’s behavior, make sure to check out the following:
============
*Warning Signs of School Violence
ERIC Review Kevin Dwyer, David Osher, and Cynthia Warger Spring 2000
Early Warning Signs
It is not always possible to predict behavior that will lead to violence. However, educators and parents and sometimes students can recognize certain early warning signs. In some situations and for some youth, different combinations of events, behaviors, and emotions may lead to aggressive rage or violent behavior toward themselves or others. A good rule of thumb is to assume that these warning signs, especially when they are presented in combination, indicate a need for further analysis to determine an appropriate intervention.
Most children who become violent toward themselves or others feel rejected and psychologically victimized. In most cases, children exhibit aggressive behavior early in life and, if not provided support, will continue a progressive developmental pattern toward severe aggression or violence. However, when children have a positive, meaningful connection to an adult whether it be at home, in school, or in the community the potential for violence is reduced significantly.
None of these signs alone is sufficient for predicting aggression and violence. Moreover, it is inappropriate and potentially harmful to use the early warning signs as a checklist against which to measure individual children. Rather, the early warning signs are offered only as an aid in identifying and referring children who may need help. School communities must ensure that staff and students use the early warning signs only for identification and referral purposes only trained professionals should make diagnoses in consultation with the child’s parents or guardian.
The following early warning signs are presented with the qualifications that they are not equally significant and are not presented in order of seriousness:
Early Warning Signs
-
Social withdrawal
-
Excessive feelings of isolation and being alone
-
Excessive feelings of rejection
-
Being a victim of violence
-
Feelings of being persecuted
-
Low school interest and poor academic performance
-
Expression of violence in writings and drawings
-
Uncontrolled anger
-
Patterns of impulsive and chronic hitting, intimidating, and bullying behaviors
-
History of discipline problems
-
History of violent and aggressive behavior
-
Intolerance for differences and prejudicial attitudes
-
Use of drugs and alcohol
-
Affiliation with gangs
-
Inappropriate access to firearms
-
Serious threats of violence
Imminent Warning Signs
Unlike early warning signs, imminent warning signs indicate that a student is very close to behaving in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or herself or others. Imminent warning signs require an immediate response.
No single warning sign can predict that a dangerous act will occur. Rather, imminent warning signs usually are presented as a sequence of overt, serious, hostile behaviors or threats directed at peers, staff, or other individuals. Usually, imminent warning signs are evident to more than one staff member as well as to the child’s family. When warning signs indicate that danger is imminent, safety must always be the first and foremost consideration. Action must be taken immediately.
Imminent warning signs may include
-
Serious physical fighting with peers or family members.
-
Severe destruction of property.
-
Severe rage for seemingly minor reasons.
-
Other self-injurious behaviors or threats of suicide.
-
Threats of lethal violence.
-
A detailed plan (time, place, and method) to harm or kill others, particularly if the child has a history of aggression or has attempted to carry out threats in the past.
-
Possession and/or use of firearms and other weapons.
Immediate intervention by school authorities and possibly law enforcement officers is needed when a child has a detailed plan to commit violence or is carrying a weapon. Parents should be informed immediately when students exhibit any threatening behavior. School communities also have the responsibility to seek assistance from child and family services providers, community mental health agencies, and other appropriate organizations. These responses should reflect school board policies and be consistent with violence prevention and response plans.
https://www.counseling.org/resources/library/Selected%20Topics/School%20Violence/Warning_Signs.html
=========
NYAPRS MEDIA RESPONSES TO LINKING MASS VIOLENCE AND MENTAL ILLNESSES