The Colorado Governor's plan to fix mental health, not firearms alone.
Review and Outlook - The Wall Street Journal
Originally published January 15, 2013
Gun control has been the exclusive political fixation of President Obama's Washington after Newtown, so perhaps readers will be surprised to learn that some states are being more constructive. One of them is Colorado, where Governor John Hickenlooper is promoting an innovative overhaul of his state's mental health-care system.
In his State of the State address last week, the Democrat said that "our democracy demands" a debate over guns, violence and mental illness—not least in the aftermath of James Holmes's attack on an Aurora movie theater that killed 12 and wounded 58 in July. "Let me prime the pump," Mr. Hickenlooper said. "Why not have universal background checks for all gun sales?"
There was a lot of media attention for that line, but much less for what followed. As Mr. Hickenlooper continued, "It's not enough to prevent dangerous people from getting weapons. We have to do a better job identifying and helping people who are a threat to themselves and others." His office spent the last five months developing a detailed $18.5 million plan to modernize civil commitment laws while expanding community-based mental health treatment.
The rest of the story is here.
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Warning Signs of Violent Acts Often Unclear
By BENEDICT CAREY and ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
The New York Times
Published: January 15, 2013
No one but a deeply disturbed individual marches into an elementary school or a movie theater and guns down random, innocent people.
That hard fact drives the public longing for a mental health system that produces clear warning signals and can somehow stop the violence. And it is now fueling a surge in legislative activity, in Washington and New York.
But these proposed changes and others like them may backfire and only reveal how broken the system is, experts said.
“Anytime you have one of these tragic cases like Newtown, it’s going to expose deficiencies in the mental health system, and provide some opportunity for reform,” said Richard J. Bonnie, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia’s law school who led a state commission that overhauled policies after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings that left 33 people dead. “But you have to be very careful not to overreact.”
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: January 15, 2013
No one but a deeply disturbed individual marches into an elementary school or a movie theater and guns down random, innocent people.
That hard fact drives the public longing for a mental health system that produces clear warning signals and can somehow stop the violence. And it is now fueling a surge in legislative activity, in Washington and New York.
But these proposed changes and others like them may backfire and only reveal how broken the system is, experts said.
“Anytime you have one of these tragic cases like Newtown, it’s going to expose deficiencies in the mental health system, and provide some opportunity for reform,” said Richard J. Bonnie, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia’s law school who led a state commission that overhauled policies after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings that left 33 people dead. “But you have to be very careful not to overreact.”
The entire story is here.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Top 10 myths about mass shootings
By James Alan Fox
Boston.com
Originally published on December 19, 2012
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.
Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.
Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.
Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.
Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.
Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.
The entire story is here.
Boston.com
Originally published on December 19, 2012
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.
Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.
Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.
Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.
Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.
Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.
The entire story is here.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Violent Video Games: More Playing Time Equals More Aggression
Ohio State University
News Release
Originally released on December 10, 2012
A new study provides the first experimental evidence that the negative effects of playing violent video games can accumulate over time.
Researchers found that people who played a violent video game for three consecutive days showed increases in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations each day they played. Meanwhile, those who played nonviolent games showed no meaningful changes in aggression or hostile expectations over that period.
Although other experimental studies have shown that a single session of playing a violent video game increased short-term aggression, this is the first to show longer-term effects, said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.
“It’s important to know the long-term causal effects of violent video games, because so many young people regularly play these games,” Bushman said.
“Playing video games could be compared to smoking cigarettes. A single cigarette won’t cause lung cancer, but smoking over weeks or months or years greatly increases the risk. In the same way, repeated exposure to violent video games may have a cumulative effect on aggression.”
Bushman conducted the study with Youssef Hasan and Laurent Bègue of the University Pierre Mendès-France, in Grenoble, France, and Michael Scharkow of the University of Hohenheim in Germany.
Their results are published online in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and will appear in a future print edition.
The study involved 70 French university students who were told they would be participating in a three-day study of the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception.
They were then assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes on each of three consecutive days.
Those assigned the violent games played Condemned 2, Call of Duty 4 and then The Club on consecutive days (in a random order). Those assigned the nonviolent games played S3K Superbike, Dirt2 and Pure (in a random order).
After playing the game each day, participants took part in an exercise that measured their hostile expectations. They were given the beginning of a story, and then asked to list 20 things that the main character will do or say as the story unfolds. For example, in one story another driver crashes into the back of the main character’s car, causing significant damage. The researchers counted how many times the participants listed violent or aggressive actions and words that might occur.
The press release is here.
News Release
Originally released on December 10, 2012
A new study provides the first experimental evidence that the negative effects of playing violent video games can accumulate over time.
Researchers found that people who played a violent video game for three consecutive days showed increases in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations each day they played. Meanwhile, those who played nonviolent games showed no meaningful changes in aggression or hostile expectations over that period.
Although other experimental studies have shown that a single session of playing a violent video game increased short-term aggression, this is the first to show longer-term effects, said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.
“It’s important to know the long-term causal effects of violent video games, because so many young people regularly play these games,” Bushman said.
“Playing video games could be compared to smoking cigarettes. A single cigarette won’t cause lung cancer, but smoking over weeks or months or years greatly increases the risk. In the same way, repeated exposure to violent video games may have a cumulative effect on aggression.”
Bushman conducted the study with Youssef Hasan and Laurent Bègue of the University Pierre Mendès-France, in Grenoble, France, and Michael Scharkow of the University of Hohenheim in Germany.
Their results are published online in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and will appear in a future print edition.
The study involved 70 French university students who were told they would be participating in a three-day study of the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception.
They were then assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes on each of three consecutive days.
Those assigned the violent games played Condemned 2, Call of Duty 4 and then The Club on consecutive days (in a random order). Those assigned the nonviolent games played S3K Superbike, Dirt2 and Pure (in a random order).
After playing the game each day, participants took part in an exercise that measured their hostile expectations. They were given the beginning of a story, and then asked to list 20 things that the main character will do or say as the story unfolds. For example, in one story another driver crashes into the back of the main character’s car, causing significant damage. The researchers counted how many times the participants listed violent or aggressive actions and words that might occur.
The press release is here.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The Violence Carousel Has Gone Around Again
By Stephen A. RaguseaThis time the violence involves semi-automatic weapons and scores of elementary school children. There are also dead teachers, a dead principal and a dead school psychologist. All seven adults were women and my bet is that, as we learn more about the psychodynamics of the disturbed young man who was the shooter, we will find that the gender of the victims was not a coincidence, but part of his thought disturbance.
We all want to know why this thing happened and we would prefer that there be one single, clear reason. But, as a clinical psychologist, I can assure you that there were several contributing factors, because human beings rarely do anything for one simple reason. We are complex creatures, we humans. Why did this happen? Part of the answer is that we live in a culture that encourages violence and that culture is held up for worship on the altars of television screens and movie theatres each and every day. It’s in our lust for blood in boxing matches and our appreciation of helmet cracking tackles in football and ice hockey. It’s in movies from “Rambo (I through V)” to Brad Pitt’s “Killing Them Softly.” It’s on television via movie reruns and shows like “The Sopranos” and your favorite version of “CSI.” We are a culture that embraces violence.
And, don’t forget our love of guns. ABC News recently reported that during the three day Thanksgiving holiday weekend alone, over 250,000 guns were sold in the United States.
Over the next couple of weeks, you’ll hear the same question over and over in the news media: does violence in the media increase violent behavior? For nearly fifty years the American Psychological Association has issued a variety of reports answering that critical question with an emphatic “Yes!” In psychological research, the viewing of large amounts of violence on television by young children has been correlated with increases in violent behavior into adulthood. Well, if TV viewing can impact our aggressive tendencies, what about the music we listen to?
One 2003 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggested that listening to songs that contain violent lyrics results in an increase in aggressive thoughts and emotions. Some think that listening to powerful, violent, angry, songs can provide a “venting” of these powerful feelings, but this research provides evidence that just the opposite is true.
Of course, we must also ask ourselves “How much violence do we expose our children to?” One 2007 study found that “By the time the average U. S. child starts elementary school, he or she will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on TV.” And, that doesn’t include exposure via music and movies.
Add into that mix the fact that a small percentage our population suffers from various forms of severe mental illness and that we perpetually underfund treatment for psychological disorders. Make semi-automatic weapons available to that group and sooner or later, we will see an explosive incident such as that which occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. If we don’t do something to influence this course of events, we’ll see these incidents occur again and again.
Violence directly and negatively impacts our physical and mental health. Because violent content in movies, television, and songs has so consistently been shown to increase violent behavior, these characteristics should be diminished in our entertainment products. Psychologists have been giving that research-based advice to American society for almost 50 years. Quite frankly, nobody seems to be listening.
We can do better. Each one of us can decide to stop consuming these products. When enough people boycott media violence, producers will stop creating these violence-encouraging forms of “entertainment.” We can do better and we’d better do that.
Stephen A. Ragusea, Psy D, is a clinical psychologist in Key West and on the medical staff of The Lower Keys Medical Center.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Violence risk instruments overpredicting danger
By Karen Franklin
forensic psychologistblogspot.com
Originally posted August 2, 2012
Here is an excerpt:
Bottom line: Risk assessment instruments are fairly good at identifying low risk individuals, but their high rates of false positives -- people falsely flagged as recidivists -- make them inappropriate “as sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release.”
In all, about four out of ten of those individuals judged to be at moderate to high risk of future violence went on to violently offend. Prediction of sexual reoffense was even poorer, with less than one out of four of those judged to be at moderate to high risk going on to sexually offend. In samples with lower base rates, the researchers pointed out, predictive accuracy will be even poorer.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.
forensic psychologistblogspot.com
Originally posted August 2, 2012
Here is an excerpt:
Bottom line: Risk assessment instruments are fairly good at identifying low risk individuals, but their high rates of false positives -- people falsely flagged as recidivists -- make them inappropriate “as sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release.”
In all, about four out of ten of those individuals judged to be at moderate to high risk of future violence went on to violently offend. Prediction of sexual reoffense was even poorer, with less than one out of four of those judged to be at moderate to high risk going on to sexually offend. In samples with lower base rates, the researchers pointed out, predictive accuracy will be even poorer.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)