NC's bad decisions two years after Sandy Hook
Published December 10, 2014
by Chris Fitzsimon, NC Policy Watch and NC SPIN panelist, December 9, 2014.
Sunday marks the second anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings in Newtown, Connecticut when a man with untreated mental illness killed 27 people, 20 of them young children sitting in classrooms, before taking his own life.
The unspeakable tragedy prompted fierce national and state debates about the problems with the mental health system in America and the easy access to deadly firearms. But not much has changed and in some places things have gotten worse.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness released a report this week that finds reforms have stalled since Newtown with Congress again failing to pass comprehensive mental health legislation.
Efforts in the states are sputtering as well. The report examines the push to increase funding for mental health programs after the deep cuts made during the Great Recession. It finds that many states increased mental health funding in 2013 and some managed to invest more in 2014 too, though not nearly as many.
Only six states in the country slashed mental health funding in both 2013 and 2014. North Carolina was one of them.
Increased funding for mental health services is not the only thing that’s needed, but more investment is vitally important.
North Carolina lawmakers also created a restrictive drug list and a preauthorization requirement for medication in an effort to save money. Advocates say it will make it much more difficult for people with mental illness to get the medicine that works for them.
North Carolina is also one of the now minority of states that has not expanded Medicaid and provided health care for 500,000 low-income adults with most of the cost being picked up by the federal government.
Medicaid expansion is on the list of priorities of every mental health advocacy group because it would increase access to care for people that need it.
Then there are the gun laws, or lack of them. Gun safety advocates including a group of Sandy Hook teachers called Sandy Hook School Educators for Gun Sense want universal background checks for gun purchases that cover online sales and private purchases too.
Recent national accounts have pointed out that polls show that 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support the background checks but the NRA itself vigorously opposes them.
The advocates also want to prohibit high capacity magazines that allow people to fire their gun 100 times without reloading, though that proposal too has stalled even though there’s never been a convincing claim made that any civilian needs that kind of firepower in his or her garage.
There have been 87 school shootings since Sandy Hook and roughly 32,000 people are killed by guns every year in the United States. Congress has responded by doing nothing, passing no significant gun laws in the two years since the massacre.
A handful of states have taken common sense steps to make their communities safer, banning the high-capacity magazines and strengthening background checks, but not North Carolina.
The movement on gun laws here has gone in the other direction, allowing loaded and hidden guns in restaurants and bars and even in local parks.
People can now have guns in their cars on college campuses too. That provision came over the objections of campus police departments and university officials.
Two years after Sandy Hook and North Carolina is doing less for people with mental illness and allowing more loaded guns in more places with no new efforts to make sure people buying guns are qualified and stable enough to have them.
Our schools, our communities, and our families deserve better.
(Depression file above is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.)
December 10, 2014 at 11:28 am
Richard Bunce says:
That is exactly wrong... the burden of proof is on the government when attempting to use government power to infringe the rights of the people... and the government had better have an enumerated power in the US Constitution to overcome the prohibition on government power in this specific matter found in the Second Amendment.
December 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Norm Kelly says:
There's always so much to say when Chris writes. Usually to correct things, sometimes just to add useful information. Always to point the discussion in 2 directions: to the RIGHT, and to the right which means toward the Constitution!
'with Congress again failing to pass comprehensive mental health legislation'. So this is ANOTHER national issue that requires the central planners get involved? Because central planner interference in state issues has worked so well in the past? Where in the US Constitution does it say that the central planners are to get involved in mental health issues at the state level? Doesn't the US Constitution say that anything NOT specifically listed as the responsibility of the central planners AUTOMATICALLY becomes the responsibility of the states? Isn't a state level solution always more workable than a centrally dictated scheme? The obvious answer is YES! And it happens to also be the right answer and the RIGHT answer!
'North Carolina ... also ... has not expanded Medicaid'. Another push for socialized medicine with central planner dictates and control built in? What a surprise! Why is it that EVERYTHING comes down to more socialist schemes with libs? Even after Gruber stated so well the technique that was used to force socialized medicine upon us, the left just keeps pushing. And when the scheme shows failures, the response always is that funding is insufficient. Name one socialist scheme where the demon party doesn't claim that funding is the problem with it. Even when the VA Health system shows drastic and deadly failures, the response from all the demons and most of the central planners is that additional funding will help the problem. Except the problem is the central planners are already too involved! Which demon is willing to try a free-enterprise solution? Thankfully K is a goner, but her plan called for even more central planner control of health care - she called it 'single payer' because it sounds better than 'socialized medicine'. Same beast, different name!
Referring to NC, 'The movement on gun laws here has gone in the other direction'. Yup. A direction that says citizens are allowed to arm and protect themselves. Kinda like the US Constitution says we can. You know, that living, breathing ancient document that libs like to use as a placemat under their dinner plate, instead of reading and adhering to it. The document that protects MY right to DEFEND MYSELF and my family. Where it clearly says that I am allowed to arm myself. And defend myself against people who are already criminals. But libs believe it's better if I'm not able to defend myself. I guess in the minds of libs (and I use that term quite loosely!) it's ok for someone who breaks the law (by having a gun) to use it against me when I am a law abiding citizen and will be the one who gives up my gun when libs outlaw private citizen gun ownership. Banning gun ownership does two things. First it creates a black market for guns. (and for all you simple minded out there, that is not a racist statement!) Second it means that only criminals will have guns, preventing me from defending myself.
'Our schools, our communities, and our families deserve better'. I'm glad Chris ended with a statement that I can completely agree with. The difference is that Chris means more gun restrictions need to be in place; the government must do something to prevent average citizens from owning guns to protect ourselves. I mean that 'gun free' zones clearly delineate where unarmed people are going to be located, making it somewhat easier for gun-toting criminals to pick their targets! It's proven that when someone is allowed to defend themselves, criminals tend not to achieve their goal!
'roughly 32,000 people are killed by guns every year in the United States'. How many of those shootings are by criminals? People who are already known to LEOs, have spent time incarcerated, or in gangs? How many in that stat formerly resided in Chicago, the 'home town' of the occupier, who hasn't shown the slightest interest in doing anything to help there? There are typically more people killed in a month in Chicago than there are in the entire state of NC, yet what's being done about that? Do libs read ANY stories about people who have successfully used a handgun (or other gun) to protect themselves from a criminal or stopped a crime from happening altogether? When your utopia is achieved and only criminals have guns, then how will you survive? Will you be one of the lucky few who is able to hire private security that will be licensed to carry a gun? Is it true that Mike Blumberg has private security protecting him? While he's trying to prevent me from owning a gun? Would be a typical lib if it were true.
(and is it true that the shooter at sandy hook was ILLEGALLY in possession of the guns he used? would background checks have prevented the shooter from having those guns? does it even matter to libs & others trying to prevent private gun-ownership how the sandy hook shooter came into possession of his guns?)
