Common Sense

Photo credit: www.usatoday.com

Washington, DC has become a place of sound bites, posturing, and token measures meant to appease as opposed to addressing issues in a meaningful way. Next week I head to Washington, DC for the annual meeting of the Child Welfare League of America. As part of the conference, delegates will walk the halls of Congress advocating for the needs of vulnerable children and families. Without exception, we will get a cordial reception by all our elected officials. Their staff will acknowledge our contribution to the field, our indispensable services, and assure us that they will advocate for those we serve. However, even the most effective of our legislators, like Representative Karen Bass, are up against a system that is driven by priorities that do not include the needs of those for whom we care.

The current debate on “gun control” is the most recent example. Will the modest measures that have survived the winnowing legislative process make any difference? Without being too skeptical, I suggest that more attention has been placed on the actual process than the intended outcome. As a result, no measurable benefit will come from whatever legislation may emerge. Perhaps less legislation and more common sense measures is the answer.

How can we address maintaining a secure society let alone one that is safe for our children without addressing the need for resources to provide adequate care for those who are most vulnerable? For many, they are made vulnerable by crisis and trauma that impact their mental health. Mental illness is an epidemic in our country that barely is recognized. The majority of those suffering mental illness are untreated either because of a failure to diagnose or limited access to care. Those experiencing mental illness are not to be feared; treatment can be very effective. But without an awareness of the illness and the necessary resources to provide effective interventions, it can be deadly!

I can only hope that the lack of mention of the need to reinforce the mental health service delivery system in the gun control debate is an attempt to appropriately disconnect the two and develop legislation that exclusively addresses the resources needed to adequately provide good and quality mental health services.

Common sense dictates that we keep guns out of the hands of those who would do us harm. Common sense motivates us to keep those most vulnerable safe. Common sense helps us to establish priorities in allocating precious resources to address the most vulnerable effectively.

At the end of the day, measures in Sacramento, CA and Washington, DC are important, but never a substitute for common sense and the commitment of each of us to hold the safety and security of our society, and especially our children, as a priority.

Children and Guns

Let me start off by saying that I respect the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution, and I am not an advocate of hindering anyone who is legitimately eligible to possess a firearm. However, I strongly oppose introducing guns to children. Like the license to drive, a certain amount of maturity is required to possess and properly use a gun to assure its safety. We don’t let children drive, and I don’t believe we should introduce guns to children either.

On Sunday, January 27, The New York Times featured a story, “Selling a New Generation on Guns,” that provided an exposé on the efforts of the firearms industry to introduce guns to children. Why would we encourage this? The use of guns requires not only some basic skills, but because of the lethality of the gun, it also requires some discretion. The developmental capacity of most children and adolescents to responsibly use a firearm is greatly diminished because of their age and any number of factors that make placing a gun in the hands of children inconceivable to me.

Recently, I was involved in a discussion involving one of our adolescent residents who had been introduced to guns by his father on a recent home visit. Although we were not concerned that the boy would have a gun in his possession, we were concerned that he did not possess the self-control or reasoning capacity to assure that he could use a gun appropriately. With proper support, this resident has increasingly seen his ability to manage anger and impulses. But until he is able to master these issues, providing him with access to firearms is not advised. Luckily our staff had enough of a rapport with both parent and child that we were able to address the issue and identify ways to bond other than at the shooting range.

Some would say that restricting access to guns for children is only common sense. It does not require any additional legislation; it just requires that we take responsibility for safeguarding our children as we do with so many other things. However, parents and families need to be supported in their efforts; and an environment that encourages access to guns for children can undermine the efforts of any well-intended parent.

What concerns me about the strategy that is being employed by the firearms industry is the insidious way recreational shooting is introduced into the lives of children. The firearms industry has demonstrated little consideration of the children’s ability to understand the potential for deadly impact of the sport.