Tucson shootings probably complex mix of factors

(This article originally appeared on the Joint Recon Study Group site.)

In the public discussions about the Tucson shootings, there has been heated debate but possibly an inadequate amount of light shed on the probable key issues involved.

There seem to be many complex factors that played roles in that tragic event last Saturday morning.

The current national discussion includes the following questions: Was the situation due to the isolated mental health problems of one particular individual? Was it part of the Arizona and U.S. "gun culture" and Arizona's gun rights laws?

Was it related to extreme adversarial language by politicians, media personalities and organizations, certain groups, the general public as well as internet sites, particularly during the last election cycle? Was it part of holes in the mental health assessment and response systems?

It seems that the answers are yes, yes, yes and yes.

MENTAL HEALTH SAFETY NETS

I have lived in Arizona for nearly 20 years. Back in 1995 I worked on the newly-created crisis phone line that was part of the main behavioral health urgent response system providing services to the Phoenix and the surrounding Maricopa County region.

This work experience has been on my mind since the Tucson shootings last Saturday morning.

The system was part of the local State of Arizona-contracted entity called the regional behavioral health authority.

We took calls from people identified as having mental health issues, concerned family members, hospital personnel, professional counselors and regional peace officers, firefighters and paramedics, as well as others.

We transferred some calls directly to 911 dispatchers and the 911 system transferred some calls to us. We spoke with peace officers in the field dealing with citizens who were in significant behavioral health situations.

The information, evaluation and response system included a crisis phone line, computerized records system, mobile behavioral health teams, urgent care centers and other components.

At the time, many of the calls were related to people who appeared to family members or other professionals as being impaired by the very dangerous drug known as crystal meth, a type of methamphetamine.

Other calls involved people classified as seriously mentally ill and already in the behavioral care system, which had transformed over recent years nationally from costly and problematic long-term hospitalization in institutions to placement in community settings.

Some calls were not about acute situations, but just moderate or general concerns and questions about certain situations as well as requests for referrals and resources.

Some calls were acute and involved people who appeared to be a danger to self or a danger to others, the legal criteria for involuntary detention for an initial 72 hours, followed by a possible 14-day hold decided by a judge.

Peace officers can assist in detaining a person if these legal and behavioral health criteria are met.

It may be instructive for public safety officials, educators, health care professionals, the media and the general public to take note of possible follow-up steps in the case of someone who makes statements or shows indications that they may be a danger to self or a danger to others.

A useful approach may be to ask the person in a straightforward way about their thoughts and feelings on harming themselves or others.

Do they have a plan? Do they have the means to carry out the plan? This can be asked in a reasonably diplomatic, calm and supportive way, but must be straightforward.

What is the plan? (To jump off a bridge? To overdose with pills? To shoot themselves or others with a gun?) When do they plan to do this? (Tomorrow? Next month? One of these days?) Do they have the means to do it? (Have they selected the bridge to jump from? Have they acquired the pills? Do they own a gun? Do they know where to get one?)

If the responses to these kinds of questions are affirmative, specific and indicate imminent threats, there may be reason for very prompt action and thorough follow-through.

Our intuition, gut feelings, instincts and "anomalous cognition" about certain people and situations can also be helpful and should be taken seriously. Reliable research indicates that these perceptions are often very valid.

Even with all these precautions and interventions, the behavioral health systems are imperfect and underfunded. A seriously disturbed person may fall through the many cracks. Or, the signs of danger may not be apparent, though they often are.

Regarding purchasing firearms, certain criminal histories can prevent the purchase of a firearm, but many mental health status situations do not appear on computerized databases for a number of reasons.

GUN CULTURE AND LAWS

As Arizona historians have recently pointed out, before the gunfight at the OK Corral, Tombstone (which is in Gabrielle Giffords' congressional district) had a town policy or ordinance prohibiting the wearing of guns by non-peace officers within the town limits. Guns were to be checked upon entering town and picked up upon leaving.

This did not prevent the bloodshed in the OK Corral incident.

Giffords herself reportedly owned a 9 millimeter semiautomatic handgun, which is a standard weapon for peace officers and was also used by the shooter in Tucson.

One of the bystanders who responded quickly to the scene of the shooting was armed with a handgun (apparently concealed) and was reportedly prepared to use deadly force against the shooter himself if needed. But, the suspect had already been physically restrained by others.

The argument that a trained citizen who is armed is sometimes able to mitigate a situation like this with the appropriate use of a firearm seems compelling.

If the shooter would have been able to reload the more 30-bullet clips and had not been restrained by those nearby, this other armed citizen may have been able to prevent further carnage.

Whether the shooter had multiple smaller standard ammunition clips or the extended 30-round magazine may or may not have made a difference.

The armed citizen nearby would have had to be a good marksman and be able to hit the shooter instead of innocent bystanders. This requires training and a very steady hand during a crisis when adrenalin is flowing. Even highly-trained professionals may not always be able to hit their target in an acutely stressful situation, especially in a crowd or if the target is moving.

The citizen would also need to be aware that when peace officers arrived on the scene, they might mistake him for the suspect and shoot him. This has happened in the case of plainclothes and off-duty officers who have been mistaken for criminals and shot by fellow officers.

In Arizona, gun laws have evolved in recent years. Allowing citizens to carry a weapon openly has long been legal. Several years ago, carrying a concealed weapon was allowed if a citizen completed a one to two-day class that covered gun use, safety, laws and related topics.

More recently, the requirement of the brief gun orientation class was eliminated and almost any Arizona adult citizen can now carry a concealed firearm with no restrictions.

Most recently, Arizona workplaces and public places were required to allow citizens to possess firearms on private property under certain restrictions. Other conditions for the legal use of a firearm have also been loosened.

What concerns many people is that some or many Arizonans are probably buying handguns and have minimal or no safety training, marksmanship training or knowledge of the legal consequences of using the firearm inappropriately. This impacts citizens carrying a gun either openly on their belt or concealed in a purse or under a shirt.

Many people point out that obtaining a driver's license requires a demonstration that we can drive a car competently and safely, and have a reasonable knowledge of traffic laws, street signs, proper driving procedures and similar factors.

There are no such similar training or testing requirements for gun use in Arizona. There is no license required.

The use of guns and that relationship to society, psychology and mental health come into play in ways other than public safety. They are often part of a feeling of self-esteem, of feeling powerful and of being a man (or a strong woman). They may even be a phallic symbol.

Many people join the military as part of a rite of passage into adulthood. This includes becoming familiar with weapons and the role of a warrior. In some cases this may be healthy, in other cases, not so.

Obviously, using a firearm does not make a person a better human being. It is a cheap and invalid way of building one's self-esteem. It does not automatically imbue a person with courage or honor (nor does hunting or wearing a military uniform for that matter).

However, being competent with a firearm can include the important element of taking responsibility, enhancing safety and not leaving the serious responsibility for possessing and safely using firearms only to others such as peace officers. Average citizens also encounter dangerous people and a peace officer is not always nearby.

POLITICS AND VIOLENCE

The need to appear strong and powerful via weapons and violence is something we sometimes see in politicians, too. For example, some may want to appear strong by going to war. Of course, in most cases they don't actually go themselves.

The recent election cycle was marked by widespread incidents at town hall meetings when citizens were reportedly encouraged to try to intimidate senators and members of Congress with very aggressive and hostile words and behavior.

One politician indicated that citizens should use their "second amendment rights" (right to bear arms) to resolve problems if government was not responsive to their views and wishes.

Websites, circulating e-mail messages, some militia groups and others openly advocate using firearms against government officials.

For a nation like ours, born out of armed rebellion against the King of England, some of this kind attitude seems understandable. But, in the recent elections, extreme and over-the-top language was used for purposes and on topics that did not always seem reasonable.

People were encouraged to be fearful, to be hateful, to demonize others with a certain view of public issues. Citizens were told the sky was falling. They were told to grab their guns.

Parts of this psychological operation were characterized in patriotic terms and in the context of the American Revolution.

What forces were behind these extreme political developments and what funding was provided behind the scenes for them?

Some observers suspect those with financial and business interests, lobbyists, certain media groups and personalities as well as other politicians might have knowingly or inadvertently contributed to the escalated hostility.

Did this kind of climate create or influence the tragic shooting in Tucson last Saturday? It seems very difficult to say what, if any, influence this had on the shooter. At the same time, it appears obvious that such influences and connections cannot be ruled out, even considering the alleged suspect's confused mental state.

The larger social environment at any given time can contribute to circumstances that may be associated with a violent and tragic incident. The Kent State University shootings in the spring of 1970 come to mind.

Then, too, a climate of fear, violence, war, polarized politics and social unrest was part of the environment that contributed to Ohio National Guard personnel shooting, killing and wounding multiple unarmed people, many of them innocent bystanders who were not involved in public demonstrations.

Were the individual Guardsman who pulled the triggers ultimately responsible? Yes. But it was not that simple.

The Kent State shootings and the Tucson incident are very different in many ways. Yet, there are also some similarities that may be worth reflecting on.

The adversarial relationship between citizens and government officials can exist at a healthy level or can escalate to a very sick and dangerous extreme.

Whether the government official is the local peace officer on patrol or a federal official, it is probably helpful to examine the many aspects that can contribute to extreme adversarial relationships and perceptions about government infringement on personal freedoms and similar heartfelt issues of concern.

The many apparent dynamics in the Tucson shooting prevent easy blame on any single element. At the same time, there are several factors that should probably be honestly looked at regarding what role they could have played in this case or in other similar situations.

NOTE TO READERS: Hammons is the author of the novels "Mission Into Light" and the sequel "Light's Hand." Read more about the books on the Barnes & Noble website. For more information, please visit the Joint Recon Study Group and Transcendent TV & Media sites and have a look around.

Readers who enjoyed this article may also like Tucson shootings, everyday life require 'situation awareness', Health consciousness studies at U. of Arizona relevant in shootings?, Can troops find hidden bombs with sixth sense?, 'Goats' movie helps us stare at human mind, Healthy, safe living should be part of national discussion, Space psychology relevant for life on Earth, TV project on CIA remote viewing unit underway, 'Integrative perception' useful in health, media, defense, ESP, remote viewing actually 'complementary cognition?', DARPA human intelligence research digs deep, Transcendent power has public safety applications, DARPA project to regrow human tissue enters next phase, U.S. defense research agency sponsors 'mind-blowing' studies to regrow human limbs, Near-death experiences, guardian angel research projects connected?, Modern science, ancient wisdom now merging and Deploy soft power communication on human consciousness.