Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (6 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   12 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Psychotropic medications and school shootings: Preventing another Sandy Hook

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 3 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 2   Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 12/23/12

- Advertisement -

Americans and their leaders need to use common sense in dealing with this issue, not knee-jerk reactions. Sensible gun control laws are already in place and a few more may not necessarily infringe on 2nd amendment rights, but the link between psychotropic medications and gun violence must be acknowledged and addressed in any new legislation.

Atypical psychotropic and SSRI medications are what really need more regulation. Drug companies need to improve the black box warnings or face liability if a patient commits a violent crime due to a side effect that is not listed. Psychiatrists, psychologists and physicians need better information on these medications. Patients that are prescribed these medications could be entered into a national database.

With all legally registered gun owners and all mentally ill patients on medications in national databases, the information could then be cross-referenced. A regulation that no prescriptions for psychotropic medications can be filled if firearms are kept at the residence of the patient could then be enacted and enforced.

That still leaves Americans a choice: Either have your guns or your meds, but not both. If a gun owner wants themselves or a member of their household to be treated with psychotropic medications, then they should have to remove their guns from the residence or opt for inpatient care. Inpatient care could be made more accessible in these cases through an expansion of Medicaid.

The same regulations that are in place for automobile ownership could also be a model for firearm ownership. Every firearm could be registered, licensed and details such as where the firearm is kept stored in a national database. States could have the option of yearly renewals with updated information.

Mandatory minimum liability insurance could be a condition of gun ownership just like most states require for automobile owners. Gun owners do not seem to have a problem with those requirements in order to own and operate a motor vehicle. There should be no reason to have a problem with that regarding firearms either, since guns are not as important to own as a car.

- Advertisement -

Law-abiding firearm owners in a good state of mental health, with no one on psychotropic medications in their household, would not be subject to any "gun-grabbing." They can have assault weapons with high capacity magazines, as long they have liability insurance on their weapons. Most gun-owners would to retain all of their 2nd amendment rights -- it would just cost them more money to own firearms.

People on psychotropic medications would then have more difficultly accessing firearms, which could eliminate spontaneous actions, just as the waiting period for handguns does. Liability would keep more guns under lock and key or at least carefully monitored by owners. Choosing between firearms and medications may also provide an incentive for patients and their families to seek real therapy that in many cases has proven to be more effective than medications. Two new laws -- two problems solved.

While laws like that would raise compliance issues, law enforcement does not seem to have a problem with enforcing similar firearm restrictions in cases of domestic violence, or with anyone on probation or parole. Law enforcement can and will verify compliance in those cases and if firearms are not removed from the residence voluntarily, law officers will come by and pick them up.

Of course, gun lobbyists and pharmaceutical lobbyists would scream bloody murder on Capitol Hill, but surely there would be some insurance company lobbyists behind this sort of initiative. Gun owners would also complain about the higher cost of ownership, but unlike an outright ban, it still leaves them a free market choice with their rights intact.

What is most important, however, is that any new approach in terms of preventive measures is worth a try if it does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, does not lead to further militarization of public institutions and prevents the death of even one child or teacher like the 26 that died last week in Connecticut.


Madison Independent Examiner - Stricter Gun Control Laws are not the Solution

Congressional Research Service (pdf)

LA Times

New York Daily News

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

Gregory Patin is a free-lance writer residing in Madison, WI. He earned a BA in political science from the University of Wisconsin - Madison and a MS in IT management from Colorado Tech. He is politically independent and not affiliated with either (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Ron Paul factor in the GOP's defeat

14 defining characteristics of fascism: The U.S. in 2012

The real unemployment rate in the U.S.

Psychotropic medications and school shootings: Preventing another Sandy Hook

9/11 official story doubts becoming more mainstream

School shooting in CT: Stricter gun control laws are not the solution


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Any ideas for preventing school shootings that hav... by Gregory Patin on Sunday, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:08:20 AM
the only problem with your piece is that it cannot... by Gentry L Rowsey on Sunday, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:53:20 AM
The new canard to explain that which ails your sou... by Sister Begonia on Sunday, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:03:27 PM
However, not everyone in America can afford the "c... by Gentry L Rowsey on Sunday, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:03:14 PM
One step at a time Sis. Being Zombied out doesn't... by Ralph Lopez on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:37:55 PM
Whenever a slaughter such as the recent one occurs... by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 1:50:33 PM
Thanks for your comment, Dennis. I agree with you.... by Gregory Patin on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 3:41:27 PM
In the mid-90 Australia bought back some $500 Mill... by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:27:17 PM
If if is as you say(just injecting this into the d... by Rico D. on Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:55:22 AM
There are three things I can deduct from rea... by Tomas Gilbert on Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:37:21 AM
I posted this article on FB and Twitter. Mr Patin ... by Evelyn Pringle on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 5:56:33 PM
Thanks for your comment, Evelyn. Legislators need ... by Gregory Patin on Monday, Dec 24, 2012 at 7:14:21 PM