>> coming up shortly, u.s. secretary antony blinken starts -- talks about american -- live coverage of his remarks on c-span. right now, discussion from this morning's washington journal. host: gun violence, mental health -- she is chief advocacy officer at the alliance of mental health. the red flag laws, i want to first -- how we are talking about mental health and the country in the wake of that shooting at the texas elementary school. last week, it was the governor

of texas, granted -- greg abbott , said that we need to do a better job of mental health in this country. do you believe anyone who shoots anyone in this country has a problem with mental health? guest: it is heartbreaking, frustrating, angering that to see what is happening. mental illness often becomes the culprit. honestly, it is very rare that a person that commits that violence has been diagnosed with a mental illness. when we are blaming until illness, we are not getting any closer to the solution. violent acts are attributed to mental illness and honestly a person with mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence in a perpetrator. 23 times more likely to be a

victim than the general purpose -- than the general population. when we focus on mental illness, it distracts from the topic at hand to really address the gun violence in this country. it also as to the stigma around mental health. it has a tragic impact of discouraging people to go get the help that they need to get well and stay well. mental health is health and we should not be stigmatizing it in this way. we should be focusing on solutions that really protect people. we do not want to send kids to school where they are saved, we do not want to have grandparents at grocery stores run down. mental illness is not the culprit here. host: in terms of solutions that could protect people, explain what a red flag law is. guest: red flag law uses term extremist protection order. red flag law is often

stigmatizing to people who fall under it. does detection orders are a mechanism. that would take for a. of time for anyone who shows a respect for violence. to do something for themselves or to someone else. research has shown that a history of violence, domestic violence, abuse, trauma, substance abuse are a number of factors. and then, current behaviors may indicate that they are an immediate risk of committing violence against themselves or someone else. what these extreme protection orders do, they allow it, in most cases, a family member or law enforcement officer to ask

for this individual --. if this person is an immediate risk, there could be a very quick hearing and a short-term three weeks to take that away, followed by a longer hearing in the future. a person who is the subject of the hearing has an opportunity to prevent that and make the case that they shouldn't have their rights taken away. depending on the outcome of that, typically, it is -- typically, if someone is found at risk, they are going to be taken away. what we see with these, important opportunity to reduce any risk to an individual or a community. it should be based on what behaviors are being observed in the individual. it should not be on stigmatizing

assumptions of a community of people. but what is going on with that individual, based on an individual assessment. host: with these red flag laws, there is an idea that someone has an undiagnosed mental illness and that is why people think we need these red flag laws? is that some of your concern about this? guest: people with mental illness have rights as well. mental illness is not a risk factor for violence. taking away somebody's rights just based on their diagnosis of a mental illness is not going to be effective, nor is it right. anytime these extremist protection orders are utilized, there should -- they should be structured in a way that look at what is happening with the individual, what are those risk factors that are present and what behaviors are they exhibiting at that point in

time? all those risk factors and current behaviors that might be happening. it is based on looking at the individual. we feel that any extreme protection order structured on targeting a group of people with a diagnosis is mostly effective and violates -- isn't effective and violates an individual's right. host: what are the rules in the various states about being able to own a firearm? guest: the rules very state-by-state. a diagnosis itself is not generally prohibitive of owning a firearm. somebody who has a past involuntary commitment to a

hospital, or has been found in absentee of a crime by reason of insanity, the look of those factors, the diagnoses alone does not predict a person has any violent tendencies. we believe laws should not based on that. based on past incidents. host: in the wake of that shooting, these red flag laws, our conversation with hannah --. call in and join the conversation. if you live in the eastern or central time zones of this country. if you live in the mountain or pacific times, (202) 748-8001. go ahead and start dialing in. so where are we on some sort of national red flag laws in the wake of the texas shooting? guest: it is important to know

that 19 states and d.c. already have these laws on the books. legislation related to extremist protection orders, but there are a number of efforts in congress right now to make these more prevalent across the country. several different bills. some would create a federal -- a federalist extremist protection law. another bill would intensify to have these types of laws by providing grant money. host: lindsey graham, the republicans speaking about red flag laws in the country. this is monday of last -- this is monday of this week. -- this is monday of last week. [video clip] >> there are a lot of states

that have red flag laws. i would support a grant program to help the states that choose to go down that road -- a federal red flag law. all these shooters have one thing in common. they are disturbed. they are talking about violence. they are acting out. we knew nothing about it until it was too late. it is not so much the gun, it is the person with the gun. i own guns, responsibly. when i act irresponsibly, me or anyone else, -- that is what i'm trying to do. not take people's guns away who are doing nothing wrong. a federal grant program to beef up systems that exist at the state level, red flag laws at the federal level.

we can help them with more money --. host: hannah, what do you think about those comments? guest: -- is not accurate. these so-called red flag laws should not be based on that diagnosis. we do support these because it is important to note that nearly half of suicides or with firearms. suicides account for about 60% of firearm deaths. when we look at the risk for suicide, there is a real need to address some of these risks of

hurting themselves or someone else. particularly when we look at those suicide rates. it look at veterans, nearly two thirds of veteran suicides are with a firearm. firearms -- 95 percent of suicides with a firearm are unfortunately successful. we can keep people safe, but we cannot -- somebody who has violent anger with a mental health issue. we want to encourage people struggling with their mental health to get the help they need. we are doing a lot of damage by focusing on the mental illness aspect. there are a lot of commonsense solutions that can be implemented to protect people. if we focus solely on mental illness, we are not going to

solve this problem. it is simply a distraction from the efforts that we need to undertake. >> this is a good time to room you the lifelines out there.

>> did not extend the ban. how many lives would have been saved if we expanded that dan and prevented assault weapons? the other comment i would like to make is mothers of america, when you go to the poll, vote guns or kids. guns or kids. when you go to the polls, vote that. vote the gop out of office. thank you. >> that is rich.

is there anything you want to jump in on? >> i am not an expert on the assault rifle band, so i cannot comment on that >> what about the state of mental health in this epidemic of mass shootings. just in the memorial day weekend holiday, there was an article that said there was a mass shooting event in this country, and that involve four or more victims. how are we supposed to process this. how do we deal with our own mental health after the horrible images from last week on that axis school. these things keep happening and happening. >> the trauma is a result of these horrific acts of violence.

it is spreading rapidly. almost no one is untouched by what happened last week, and we look at the impact not just on individuals but communities. there are children who saw their classmates dead. there are parents. watched this unfold on the news. turning the news off a little bit and stepping away to protect your mental health is ok, and efforts that make you feel like you are doing your part are also important. this is something we all struggle with, and i appreciate you sharing the national suicide prevention hotline and nami's hotline. we need to take care of ourselves, our families, and our

loved ones in these terrible times. we are in the middle of a mental health crisis in this country. when we have collective trauma, it only adds to that crisis. the mental health crisis and the gun violence crisis are not one and the same. i think a lot of the solutions being looked at our conflating the two issues, but they are a different conversation. host: to washington, this is peggy. thanks for waiting. caller: i don't think these red flag laws are going to work. this guy had no history of mental illness, even though he showed them tems -- symptoms at home and at work, there was nothing out there to get a hold of and say yes, this guy had problems. but it would be a good idea, a two week waiting. and a quick psychological check. maybe a urine sample to check for drugs. this guy got really upset with

his mom because she was going to turn off the wi-fi, so he moved in with his grandma and grandpa. then he got angry with his grandma, who is going to disconnect his phone. he told his girlfriend in germany, i am going to shoot my grandmother, comes back, shot my grandmother. now i am going to shoot up a school. she was panicking trying to contact someone in america to tell them. red flag laws won't work. but a waiting. , and an explanation -- why do you want an assault rifle for self protection? host: hannah wesolowski, is there anything you wanted to pick up on that first? guest: i agree with peggy's point, these extreme risk protection orders are not a

solution and end of themselves. they are part of the solution that needs to be thought through in this country. i would emphasize that mental illness, it's not a predictor of violence. looking at some of the other incidents in this young man's life, perhaps this would have helped, perhaps it wouldn't. but it's one of a number of solutions that need to be addressed. host: let me come back to that final point -- sheila writes in on twitter with this question --

but can you name one mass shooter who is not ill and that there were absolutely no signs of it? she was saying, no sane person could perform such horrific acts. guest: i understand how people feel that way. that is a normal reaction. that being said, somebody who is troubled, doesn't mean somebody has a mental illness. it means they have been victims of abuse themselves, they are experiencing psychosis -- there are a number of things that may impact somebody to feel this extreme anger and want to act out this way. but when we talk about mental illness, that is a health condition. too many people are bringing that into focus in this conversation and it is generally not the main predictor of someone being violent. less than 5% of violent acts are tribute it to someone with mental -- are attributed to someone with mental illness. host: so does the u.s. have more mental health issues than other countries around the world? guest: it does not have a

discernible difference in mental health conditions than other countries around the world, but we are the only country in the world with this problem. we do not see substantially prevalent, different rates when we look at any other country. there is something that is not in connecting when we focus on mental illness, yet we are the only country with this problem, but not the only country with mental illness. host: washington, d.c., ralph, good morning. caller: good morning, great conversation. bear with me for a couple of seconds. are we giving over to the twitter crowd, where silence is violence and if you vote for trump, you are racist and we are going to take away your guns? it scares me where we are going with this, and i don't like trump. the vast majority of gun deaths, violent gun deaths after you get away from suicides is gang violence. gang violence are using pistols, not rifles. what are you going to do about that. there is also a strong correlation between drugs, people who are taking medications -- i put my son on medications and we pulled him off because we saw a radical change in his personality, but we are not allowed to discuss that because it is affecting big pharma. i want you to address the fact that in england and london, they have more murders in london then in new york, and they were using knives because they banned guns. the mayors solution was to get

a permit to buy a large, pointy knife. host: so when you say this scares me, you are talking about red flag laws? caller: i am scared about giving power to anybody to go in and say, i don't like what you are

saying so i am going to take away your guns. i am scared of the new department of misinformation that's being proposed and pushed by the democratic administration. you are talking about the first and second amendments. you've got to be very careful on how you approach this. host: hannah, what do you think? guest: i think extreme risk protection orders do approach this correctly. it gives the individual a right to due process, to present evidence and fight back against the petition. this is individual by individual. there is no buy spread action taken here and it is assessing individual risk factors. this is a way to do this in a meaningful way but given -- given individual due process.

host: here's one of -- concerns with the process. the entire process puts judges under constant pressure to authorize the seizure of the guns with the mindset of better safe than sorry, effectively creating a presumption that the subject of the hearing is dangerous and must be disarmed. in a sentence, you are guilty until proven innocent. guest: that's a strong assumption. we have not seen any evidence of that, that someone is guilty until proven innocent. i think that it is a stretch so jump that far. host: california, this is darrell. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple comments on something everyone has been talking about. first, i am an average gun

owner. i do a lot of hunting. but i would be willing to take my guns and turn them in if it saves lives. that's the only way it's going to happen. if you look at the history, even throughout life, human beings have been killing other human beings, whether it be with stones, knives, spears, whatever. the red flag law, i don't think it's going to do any good. they are putting all this on the people who have mental issues. but how many of these people lose their jobs, go home and kill themselves, or kill their whole family because they feel like they can't support themselves? it's not just mental illness, but the mindset of a person who has an opportunity to have a gun in his hand. it's more important to save lives by taking the guns away, if you are an average hunter, sign up, you can issue the gun to go hunting and return the gun