>> "washington journal"

continues. host: with us is hannah wesolowski, the chief advocacy officer for the national alliance on mental illness. here with us to talk about mental health when it comes to gun violence. of the proposed and actual red flag laws some states are implementing. first of all, your organization, the national alliance on mental illness, what is your role? who funds your organization? guest: thanks so much for having me here. nami is an organization that provides resources, education, and support for people with mental health conditions and their family members. we have been around for over 40 years. we really advocate to improve the lives of people affected by mental health conditions.

host: when you say advocate, how does that work? do you also lobby state and -- state legislatures and congress? guest: we are a nonprofit, but we do lobby to make sure there is better mental health services in place but there is effective mental health care programs at the federal level, and then we have 49 state chapters and over six hundred local affiliates across the country advocating at the state and local level. host: certainly a number of recent shootings, mass shootings, there have been pointed out that a number of those shooters have had certainly backgrounds or troubled backgrounds with mental health concerns, somewhat actually mental health problems. in the wake of that the issue of red flag laws, the use of red flag laws has risen in stature,

and certain people paying attention to it. help us understand what red flag walls are, and how they work, and how many states are using them across the country. guest: red flag laws are also called extreme risk protection orders. they are civil court orders that temporarily remove firearms from individuals who are displaying risk factors of herdmen -- harming themselves or other individuals. currently 19 states plus the district of columbia have these laws on the books, and they have increased significantly in the last five years. host: how do they get implemented? who is the person to issue that red flag? guest: ultimately it is a judge makes the decision, but anyone can -- not anyone. there are different factors in different states. law enforcement in every state can petition the court to remove those guns temporarily. some states also allow family

members to file petitions. school administrators. in some cases, until health care providers or other health-care providers. in one case even coworkers can petition the court to remove those firearms. host: you mentioned that family members can petition a court. if a family member is concerned that one of their other members of the family has firearms, has some troubling issues, what are the steps they should take to do that, to approach law enforcement or a judge to say, hey, we are concerned about my son, my daughter, etc., and can we get a red flag law, can we use the red flag law in that case? guest: the process looks a little different in each state, but essentially you can get an ex partake hearing, which is an urgent hearing in front of the court to remove those firearms for a period. that is usually three weeks.

that will be followed up by a second hearing with the court, where the petitioner will have to testify and the individual in question would also have an opportunity to present evidence and have their due process. typically the period is six months to a year that those firearms are removed. and they can be renewed over time. if after a year the individual does not display that they have -- that the situation has changed, the court can renew that court order. host: how do you judge the effectiveness of a red flag law? guest: there is actually some really good data. the biggest thing as a mental health organization, we look at firearms as they relate to suicide. or than half of all gun deaths are suicide. 90% of suicide attempts by firearm are lethal. it is a highly lethal means of suicide.

connecticut, for example, has estimated their law has reduced one in 10 suicide deaths as a result of being in place. in indiana over 10 years they have reduced suicide deaths by 7.5 percent because of their extreme risk protection order law. host: is there data on who has asked for those red flags? is it a family member saying, we are concerned about this person, could be suicidal, could do damage to himself or herself, and addition to other people? guest: you know, law enforcement has traditionally been the main entity that has a busted those. some of these laws are relatively new omma in the last five years, so there is not a lot of company and some data out there on who is making those requests. we know some of the recent laws passed do allow for a wider spectrum of individuals.

family members are a really important part of an individual's life and can identify those, but we know not everyone is close to their family or in daily contact with their family. so making sure we have a variety of options for petitioning the court is important. host: our guest is hannah wesolowski, the chief advocacy officer for the national alliance on mental illness. you can call us on (202) 748-8000. that is the republican line. (202) 748-8002 is the line to use -- excuse me, is the democrats line. for independents and all others it is (202) 748-8002. after the covenant school shooting in nashville, following some political uproar at the statehouse there, the governor, bill lee, in tennessee, signed an executive order on strengthening background checks and is calling for a red flag law in tennessee.

do you have any idea which direction the tennessee legislature may go on this? guest: having the governor speak out in support of this is a really strong signal. i will say there were elements of the bipartisan safer communities act that passed last year and congress that encouraged states to pass these laws. this can be bipartisan in nature, and i hope that tennessee takes that the heart and looks at this. but tennessee and any other state exploring these laws needs to make sure it is based on evaluating real-time behaviors and not a diagnosis of a mental health condition. people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. a person with mental illness is 23 times more likely than their peers to be a victim of violence. so, we need to make sure that these laws are based on actual, real-time behaviors that a

person might be exhibiting and looks at real predictors of violence. host: what can we do in the absence of -- what can gun stores do, what can individuals do in the absence of a red flag law? in the absence of having a diagnosis of somebody with a mental issue? when somebody purchases a firearm that really should not be purchasing a firearm, could do harm to themselves and their family members or friends know this person is potentially a risk to the community? guest: another opportunity is gun purchase waiting periods, which really reduce a lot of the imminent harm that could be done with firearms. some states are exploring that and allowing individuals to opt into that and really making sure that they are not able to purchase a firearm if they are fearful they are going to be

suicidal and have suicidal ideation. those are some other things we can implement. the concern we always have is the focus is on mental illness. the united states is not the only country that has mental illness. this is common around the world, yet we are the only country that has this public health crisis when it comes to gun violence. only about 4% of violent acts are attributable to mental illness. we need to look at the larger picture of how we are limiting the use of firearms to cause this harm, both to individuals, as well as larger acts. host: let's go to rhode island. first up. go ahead, christine. caller: thank you for your service. i'm just calling because people with mental illness need more services. the families need a whole lot of support.

when they started letting people out of the institutions, those people were put into group homes , which had a lot of behaviors, but not anybody buying guns. the people that have to live with family members, if the police are called, the police on my if they are not informed, the procedure of way to bring the people or the services -- the services are horrible. we have had mental illness going way back, where they had -- people with learning disabilities and up in jail. they end up getting involved in drugs, and a lot of the mental illness is caused just by society, and it can be triggered any time. i have a nephew that has schizophrenia, and it is just horrible on the family. not horrible. we love him.

but he disappears and is in places where he could be harmed. it is a dangerous situation for everyone around but as far as the gun laws, that needs to be taken care of. how long is it going to take to take care of the mental health? we have young teenagers just losing their minds because of the way the adults have behaved. host: all right, christine. hannah? guest: thank you for calling in, and i hope your nephew is doing well right now. i know there can be times when it is difficult on the family. you raise a lot of good points. 160 million americans live in a mental health provider shortage area. it is easier to purchase a firearm then to get mental health care in this country. so, we have a huge challenge in making sure individuals are getting the services they need.

you mention police responding to a person in crisis. there has been a lot of work. hopefully folks who are watching are aware of 988, the resource that came out last year that people can call in a crisis to get crisis services and support. there is an effort behind not to make sure we are providing a mental health response when people are in crisis and not relying on law enforcement. so, a lot of issues there, and absolutely agree we need to do more for people with mental health conditions, and we are in a crisis right now as it relates to that. host: we will go to florida, and anthony. welcome. anthony in florida, you are on the air. caller: good morning, good morning. how are you? host: good, thank you. caller: good morning to you, miss hannah.

i am a retired federal police officer that had been involved in an active shooting situation. i have to say that, you know, these shooting situations are more than just what we call mental health. these shooters are ingrained in hate and anger, and the respond off of their hate and anger, just like the situation in tennessee. a workplace, violent situation, the same thing when i went through a gentleman with a contract. he came in and started shooting the people he worked with, then he went from there shooting all of the other folks and killed 11 folks before we ended his reign. my concern is that, you know, this is more than just mental. i believe there is a disconnect for these individuals not to

understand logic and law and have integrity in their behavior, and learn how to deal with their anger. i think anger management, along with dealing with until this connection, will be very important. and to ban these assault weapons. i appreciate you giving me time. these congressmen and senators who support these gun rights, they don't let them bring them to the building right behind you, to the white house. they don't let them walk around with assault weapons around them. they keep it from out of their buildings. there is a reason. you cannot control these folks with these weapons. these military weapons, it does great damage. thank you. i love your glasses game. you always wear some good specs. host: thank you.

your thoughts, hannah wesolowski? guest: i can't imagine the trauma you and your fellow officers have gone through, and i think that is a big part of this conversation too, the mass trauma that is caused by these acts of violence. you are absolutely right. research has shown that predictors of violence are passed violent acts, sexual or physical abuse, misuse of drugs or alcohol, you know, past misdemeanor for violent acts. there are real risk factors we can look at, and predict there's. it is usually multiple factors that contribute to an individual displaying violence, and focusing on one thing does not solve the problem. certainly not one thing that is not a strong predictor of violence, like mental illness. host: is the use or misuse of social media a predictor of violence? guest: we don't know enough. for over 20 years there was a

ban that really limited federal dollars being used for gun violence research. we don't know the impact of social media. you don't know what that is doing. certainly we know it is having an impact on youth mental health and that we have a youth mental health crisis in this country. but we don't know what else it is doing. there is a lot to unpack there and a lot to dig into, and we need to learn more. host: you mentioned a ban on research. is the cdc allowed to do gun violence research? guest: it is called the dickey amendment, and it was lifted by congress in 2019. now we are starting to get more funding into the cdc for gun violence research, which is absolutely critical to better understand how we mitigate these acts of gun violence. host: next up is tom in woodbridge, virginia. caller: thank you, guys. please give me enough time to get through this. i'm sort of a recognized leader

in virginia, with regard to the second amendment, and opposition to the red flag laws. in addition to that i am a recognized counterterrorism expert and i spent the last five or six years studying the mental health crisis in the united states, because of the misconception that guns have something to do with mental health. she just hit on it, but it is usually lost on everyone that in virtually every single case of gun violence in the united states that is not in the 17 inner cities in the united states that have massive gun violence due to the drug war and fatherlessness and hopelessness, virtually every single one of the mass shooting incidences, the individuals involved were known to be suffering from massive anxiety, massive depression, and suicidal ideation. and suicidal ideation can in

about 4% of cases become homicidal/suicidal ideation, which they either kill their families or coworkers or fellow students who they target as -- to basically take out their pain which is internal on the world, to kind of, in a sense, elevate themselves from their place of misery in the world. that is the real crux of all of these mass shooting problems. we know in almost every single one of these cases that these people are potentially violent, and the problem is, with red flag laws, as is usually weaponized by the left, is it is not really about people who are potentially violent. it is about people who have guns. so anyone who has a gun is,

essentially, to a great number of people, they see people who have guns as being a threat because they own guns. 99 point 9% of all firearms in the hands of american citizens today basically killed no one. it is a really, really small percentage of firearms that are used in these mass sugar events that are in the hands of firearm owners. however, they get 1000% of the media. it is incredibly tragic when these events happened, but unfortunately in a free society unless you are willing to impose totalitarian law, and basically change the entire makeup of the united states, this is never going to go away. and even if you did do that it would be impossible to eliminate it. host: ok, tom. let's hear from our guest on that. guest: you know, this is not

about taking guns away. red flag laws are protection orders. they allow an individual due process. i have a chance to present their evidence and speak to the court. i think that is an important part of this. this is not unilaterally taking away anyone's firearms. i do disagree with the caller about the fact that mental health -- mental illness as a part of all of this. again, mental illness is only a trivial factor in 4% of acts of violence. that is not even gun violence, that is violence overall. it is a very small percentage when you look at people with mental health conditions as part of the overall population. host: do you agree with his analysis of mass shooters and the elements in the masked shooter, the anxiety and depression and suicidal ideation?

you think that is a common thread with mass shooters in this country? guest: i don't think we have evidence to show that is a common thread, nor that that is the contributing factor that causes somebody to be violent. also note that gun violence is incredibly pervasive, and commonsense solutions that limit that, kaiser family foundation just came out with a pole that about one in five americans said they have had a firearm pulled on them and have been in that situation. it is incredible to see the impact of firearms in this country. focusing on factors that are not the contributing factor is not going to solve the problem. host: the associated press had an article about some of the issues they found with red flag laws. their headline was "red flag

laws get little use as shootings and gun deaths sore." they found that 19 states and the district of columbia were used to remove guns from people 15,000 times since 2020. experts called that woefully low and not nearly enough to make a dent in gun violence, considering the millions of vile -- millions of firearms in circulation and countless morning signs law enforcement officers encounter from gun owners everyday. guest: one of the missed opportunities is when we have these laws on the books, is educating law enforcement, the public, mental health professionals that they exist and how to utilize them. that is an important part of this. recent activities by congress and the administration around these laws do focus on it or educating the public and key stakeholders about the existence of these court orders and how to

obtain them. i think that is absolutely critical in making sure they get utilized more and that we are helping people and saving people. host: next up is bill in tallahassee, florida. democrats line. caller: hello? host: bill, you are on the air. caller: thank you. i have been watching since 1987. first time caller. host: great. caller: thanks. this is a very important issue. i'm looking on the -- at an article written by mark berman in the washington post last year, and he quoted governor abbott, who said anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge, period. your guest just pretty much said what i wanted to say. the mentally ill for the most part are not particularly violent. the violence attributed to the mentally ill, as your guest indicated, only accounts for 4% of violence. and i believe gun violence is

only 1%. while mental health treatment i am all for, i'm just not sure how much that is going to impact gun violence toward others. i think it could be very helpful towards those with suicidal ideation. but i guess it is sad to hear politicians and the nra promoting this myth that gun violence by others is caused by mental illness. i don't think that is the issue. the issue for me is that when we flood the country with weapons like we have -- there is like 400 million weapons now in the united states -- that there is just going to be this interaction between human emotions and behavior. you know, very strong emotions like anger, hate, jealousy, rage . if you happen to be carrying a gun at these times, some people may use those with limited impulse control. i don't know how we get around that one. that is going to be really difficult.

i guess those are my major points. so much. i really appreciate it. host: thanks, bill. guest: bill, thank you for those comments, and absolutely agree with you that mental illness is not the factor here. and yet that is so much of the conversation. that not only reinforces the stigma around mental health conditions, which keeps people from getting the help they need, it can be true that we have a gun violence crisis in this country and a mental health crisis in this country, what they are not necessarily the same thing or related to each other. we need to invest in our mental health system, but that is not going to solve our gun violence crisis. host: on to florida. this is nelson on the independent line. caller: good money. i will just say that i'm 74 years old. i am a combat-wounded vietnam vet. and i am a retired firefighter/paramedic.

i have seen extreme violence in my lifetime, and i know what guns do. i believe that the problem we are experiencing in the united states is a result of very psychological, cultural change that has taken place in my lifetime. when i was a kid the big problem was having a fistfight after school with the school bully. today kids have to worry about going to school and getting shot. and i believe that all of this has to do with this cultural change that seems to disregard human life. we see it on the political left with the issue of abortion on demand, and we see it on the political right on the issue of guns under any kind of circumstance. and i agree with you that [indiscernible] is not the issue.

host: nelson, you are breaking up a little bit. sorry about that, but we got most of your call. hannah wesolowski, any thoughts? guest: thank you for your service and your thoughts. you mentioned children, and suicide is the second leading cause of death for children ages 10 and into young adulthood. and firearms are the most common cause of deaths for our kids. thinking about kids going to school and worrying about what might happen there, but also the availability of firearms for any child that is feeling bullied or has other events in their life that are contributing to suicidal ideation. it is a real concern, and we are losing far too many children as a result of this. certainly, you know, have seen that change in my childhood to now as well.

we really need to solve this. our kids deserve better. they deserve to feel safe at school. they deserve to feel supported, and we should not be giving them the tools to cause harm to themselves or others. host: suicide has risen to record highs. this front-page story at the washington times, the national suicide rate rebounds close to a 20-year high. it jumped in 2020 one after declining the previous two years. a final count is just shy of a two-decade high, according to figures from the centers of disease control and prevention. you mentioned earlier the 988 program. tell us a bit more about that and its efforts in suicide prevention. guest: the 988 crisis lifeline is available to everyone by calling or texting 988. millions of people have called since it became available last july. the goal there is to help people in crisis.

mental health, substance use, suicide crisis, to connect to a trained counselor. that is who is answering the phone. it connects people to additional care and services. again, this is focused on making sure that we are giving a person in a mental health crisis a mental health response. guest: i think you pointed out earlier that suicide is the number one gun death, correct? death by suicide is the number one? guest: more than half of all firearm deaths are suicide, and more than half of suicides are conducted by use of firearms. host: on to eric, who is in massachusetts. the head. -- go ahead. caller: hey, how are you guys? i love the show. first time, long time. hannah, thanks so much for coming on. you know, i am a conservative and a gun owner. the crazy thing is, all of my buddies, my friend that we shoot

together, we all wish there were stronger laws. i feel like the media puts out and the politicians act like it is a real 50-50 issue, when if i had to wait a month for a gun, i will wait a month. i am a law-abiding citizen. but these politicians are also corrupt, i mean, it is just crazy. i have my veteran friend, he is wearing a shirt that says "capitalism runs on blood" now. we all want the same thing. we want stricter laws. i want the politicians give it to us? if it is mental health that is the issue, why isn't there medicare for all? and i am a conservative. thank you so much. host: is it possible for there to be federal red flag laws? guest: well, politically i think that will be difficult. also a lot of this is under state jurisdiction. but the federal government has done is, provided more funding to the department of justice to

incentivize states to pass these laws. the department of justice, after an executive from from president biden, also put out model legislation in 2021, so that that is out there and is now incentivizing states through grant programs to implement those. i think that is the best option we have right now, but we are also not exploring safe storage laws, in terms of storing firearms safely. only 13 states have those on the books, as well as these waiting periods. certainly if someone is at any minute risk, it can get us past that period of imminent risk. host: maryland. caller: good morning. i'm no expert on guns. i don't own any guns. i'm no expert on mental health, but he gets a little exhausting hearing from folks who say that there is nothing we can do to --

that we should accept this in our society. the gentleman called previously and explained that only a certain percentage of gun owners commit these crimes and we are punishing gun owners. i'm open to solutions. i think the analogy also, there is any number of folks in our society dealing with mental health issues. some folks deal with them over long periods of time, other people have episodes and lapses. but they are not all going out and committing mass murder. so i think it is unacceptable for us to continue to just say, well, this is something in our society we have to live with, and it is a sacrifice we have to make in order to be american. thank you. guest: well said. stigmatizing any group of individuals on any factor is not going to solve our problems.

we know that these are much more complex challenges that our nation faces, and if we implement solutions based on evidence of what causes these acts of violence, then we can get to a better place. love times the solutions that are put forward are not solutions at all. they are based on reinforcing the stigmas and not really addressing what we know is going to help the problem and solve this situation. host: next up is joel in eagle, idaho. caller: hi, bill. a couple of things. first problem is, the american psychiatric association comes out every year with standards for mental illness. there is very little agreement on what mental illness is. that is point number one. number two, serotonin reuptake inhibitors are a major treatment

in depression. and these have some very, very long-term ill effects on a human brain. so, that needs to be addressed. the other thing is, if you talk about mental illness, somebody with dementia, are they mentally ill? is somebody with depression, are they mentally ill? what about pms? you can make an argument that there are some wild actions that take place with that condition. so my point is that it is tough to define mental illness, other than the obvious schizophrenic or illnesses like that. the other thing is that you can thank the aclu for some of those situations. years ago they opened up all of the mental hospitals and the supreme court decided that the living conditions were not up to par.

lastly, i'm not sure i want a federal judge or any type of judge making the decision on second amendment rights. i'm a gun owner, 78-year-old vietnam vet, and i don't want a liberal judge deciding that for me. but i would like to hear your address on ssri's. host: appreciate your call. guest: you know, we have moved away from institutionalization, which is actually a good thing. the problem in our country is that we have not increased the availability of community mental health resources. so, you know, putting people in an institution was a very ineffective and inhumane way to treat anyone with a mental illness. to health's health, and there are effective ways to treat that, and yet we do not invest in those effective ways.

community health systems have been underfunded for decades. i would also note that there is the dsm v, which has diagnostics for a wide range of mental health conditions. so, we do know what mental illnesses are, and what are some of the symptoms and factors of those mental health conditions. so, there is quite a bit we know about that. host: he also touched on what i think a previous caller was alluding to, and said something along the lines of, the moment of some of these shootings is not a -- a mental health issue, but strong emotions come into play. anger, revenge, vengeance, jealousy. that cause the use of that firearm. that does not necessarily indicate a mental illness on the part of the person who used the firearm. guest: yes. those are not mental health conditions. there are a lot of angry people in this country, and that is often what comes into play and

is the trigger for these acts of violence. but people often conflate that with having a mental illness and having a psychiatric disorder does not mean you are going to engage in that violence. but anger certainly is a huge factor. host: atlanta. bob is up next on the republican line. caller: yes, my regards to hannah wesolowski, but it appears to me she doesn't know what she's talking about. i used to work in a psychiatric hospital, which got close in georgia by a bunch of do-gooders like her who think you can just call somebody and it will get handled. there are times when you are actually crazy, you need institutionalization. you need a good psychiatric hospital to stabilize you. i can tell by just looking at her she has never been in one or anything else. host: ok, bob. care to respond to that, hannah

wesolowski? guest: no one would debate that some people need inpatient care, and that is not what i was saying. however, that is not how most people with a mental health condition need to receive their visits. host: on to joan in minnesota. joan is on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: my thing is, i think dwight eisenhower said one of the best things in the world is, beware of the military industrial complex. i think the industrial complex has overloaded this country with guns, and we keep lambing and on the people and their problems, and all of this other stuff when all that we have to do is take that military firearm out of the hands of the people in this country, let them have their hunting guns or range shooters, and all of the good things that are a pleasure to them, and get

the ar-whatever out of the hands of everybody, because what the industrial military complex is way too strong, and the people need to speak up, and their voices need to be heard instead of being squashed. thank you. host: hannah, you may have mentioned this kff survey earlier. this is one that caught our eye. this says more than half of u.s. adults have experienced a gun-related incident, including one in five have been personally threatened with a gun or had a family number killed with a gun. 37% of those surveyed have been threatened by a gun. is there any research into the mental health effect of the continuing news about mass shootings? the presence, the daily presence of shootings in violent crime, certainly in some of our cities? guest: not enough, for sure. there is not enough research to know the impact, but we do see a significant increase in mass

trauma, particularly those most directly impacted. you look at the impact on parents, on kids across the country going through shooter drills in their schools, there is a component of that that certainly impacts individuals and kids in particular, that are growing up with this as normal. you know, there is a huge concern about what being part of a gun pulled on you, what that does to you. and the ptsd that might result. i can certainly cause ptsd for some individuals. certainly not everyone. so, looking at how we provide better mental health services to individuals as a result of our gun violence and gun epidemic is crucial here. host: what is the role, in the case of the mass shooting, where often trauma counselors will go in and talk to people. what is their role primarily? guest: their role is to process what people are feeling, to

validate that. it is important that we do it not only for the individuals who were part of the shooting, but also police officers, but they witness is absolutely devastating. we also see high rates of suicide among law enforcement, so these trauma counselors can help process that and help individuals understand what their triggers may be, what they are feeling, and what they are feeling is valid, which is also important. host: on to portsmouth, virginia . dr. butler, is it? go ahead. caller: yes. host: you are on the air. caller: yes, i trained as a psychiatrist. i did not have personal patients to do it, so i switched to surgery. however, i would like to ask, what do other countries do with respect to this issue? and what laws, if any, did they

pass that we might consider that would bear on this question? in particular, is this a national problem of employment and opportunity for hope and being able to earn a living, or is it something more subtle? i ask that, because i don't know the answer, and i'm fascinated by your program. host: thanks for that. hannah wesolowski? guest: i can't say i am an expert in international policies and what other countries do, but i do know that the availability of firearms is much more limited in other developed countries. and certainly when other countries have had horrific acts of gun violence -- australia being one example -- they have taken significant measures that have vastly reduced subsequent acts of gun violence.

so, i cannot speak to all the policies in place, but i know the availability and the lack of restrictions on firearm usage and the types of firearms certainly contributes to that in this country. host: and here is richard in gillette, wyoming. ahead. caller: yeah, you know, an earlier caller mentioned the military-industrial complex in eisenhower's speech. originally it was the military-industrial progression all -- progressional that the advisors suggested he take the word congressional out. my issue on red flag laws, what i have heard about them is they lacked due process. i was wondering if that lady could speak to that. host: ok. guest: that is a common misconception about extremist protection orders, or red flag laws. while a judge can issue a

temporary order that lasts for a couple of weeks, that has to be followed up by a more extensive hearing where the individual does have due process, can speak for themselves, present evidence. the petitioner also has to testify. due process is absolutely a part of this, and something we strongly support. do not want anyone to have their rights unfairly restricted, and that is an important component of these laws. that an individual has a say and is able to represent themselves in a court of law. host: our guest is