a conversation on mental health, gun violence, and red flag laws with hannah wesolowski . before we get to those red flag laws, i wonder, your thoughts on how we are talking about mental health in this country in the wake of a shooting at the texas elementary school last week? texas governor greg abbott said after the shooting "we need to do a better job with mental health in this country." and "anyone who shoots somebody has a mental health challenge." guest: thank you for having me on, john. in the past weeks -- i am a parents. it is heartbreaking, it is frustrating to see so many lives lost. i get it, it's hard to fathom that a person could do this to innocent lives, so mental illness often becomes a call to read. but it is written -- culprit. but it is rare that a shooter in this situation as a mental health diagnosis. honestly, a person with mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator, 23 more times likely to be a victim of violence than the general population. when we focus on mental illness, it distracts from the topic at hand on how to address this gun violence crisis in this country. it also adds to the stigma around mental health, which 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 focused on solutions that really protect people. we don't want to send kids to school, where they are not safe, or grandparents sent to grocery stores where they are guns down. mental illness is not the culprit here. host: so in terms of solutions that could protect people, explain what a red flag law is? guest: red flag law, that term is often stigmatizing to people who fall under it, but extreme risk protection orders are a mechanism, a civil court order that would take guns away for a periods [video clip] --. -- period of time, when they might be likely to do something to themselves or someone else. that's not based on a diagnosis of mental illness. a history of violence, abuse, trauma, substance use are a number of factors for violence. a person's behavior may indicate they are at immediate risk of committing a violent act towards themselves or someone else. in most cases, a family member or a law enforcement officer would go to the court to ask for this individual to have guns taken away for a period of time. if there is immediate risk, there could be a short hearing and a short-term, three weeks of taking those away, and a longer hearing in the future. the subject of the hearing has an opportunity to present evidence and make a case that they should not have their guns taken away. depending on the outcome of that, typically, if someone is found at risk, their guns could be taken away for about a year. what we could see with these, it's a really important opportunity to reduce immediate risk to an individual or the community. but it should be based on what current behaviors that are being observed in the individual, not on stigmatizing assumptions on a community of people, but what's going on with that individual based on an individual assessment. host: so for these red flag laws, there is an idea that somebody has an undiagnosed mental illness and that's why some people think we need these red flag laws? is that some of your concern about this? guest: you know, people with mental illness have rights as well. mental illness is not a risk factor for violence. taking away somebody's, you know, right based on their diagnosis of a mental illness is not going to be effective, nor is it right. any time these protection orders are utilized, they should be structured in a way where they are looking at, what is happening with the individual? what are the risk factors that are present, and what behaviors are they exhibiting at that point in time? it's rarely mental illness alone, it's the current risk factors and behaviors that might be happening. this should be based on looking at the individual. we think an extreme protection order targeting a group of people with a diagnosis is both ineffective and violates individual rights. host: so let me back up a step. if you have a diagnosed mental illness in this country, what are the rules in the various states about being able to own a firearm? guest: the rules very state-by-state -- vary state-by-state. a diagnosis itself is not prohibitive of owning a firearm. a lot of laws in the states do rely on somebody who has had involuntary commitment to a hospital based on their mental health conditions or who has been found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity. they will often look at those factors. a diagnosis alone does not predict whether a person has any violent tendencies. we believe it should not be based on that, and they are often based on past incidents like i mentioned. host: mental illness, in the wake of that shooting, mental health and those red flags laws, this conversation with hannah wesolowski. (202) 748-8000 if you live in the eastern or central time zones. mountain or pacific time zones, it's (202) 748-8001. she will be with us for the next 35 minutes until the end of our program, so go ahead and start dialing in. hannah wesolowski, where are we on some national red flag law in the wake of the texas shooting? guest: i think it's important to note that 19 states and d.c. already have these types of laws on the books. last year, the department of justice put out legislation related to extreme risk protection orders, but there are a number of efforts in congress right now to make these more prevalent across the country. there are some different bills, one that would create a federal extreme risk protection order law and another that would incentivize states to pass these laws by giving rent money consistent with these laws -- grant money consistent with these laws. host: this is lindsey graham, the republican, speaking about red flag laws in this country. this is monday of this week. [video clip] >> when it comes to what you can do with guns themselves, keep them out of the hands of people who should not have them to begin with, because they are mentally unstable. i would support a grant program to support states that choose a red flag law. i would not support a red flag flaw federally. these shooters have something in common. they are disturbed, they are acting out, and we don't do anything until it's too late. let's create a system where they can do something before they use the guns. it's not the gun, if the person with the gun. it's our own gun responsibility. when we act irresponsibly, me or anybody else, we should have a system that intervenes before it's too late. that's what we are trying to do, intervene before it is too late. i am working with democrats and republicans to create a federal grant program to beef up red flag programs that exist at the state level. i am not for red flag laws that the federal level. those that choose to go down this road, we can help with more money for cops and mental health workers. host: your comments? guest: i believe we should intervene early before someone becomes violent, but conflating somebody who has extreme anger and hatred with mental illness is not accurate. we cannot confuse those strong emotions with a mental health condition. these so-called red flag laws should not be based on that diagnosis. but we do support these, because it is important to note that nearly half of deaths by suicide are with firearms. suicide account for 60% of firearms deaths. when we look at the risk for suicides, there is a real need here to address the risk of hurting themselves or someone else, particularly when we look at those suicide rates. when we look at veterans, nearly two thirds of veteran suicides are with a firearm. firearms, unfortunately, are incredibly effective. 90% of suicide attempts with a firearm are unfortunately successful. this is one way we can keep people safe, but we cannot conflate someone who has hatred, violence, and anger with the mental health condition. that does not get us closer to solving this problem, nor does it encourage people who are struggling with their mental health to get the help that they need and deserve. as we talk about this in the wake of these incidents, we are doing a lot of damage by focusing on the mental illness aspects. there are a lot of common sense solutions implemented to protect people, but if you soak -- focus solely on mental illness, it's a distraction from the efforts we need to undertake. we are very concerned that the conversation goes this way every time we have one of these horrific events, but we are no closer to solving the problem. host: this is may be a good time to remind viewers of a couple of the headlines and life -- help lines and lifelines that are out there. the national suicide prevention line, and nami, the national association on mental illness has their own helpline. that's 1-800-950-6264. those services are out there. with that, time for some viewer calls. rich in trenton, new jersey. good morning. caller: hi. i have a comment or question. in 2000 14, george w. bush and the republican congress, the senate and the house, had a chance to extend the weapons, the assault weapons ban, and did not expand the ban. how many lives would have been saved if we expanded that ban and prevented assault weapons? the other comment i would like to make, mothers of america, when you go to the polls, vote. guns or kids. guns or kids? when you go to the polls, please vote that and both the gop out of office. thank you. host: was there anything you wanted to jump in on there? guest: i am not an expert on the assault rifle ban, so i cannot comment on that, but i think there are a lot of things we need to look at to solve this problem. host: what about the state of america's mental health in this epidemic of mass shootings? in the memorial day weekend holiday, there was an article that said there were a dozen more mass shooting events in this country, shootings that involve four or more victims. how are we as a country supposed to process this? how do we deal with our own mental health after the horrible images from last weekend the texas school? and then these things keep happening and happening and happening. guest: the things people are seeing as a result of these horrific act of violence are spreading rapidly. almost no one could be untouched by what happened last week. we look at the impact on not just individuals and families, but communities. there are individuals who saw their classmates shot dead, parents who waited to see their kids come off the bus. people across the country who 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 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 after the season is over. all of this about we have the right to bear arms? what about the people who have the right to live? it's happening over and over again, where all these kids have been murdered. host: back to the topic of mental health, debra lee with this question on twitter -- we are encouraged to have mental physicals -- annual physicals. we should be encouraging people have annual mental health checkups. your thoughts on that? guest: i completely agree with that. during your annual checkup, there should be a mental health screening. unfortunately, there are a shortage of mental health professionals in this country. it is tough to get that health care. that said, fixing that problem is not going to fix our gun violence problem. every ounce of mental health funding that we could get to address the crisis in this country will not solve the issue that we are here to discuss. gun violence is a public issue, and we need to end gun violence in this country. focusing solely on mental health is not going to get us there. host: does nami have suggestions on what that could be? guest: we support all the stakeholders that are part of this conversation and policymakers to talk about, what could actually meaningfully reduce mass violence as well as self-directed violence with suicides. firearm storage helps greatly with suicides, there are a lot of solutions being discussed. i cannot say i am an expert in all of them. host: what about increasing the numbers of mental health professionals, filling that need and reducing the gap? guest: well over one third of americans live in a mental health provider shortage area, meaning there are too few health professionals to meet the needs. and it's hard to get into work mental health care, because they are professionals who take insurance. we hear from people every single day here at nami trying to find a mental health provider, someone in their insurance network, someone to help talk to their kids, and there is not a corner of this country where that isn't a struggle. there are a lot of great proposals out there right now to address the workforce shortage. some of those are to increase the pipeline for -- for recruiting individuals, payment programs, there are a lot of ways to address this. it will take time, unfortunately, it's not something that we can flip a switch and fixed today. this is a long-term need and we urgently need investments in mental health care to address that. host: florida, this is ashley. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a mental illness and i am for the red flag project. i don't think that people with mental illnesses should have guns. it causes problems with everything in society and i believe, you know, there needs to be stricter regulations on guns, may be an ip address or something like that for them so they can track the gun where it sat. now, i don't know why, but i feel like there needs to be more of a combination of people reaching out for this matter -- i don't know if this -- needs to go on or what, but something needs to happen with this mental health catastrophe. thank you very much. host: hannah wesolowski? guest: thank you for sharing your diagnosis and your perspective. people have different perspectives on this, but we do know that somebody with a mental illness is more like gay victim of violence in the general population. if we look at mental illness alone, it will not address the challenges we have as a nation. we need more early intervention, and president mind has proposed $1 billion to increase the number of child workers, social workers in the nation. if we focus on that, we will still have a gun violence issue in this country. host: ashley, are you still on the line? caller: yes. host: if you don't mind talking about it, when were you diagnosed and how did you know you needed help? go ahead. caller: i got diagnosed in 2009, and my disorder has progressed. i have been doing really good on taking my medicine, keeping track of it, but the problem is that those thoughts are still there, you know? those thoughts of harming yourself -- i have never tried to harm myself, but those thoughts are there and they are scary. why would i want to gun in my house or anything like that? it doesn't make sense to me, because there are so many people who are struggling with this right now that have this condition and they just blow their brains out, and it is ridiculous. i think they should just switch their gun laws. if you do have mental illness, you shouldn't have a gun. host: thanks for sharing that. hannah wesolowski, back to you. guest: i am glad to hear you are doing well and better now, and i hope you continue to get help that supports you and helps you be in the community and stay connected to your network. i respect what you think. not everyone has the same thoughts and experiences, and focusing on taking guns away from every person with a mental illness, unfortunately, i do not believe it is going to solve this problem. i believe it will also largely stigmatize a group that is largely nonviolent towards themselves or other people. that is often lost in conversation, you are heavily focusing on a propensity towards violence in people with mental illness, and that's not the case. that's not what we see or the primary driver of these horrific events. focusing on mental illness alone is not the solution. let's look at what is going on with an individual, happening in their lives, what haber's are they -- what behaviors are they exhibiting? we can do a lot of good and these extremist protect -- extreme risk protection orders can help, but a diagnosis does not solve this or really address individuals who we need to protect and help in an extreme condition. again, these are rare using these and you need to make sure your person is exhibiting behaviors that show that they may have a propensity towards violence. host: less than 10 minutes left in our program today. let me give those numbers one more time. the national suicide prevention lifeline is 1-800-273-2855. nami's helpline is 1-800-950-6264. caller: good morning, how are you? the first thing i want to say, i am a nami facilitator and have done "in our own voice," and listening to everyone this morning, one thing i am learning at hearing is that we need to find a way to have a whole different conversation about mental health and mental illness. unfortunately, the day after the shooting in texas, i am a federal employee, we were scheduled to have active shooter training. one of the things that kept coming across during the active shooter training was mental health, that the person was suffering from a mental health issue and no matter how hard i tried to push back and say, that's not always the predicate, that was the tone that kept coming through. it was very, very hard for me to listen to that, because i agree with what hannah is saying. i understand what hannah is saying, because of learning through nami. i don't really have a question other than just listening to everybody this morning on the diagnoses -- the diagnoses comes through the dsm, which is a billing mechanism in most instances. the medications -- medications work differently for everyone. we have to learn how to advocate for ourselves. i would like to thank you for being on this morning. i can't say enough about nami and my peers at nami new jersey. host: can i ask what a nami facilitator does and what is "in our own voice?" caller: i facilitate nami's support group meetings every week, where we have our principle of support, our guidelines, and we basically talk to each other about the issues and problems and conflicts and everything we are going through in regards to mental health. it's confidential and we actually learn from each other. the experience in those rooms, the way everyone talks about their diagnoses -- i do this every week. on wednesday, i attended meeting for myself. "in my own voice" is basically, i explained to everyone through a presentation what my mental health journey has been and has looked like, the good and the bad, how i was diagnosed and the issues i had obtaining care. how i got myself -- i was on social security/disability for 10 years, now i work with the federal government full-time and i am a gs 12. i say these things are possible, but it is not -- an issue is not always mental health. it's not that simple. in a weird way, i kind of take offense that everyone says oh my gosh, this crazy person has a gun -- no. that's not it -- that's not it at all. that's my $.20 worth. everyone have a great day. host: thank you for sharing your story, sharon. hannah wesolowski? guest: sharon, i can't thank you enough for sharing your experience and your story and for your comments. i will say nami is in over 600 communities across the country and amazing people like sharon are there to help and help you find a community that cares, so you can go to nami.org/social for more. when we focus on mental illness and these conversations, people with mental illness have historically been victimized by stigma and prejudice. when we have these conversations, it perpetuates that idea that people with mental illness are violent. that often discourages people from getting the help they need. they don't want to be deemed crazy. when we talk about it in these stigmatizing terms, we are doing our entire country a disservice from encouraging people to getting help, the earlier caller's comment, it should be normal in taking care of ourselves. we need to take care of our mental health like our physical health. it's for all of us in the mental health community that we need to be having this conversations to make sure we are focusing on the right solution here and not something that is a distraction. host: this is joan out of rochester, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe the gun lobby has found a new target to get people's minds off our gun issue in this country. people start turning towards looking at mentally ill people instead of looking at the problems that are going on in this country with guns, with the young people who are subject to tv shows and the little boys -- the first toys they are given when they are born is a gun.we need to change our palazzo -- our philosophy on match. we need to get guns where they belong and the pentagon needs to cap about the guns that our military -- speak up about the guns that our military has -- it's not the right letters, but we need to get to the issues that are causing the problems, not looking for someone to blame and take their mind off what the main issue is. the main issue is too many guns. we need to get that controlled. host: hannah wesolowski, i will give you the final minute here. guest: joan, thank you for calling in. i agree mental illness is used as a scapegoat in these conversations rather than doing the hard work of figuring out solutions we can pass in a bipartisan way that will really address this. it is incredibly damaging when we focus on mental illness and it takes away from a real conversation we need to have about mental health, and the crisis that our country is in in regards to mental health. it's important we have those conversations about mental health, but not as part of the conversation of gun violence. when we are focusing on mental health, we are not addressing the root cause of gun violence in this country and hurting all people -- one in five people in this country have a mental mental health condition. that does not make them violent and focusing on that is a distraction and it is dangerous. host: the national alliance for mental illness can be found online. >> i am at the mall, this is where i am supposed to be. i am getting baby close. -- clothes. the contempt i felt for a certain degree for civilian life is crazy, you think that this normal civilian life is worth defending. >> uncertain ground, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q and a. you can listen to our podcasts on our new free c-span now app. >> listen to c-span radio with our free mobile app, c-span now. get complete access to what is happening in washington with a live streams -- live streams of white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more, plus analysis of the world of politics with our informative podcasts. it is available at the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> a report on medicare's financial future released by the american enterprise institute, summarizing the report findings. you can watch a live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now, or anytime at cspan shop.org. >>, whose