Recently, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention released a “Red Flag Alert” for the United States of America. The alert was released in response to Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s proposed autism register in the United States of America in April of 2025. The Lemkin Institute said:
“What can be said with absolute certainty is that whenever a state creates a list of names of people considered to be somehow unfit, we are in the danger zone for a genocidal process.”
On the topic of putting people on lists, there are real-world impacts to putting people on lists for innate traits that are thought to make them “less-than”; more specifically and generally unspoken, less than human. Referring back to my article on how mental illness is scapegoated for gun violence, an example of this can be seen as an outcome of the “Dangerous Guns versus Dangerous People” rhetoric. In this scenario, it is people who are mentally ill who are considered dangerous, because of the innate characteristic of their mental illness, not because they own guns and have shown red-flags of being willing to use their weapons in inappropriate and violent ways. This is how marginalized people end up being scape-goated for serious societal issues.
Continuing with revistation of mentally ill people being blamed for gun violence, and subsequent proposals to track them or put them on lists, Jonathan Metzl said that insanity is the only politically sane place to discuss gun control (Rosenwald, 2016). Statistics demonstrate that one thing left and right-leaning Americans can agree upon is fearing mental illness. ASAN (n.d.) said, “A 2013 Gallup poll revealed that up to 80 percent of Americans believe that the failure of the mental health system is in some way to blame for gun violence, with 48% of responders believing the system affected gun violence ‘a great deal’ and 32% believing it affected the outcome ‘a fair amount” (ASAN, n.d.). The media reinforce this belief. A study that examined 400 news stories on mental health published between 1995-2014 showed the majority of them portrayed mentally ill people with violent acts or the potential for violence. This shared agreement to believe a misconception, even if not done intentionally or maliciously, has impacted the choices made by the two major political parties of the United States of America.
I revisited this subject because it is an example of how innate characteristics such as disability become scapegoats for larger societal issues, and how this scapegoating puts marginalized people in danger. In my previous article on how mental illness is scapegoated for gun violence, I referenced an ill-conceived gun policy created under the Obama administration that restricted gun ownership for Social Security beneficiaries who had a psychiatric disability and used a “Representative Payee” to manage their finances (Ne’eman, 2018). The Obama administration framed this as a step forward in gun regulation that bypassed the recalcitrant Republicans in Congress. The rule targeted people who use a representative payee for gun restrictions, acting like this kind of regulation would have stopped any of the mass shootings.
Ari Ne’eman (2018) said:
The rule required the agency to send names from its database of certain people receiving disability benefits who had a ‘representative payee’ to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). That a federal database of people prohibited from purchasing a gun…More specifically, the new rule singled out people who use a representative payee and possess a mental impairment. People affected by the rule could have a range of mental disabilities from dementia to autism to agoraphobia (Ne’eman, 2018).
I’ve already said I don’t mind the idea of everyone being restricted from owning guns. However, I do care about creating a rule that puts disabled people on lists when there is no solid connection to public safety. There is no proven connection between a person needing a representative payee and that person being an increased risk to public safety. The fact that this ill-informed regulation came from Obama’s administration goes to show that disabled people have been and continue to be marginalized regardless of what party is in power.
In the same vein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s proposal in April of 2025 to put Autistic people on a database, claiming it was necessary to facilitate research, would put Autistic people in harms way. It was proposed at the same time that major institutions capable and willing of conducting ethical research were being defunded by DOGE. In addition, it was proposed alongside RFK Jr. having called Autistic people a threat to the American way of life earlier in the month. It was followed up by RFK Jr. saying “autism destroys families” and is an “individual tragedy as well.” He also said, “These are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date.” Apart from being incorrect, it reasserts a dangerous idea that a person’s worth as a human being should be measured by what they contribute to the capitalistic project. When Autistic people are not able to contribute labour and buying power, they are expected to become the product; in this case, the product of the Autism Industrial Complex. Products don’t have rights. Product aren’t entitled to an opinion. A product is not human.
In 2013, the National Council on Disability wrote to Joe Biden’s Task Force to Curb Gun Violence, opposing the rule linking the Social Security Assistance representative payee database with the criminal background-check system (Ne’eman, 2018). Ne’eman says that around the same time, a coalition of 11 major disability rights organizations issued similar warnings to the Obama administration (Ne’eman, 2018).
People use a representative payee for many reasons. Sometimes they simply find paying bills and managing budgets taxing. Ne’eman (2018) said:
The determination that someone should have a representative payee is very different from the determination that someone should be involuntarily hospitalized, a process that does include an evaluation of someone’s risk to themselves and others. I and many other advocates who worked against the representative payee rule have no issue with reasonable restrictions on gun ownership for people in this latter category (Ne’eman, 2018).
You might be questioning why I care whether individuals who use a representative payee are restricted from gun ownership if I wish for everyone to be limited. As I’ve already said in one way or another, it isn’t keeping the guns that I care about. I am pro-restrictions for everyone. I care about a precedent being set to restrict the rights of disabled people, especially when the restriction is imposed based on faulty data and conclusions. I am against RFK Jr’s idea of creating a database of Autistic people even if it is just for research for similar reasons. Nobody should have their name put on a list because of innate characteristics that cast them as less-than-fully-human in some people’s eyes. It is one step away from other methods of dehumanization, such as the removal of voting rights based on innate characteristics like autism.
Regarding the database for gun restrictions based on having a representative payee, Ne’eman (2018) said:
These concerns are rooted in discrimination that people with mental disabilities face in other areas of life, such as parenting and voting rights. People with mental disabilities often face an assumption of incapacity. Their advocates and lawyers often have to fight to overturn assumptions that certain diagnosis, or a determination of need for support in one area, should lead to a loss of rights in an unrelated area. These advocates feared that using the representative payee database for prohibiting gun purchases might constitute a ‘thin end of the wedge’ for loss of more important rights down the road (Ne’eman, 2018).
The warnings given by the disability community that this precedent presented a danger of being extended were almost immediately borne out. The concern even led to a short-lived alliance between disability advocates and the National Rifle Association. This ended abruptly when the NRA collaborators proposed the creation of a national database of the mentally ill (Ne’eman, 2018). Ne’eman (2018) said:
“Led by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), who has since resigned, they introduced legislation to strip people with psychiatric disabilities of HIPAA privacy protections, limit legal aid to the community, and drastically expand coercive treatment” (Ne’eman, 2018).
In 2017, Metzl said that new legislation in several U.S. States required mental health professionals to assess their patients for the potential to commit gun crimes (Metzl, 2017). Metzl (2017) said:
Supporters of these laws argue that they provide important tools for law enforcement officials to identify potentially violent persons, and perhaps understandably so. U.S. policymakers and the general public look to psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, and related disciplines as sources of certainty in the face of the often incomprehensible terror and loss that gun violence inevitably produces. And undeniably, persons with mental illness who have shown violent tendencies should not have access to weapons that could be used to harm themselves and others (Metzl, 2017).
As we are assaulted by seemingly constant gun violence in the United States of America and growing incidents of mass shootings, it’s alarming to hear someone suggest they are in any way rare. Still, this is what Metzl (2017) suggested. Metzl said that scholars such as Swanson, who studies violence prevention, contend that mass shootings are statistically rare acts of violence, at least when it comes to using statistical modelling and predictability to prevent future incidents (Metzl, 2017).
There is a disconnect between how mental illness is defined and how professionals and experts describe it. This is reinforced by the myth that gun violence is correlated with mental illness. The same kind of disconnect could be happening with how people understand the concept of predictive factors of gun violence. Metzl (2017) said:
This is not to suggest that researchers know nothing about predictive factors for gun violence. However, credible studies suggest that a number of risk factors more strongly correlate with gun violence than mental illness alone. For instance, alcohol and drug use increase the risk the violent crime by as much as seven-fold, even among persons with no history of mental illness. According to Van Dorn, a history of childhood abuse, binge drinking, and male gender are all predictive risk factors for serious violence. Miller and colleagues found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher. Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19,000 American completed gun suicides each year (Metzl, 2017).
Metzl (2017) warns when public policy focuses on trying to build “Common Evidence” on “Uncommon Things,” it reduces the opportunity to create “Common Evidence” from “Common Things.” This includes correlative evidence “about substance abuse, domestic violence, availability of firearms, suicidality, social networks, economic stress and other factors” (Metzl, 2017).
On the face of it, the expectations of these proposed regulations places the burden on clinicians to use their expertise to predict which mentally ill people have the potential for violence. I say this is a danger on the surface because my inner cynic senses the intent is not for psychiatrists to put much effort into a discernment process. What I mean is that I believe the objective is to create an indiscriminate database that flags anyone with specific diagnoses. After all, they only ask psychiatrists to predict who among their mentally ill patients might be considered a risk. They only ask for creating regulations to put mentally ill people on databases. Marital conflicts, financial problems, grief, and disputes with co-workers are all risk factors. There is widespread resistance to having regulations like red flag laws enforced, which might consider these factors. In a 2013 paper in the journal “Homicide Studies,” James Alan Fox said:
Revenge motivation is, by far, the most commonplace. Mass murderers often see themselves as victims—victims of injustice. They seek payback for what they perceive to be unfair treatment by targeting those they hold responsible for their misfortunes. Most often, the ones punished are family members (e.g., an unfaithful wife and all her children) or coworkers (e.g., an overbearing boss and all his employees) (Khazan, 2017).
These red flag laws would allow those in a position to observe dangerous risk factors and behaviours, such as friends and family, to make reports that might restrict the people exhibiting these signs from owning or possessing guns until a more thorough assessment could be made.
My inner cynic said resistance to these measures is the result of the convenience of prejudice. In this case, society’s willingness to come together in their shared fear of mental illness makes mentally ill people an expedient scapegoat. People are not so willing to blame those who are experiencing marital conflicts, financial problems, or disputes with co-workers.
In any case, Metzl (2017) said the following about how these regulations burden mental health experts in counter-productive ways:
As such, agendas that hold mental-health workers accountable for identifying dangerous assailants puts these workers in potentially untenable positions because the legal duties they are asked to perform misalign with the predictive value of their expertise. In this sense, instead of accepting the expanded authority provided by current gun legislation, mental health workers and organizations might be better served by identifying and promoting areas of common cause between clinic and community, or between the social and psychological dimensions of gun violence. Connections between loaded handguns and alcohol, the mental-health effects of gun violence in low-income communities, or the relationships between gun violence and family, or socioeconomic networks are but a few of the topics in which mental-health expertise might productively join community and legislative discourses to promote more effective medical and moral arguments for sensible gun policy than currently arise amongst the partisan rancor (Metzl, 2017).
Trump (during his first administration) got it right when he repealed the Obama administration regulation that those who had a representative payee be registered on the NCIS. He also got it right for the wrong reasons. This is proven true by what he went on to say and do. Trump said: “This is also a mental illness problem. These are people that are very, very seriously mentally ill” (Matthews, 2019). Texas Governor Greg Abbott supported Trump by saying, “Mental health is a large contributor to any type of violence or shooting event” (Matthews, 2019). Matthews (2019) rejected Abbott’s position, saying:
Abbott is wrong: the share of America’s violence problem (excluding suicide) that is explainable by diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is tiny. If you were to suddenly cure schizophrenia, bipolar, and depression overnight, violent crime in the U.S. would fall by only 4 percent (Matthews, 2019).
Trump made one of the most vigorous pushes for mental illness to be used as a predictive tool. As an Autistic person, I have specific reasons I found Trump’s proposal particularly disturbing, which I will get into shortly. I feel the same way about RFK Jr’s 2025 push to demonize and target Autistic people. It makes me concerned that the second Trump administration and RFK Jr intend to revisit the idea of monitoring people with mental illness, particularly Autistic people the way they were considering it during Trump’s first administration. The New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Inc. (2019) reported how Trump’s administration was considering a proposal to monitor people with mental illness for the potential of future violence (New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Inc., 2019). The proposal was coined SAFEHOME or Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping overcome Mental Extremes.
The Suzanne Wright Foundation and Bob Wright prepared the proposal after Ivanka Trump approached them with the suggestion of extending their concept for the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) to include mental health monitoring. The Suzanne Wright Foundation first proposed HARPA in 2017. It was conceived after Bob Wright’s wife died quickly after her cancer diagnosis. Bob Wright believed that better monitoring of risk factors and signs might make the outcomes of specific diagnoses possible (Swanner, 2019). I cannot help worrying that HARPA is still on the table. It is not a term I have heard RFK Jr. utter as of yet, but I am worried the database he has proposed is essentially HARPA being revisited.
Bob and Suzanne Wright created Autism Speaks, a corporation most Autistic people consider a hate group. In fact, this is one of the reasons Autism Speaks in Canada closed its doors. Autism Speaks already has an extensive database of Autistic people’s DNA and names of Autistic people. I can’t help wondering if it occurred to Bob Wright how easily he might double-tap the Autism Speaks database to create a database of people who pose the potential risk of violence to satisfy Trump. I cannot help worrying that the same thing may have already occured to RFK Jr. That is not what Bob Wright or the Suzanne Wright Foundation said would happen. Instead, they claimed all the data collected would be voluntary. Again though, my inner cynic whispered to me. After all, the data given to Autism Speaks was voluntary, at least on the part of parents of Autistic people, if not the Autistic people themselves.
The New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Inc. (2019) said:
Talks about HARPA were reopened as Trump was assuring the NRA that he would not pursue universal background check regulation to prevent mass shootings, and doubling down on previous claims that people with mental health challenges are the primary cause of shootings—suggesting to reporters last week that the U.S. should institutionalize mentally ill people to prevent violence. Among other initiatives, this new agency would reportedly collect volunteer data from a suite of smart devices, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echos, and Google Homes in order to identify ‘neurobehavioural signs’ of ‘someone headed toward a violent explosive act.’ The project would then use artificial intelligence to create a ‘sensor suite’ to flag mental changes that make violence more likely (New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Inc., 2019).
It astonishes me that anyone could believe artificial intelligence in the form of a sensor suite could be better positioned to recognize risk factors in individuals better than the people in their lives. It amazes me that people prefer empowering artificial intelligence to “report” risky behaviour rather than people with a vested interest in an individual’s well-being. It shocks me that people do not want universal background checks but shrug off the names of mentally ill/Autistic people being placed in databases or them being asked to wear devices that track and record their biometric data. After all, red flag laws might impair the rights of human beings deemed less expendable than mentally ill/Autistic people. Better to impair the rights of mentally ill/Autistic people by making them wear tracking devices, institutionalizing mentally ill people en masse, and putting their names on databases that might impact their rights for the rest of their lives.
Again, I am worried all these ideas that were proposed to deal with gun violence in Trump’s first administration will be coopted by RFK Jr. to deal with what he calls the “Autism Epidemic” (language that originated with Autism Speaks). While RFK Jr. has backpedalled on the way he’s described his intended database since the start of April 2025, saying it will only be for research, my inner cynic doubts what he considers ethical research is the same as what the average Autistic person, scientist, and researcher would consider ethical.
It is infuriating to see mentally ill/Autistic people targeted this way based on faulty data and fear. The truth is that violence in the United States is not statistically worse than in most other countries. All of this is even more outrageous when one understands there are no accurate means of using mental illness to predict the potential for violence. I already said that studies and evidence have demonstrated that any clinician who tried to use mental illness to predict violence would be wrong the vast majority of the time. Even the United States of America Department of Defense agrees with this position. In 2012 a Department of Defense task force prepared a report called “Predicting Violent Behavior.” Appendix 13, otherwise named “Prediction: Why it won’t work,” was particularly interesting.
Appendix 13 of the DOD report concluded that while there may be pre-existing behaviour markers that are specifiable, they are of low specificity and would result in an abundance of false alarms. They stress a prevention focus is far more valuable and effective than a prediction focus. The DOD report (2012) said:
Suppose we actually had a behavioral or biological screening test to identify those who are capable of targeted violent behavior with moderately high accuracy (something we in fact do not have at present). Table 4 represents the predictive accuracy of such a test applied in two modes—one aggressive and another more conservative—in a screening application to a hypothetical military base with a population of 10,000 military personnel. The population includes ten individuals with extreme violent tendencies, capable of executing an event such as that which occurred at Ft. Hood. In the aggressive mode, the test is strict enough to correctly identify 80% of those capable of extreme illicit violence. Accordingly, it identifies eight of ten individuals we wish to detect, but also falsely implicates 1,598 personnel who do not have these violent tendencies, i.e., who are “normal,” but we would have to invest enormous resources in further examining all 1,606 of those identified to find the eight bad apples, and currently we have no method of doing so…In the “conservative mode,” the test protects the normal, non-violent personnel. Only about 39 personnel would fail the test, but eight of the ten extremely violent people would “pass” and be allowed to continue on to potentially act out their aggressions and commit a truly violent act (Department of Defense, 2012).
The Department of Defense (2012) said they could not overemphasize that there is no scientific basis for an instrument that would screen for potential future violence. No such tools are even close to being accurate in the testing phase. This is as close to saying that Bob Wright and the Suzanne Wright Foundation foundation were full-of-it as the Department of Defense is likely to get. The same would be true in most applications RFK Jr. could use such a tracking database.
Please read my petition for changes to the Canadian Disability Savings Plan, sign it, and share. Thank you.
https://chng.it/zCNbdvRdVG
Alemany, J. (2019). White House considers new project seeking links between mental health and violent behavior: Bob Wright, the former NBC chair and Trump friend, is one of the proposal’s supporters. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/22/white-house-considers-new-project-seeking-links-between-mental-health-violent-behavior/
Angstreich, E. (2019). Guns and mental health. Dice. Retreived June 28, 2022, from https:// insights.dice.com/2019/09/03/gpvernment-fitbit-health-data-murder/
ASAN. (n.d.). Make real change on gun violence: Stop scapegoating people with mental health disabilities. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from https://autisticadvocacy.org/policy/briefs/gunviolence/
ASAN. (2016). ASAN Statement on SSA representative payee gun database rule. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://autisticadvocacy.org/2016/05/asan-statement-on-ssa-representative-payee-gun-database-rule/
Beckett, L. (2014). Myth vs. fact: violence and mental health: a q&a with an expert who studies the relationship between mental illness and violence. ProPublica. Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health
Cowen, T. (2019). Trump administration reportedly briefed on creepy mass shooter detection proposal. Complex. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.complex.com/life/2019/08/trump-administration-briefed-on-mass-shooter-detection-proposal
Department of Defense: Defense Science Board. (2012). Task force report: Predicting violent behavior. 1-96.
Desmarais, V., Johnson, R., Grimm, K., Douglas, K., & Swartz, M. (2014). Community Violence Perpetration and Victimization Among Adults With Mental Illnesses. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 104(12), 2342–2349. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301680
Everytown. (2014). Analysis of mass shootings. Everytown Research & Policy. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150813154315/http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
Hefferman, L. (2017). World autism awarness day 2013: a conversation with Bob Wright and Suzanne Wright, co-founders of Autism Speaks. Huffpost. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-autism-awareness-day_b_2944287
Hiday, S., Swanson, J., Borum, R., & Wagner, H.(1999). Criminal Victimization of Persons With Severe Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 50(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.50.1.62
Hu, J. (2019). Trump’s plan to stop violence via smartphone tracking isn’t just a massive privacy violation: It’s also unlikely to work. Slate. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/trumps-harpa-smartphone-tracking-mental-illness-privacy-wont-work.html
Khazan, O. (2017). Why better mental-health care won’t stop mass shootings: improved access to treatment might help many Americans, but experts say it would not prevent Las Vegas-style tragedies. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.thealtlantic.com/health/archive/2017/10/why-better-mental-health-care-wont-stop-mass-shootings-541965/
Konnikova, M. (2014). Is there a link between mental health and gun violence?. New Yorker. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova-link-mental-health-gun-violence
Lutz, E. (2019). Trump considering “neurobehavioral” tech to predict mass shooters: If you won’t regulate guns, why not regulate people?. Vanity Fair. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/trump-considering-neurobehavioral-tech-to-predict-mass-shooters-gun-control
Lu, & Temple, J.(2019). Dangerous weapons or dangerous people? The temporal associations between gun violence and mental health. Preventive Medicine, 121, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.01.008
Matthews, D. (2019). Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings: It’s about the guns. Vox. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/16618472/metal-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings
McGinty, W. & Barry, C. (2013). Effects of News Media Messages About Mass Shootings on Attitudes Toward Persons With Serious Mental Illness and Public Support for Gun Control Policies. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(5), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010014
McGinty, W. & Barry, C. L. (2014). Gun Policy and Serious Mental Illness: Priorities for Future Research and Policy. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 65(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300141
Metzl, J. (2017). Mental illness, gun violence, and (misguided) policy interventions. Policy People. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from http://policy-people.com/jonathan-m-metzl-mental-illness-gun-violence
Metzl, J. & MacLeish, K.(2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 105(2), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242
Ne’eman, A. (2018). Trump was right to lift a rule preventing some people with disabilities from buying guns: He’s scapegoating people with disabilities following the Parkland shooting. But he made the correct call on ending an Obama-era restriction. Vox. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-parkland-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama-liberty
NYPRS. (2019). Alert: Trump administration consider monitoring people with mental illness to prevent shootings. New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabillitation Services Inc. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins/2019/9/10/alert-trump-administration-considers-monitoring-people-with-mental-illness-to-prevent-shootings
Pallarito, K. (2022). Mental illness and gun violence: why it’s harmful to link the two: the association further alienates people with mental health issues, while ignoring other avenues for solutions. Health. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.health.com/news/mental-illness-gun-violence
Rosenwald, M. (2016). Most mass shooters aren’t mentally ill. So why push better treatment as the answer?. Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-mass-shooters-arent-mentally-ill-so-why-push-better-treatment-as-the-answer/2016/05/17/70034918-11e6-8976-7ac733c56f12_story.html?utm_term=.9f68631e9894
Saad, L. (2013). Americans fault mental health system most for gun violence: half say gun laws should be stricter, down from 58% after Newtown. https://news.gallup.com/poll/164507/americans-fault-mental-health-system-gun-violence.aspx
Spivey, A. (2022). Medical sociologist Jeffrey Swanson on the complex puzzle of the gun violence. Duke University School of Medicine. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://medschool.duke.edu/news/medical-sociologist-jeffrey-swanson-complex-puzzle-gun-violence
Swanner, N. (2019). Government wants your Fitbit data because you may be a mass murderer. Dice. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://insights.dice.com/2019/09/03/government-fitbit-health-data-murder/
Swanson, J., McGinty, E., Fazel, S., & Mays, V. (2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of Epidemiology, 25(5), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.03.004
Swanson, J., Easter, M., Robertson, A., Swartz, M., Alanis-Hirsch, K., Moseley, D., Dion, C., & Petrila, J. (2016). Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties. Health Affairs, 35(6), 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0017
Wan, W. (2019). White House weighs controversial plan on mental illness and mass shootings. Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-considers-controversial-plan-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shooting/2019/09/09/eb58b6f6-ce72-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
Wells, P. (2019). Fitbit, mass shootings and terrible ideas. Medium. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://peterkwells.com/2019/09/01/fitbit-mass-shootings-and-terrible-ideas/
Limbic Noodle 
Leave a comment