Chicago has been the poster child of our failed inner cities for quite a while now. What's more, there's very little chance of anything changing on that front anytime soon. Why? Because no one there seems interested in actually addressing the problem.

Of course, part of that is because we're still debating what the actual problem is.

While I'd love to decry that, I think this is actually somewhat productive as long as people don't get overly stupid about it. The problem is that an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times does get stupid about it.

Let's set the record straight for a moment.

We seem to be in an endless loop. Gun-related shootings in the U.S. are astoundingly commonplace, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment. This past Fourth of July weekend there were more than 100 shootings in Chicago alone.

Our typical reaction is disgust, horror and profound sadness. We blame the shooter and wonder how the signs were missed. We do not, however, embrace the reality that many could have been prevented if we appreciated the science that points to their most common causes.

Everybody is an expert — the public, the media, elected officials, and presidential candidates — none of whom are knowledgeable about the conditions that lead to gun violence. Instead, we listen to the steady drumbeat of politicians and uninformed narrators who often cite mental illness as the culprit. Sometimes it is. Most times, it isn’t.

Extensive, decades-long investigations of these cases demonstrate two facts.

First, mental health disorders are remarkably pervasive in the general public. Nearly 20% of the US population is estimated to have a mental illness. Many don’t think about depression and anxiety in that way, even when they reach a predefined diagnostic threshold. But that doesn’t make these disorders any less of an illness. Altogether, one-fifth of those we know and love — many of us — have suffered from one or more mental health disorders in our lifetimes. So let’s start by acknowledging that people with mental illness are not two-headed dragons.

Second, very few of those experiencing these problems commit gun crimes: only about 3% to 5% of all gun-related homicides are perpetrated by individuals with mental illness. The overwhelming majority have behavioral health problems — not synonymous with mental illness, such as aggression, impulsivity and poor regulation of emotion, that typically develop in childhood and worsen in adulthood in the absence of intervention.

The authors basically boil the issue down to rage.

However, let's also understand that just because something isn't currently considered a mental illness, that doesn't mean it's not. I'd argue that homicidal rage is a serious mental illness, in fact.

Being angry is normal. We all get angry from time to time and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sometimes, it's more than warranted.

Yet at every point, people need to be in control of their emotions. They need to be able to rein in their anger so as to not hurt others because of it. If they lack the ability to do so, that would certainly constitute, at least in most people's minds, some kind of mental illness.

If you want to argue that it's a behavioral issue instead, then that's fine. However, for most people, that's a difference without distinction. Behavioral issues are often lumped in with mental health issues, and probably because they both exist in the brain of an individual but lack a physical pathology.

Perhaps educating people on that distinction could be helpful to not further stigmatize those who suffer from mental illness. That's something I'm more than happy to help with because it can well be beneficial in finding solutions. Especially so the general public doesn't worry about their cousin with some mild anxiety as if they're about to start shooting up the neighborhood during the next family reunion.

But the authors also attribute the problems to something else.

If, instead, we were to acknowledge that, in the majority of cases, the underlying impetus for the crime is most often rage, hate and access to guns, the answers would become clearer. Numerous biological, social and contextual conditions contribute to violence, including trauma, certain personality traits and behavioral proclivities, feeling disempowered, unfavorable life circumstances, preoccupation with graphic violence and prejudice.

[Emphasis added]

Easy access to guns, huh?

Now, this op-ed is in a Chicago newspaper. Much of our violent crime takes place in inner cities in anti-gun states. The idea of easy access to firearms is problematic because it suggests that the problem is lax gun control laws. Based on other parts of the piece, I'm sure the authors themselves think the issue is lax gun laws, too.

However, Chicago doesn't have that issue. You cannot buy a gun without a FOID card which takes time to get. Then you jump through still more hoops to buy a gun.

What's more, most of the people who represent a problem--people with rage-fueled behavioral problems--tend to also have criminal records. If they're unable to control themselves enough to not try to kill people, they probably have had an issue controlling themselves elsewhere and have been arrested, tried, and convicted for it. They can't lawfully buy a gun because of that.

While their access to guns might be easy, it's generally not legal. As such, new gun control won't solve the issue.

I'll accept that there's a distinction between "mental illness" and "behavioral issues." I won't accept that lawful gun sales somehow equate to criminals skirting every law on the books to get guns. That's a distinction that just doesn't exist no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.