To The Contrary

Funding for To the Contrary, provided by: This week, on To the Contrary.

First, gun ownership among Republican women spikes.

Then can AI replace therapists?

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erb.

Welcome to To the Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from different perspectives.

Up first, women and weapons.

Recent polls indicate that while overall gun ownership rates in the U.S. have remained stable, there has been a significant increase among one group of people: Republican women.

According to a Gallup survey, gun ownership in this group has spiked in recent years.

The ownership rates among Republican men have stayed stable, while rates have dropped for independent and Democratic men.

Joining me on the panel this week are Republican strategist Ann Stone Danielle Moodie, host of WokeAF Daily, former judge and federal prosecutor Debra Carnahan and Republican strategist Whitley Yates.

And we'll go to you first, Whitley.

Why is it that more Republican women are owning and buying weapons?

If I had to guess, I would have assumed that they would always have had, you know, more guns than certainly, than Democratic women.

But why the spike now?

The Second Amendment is the original women's rights movement because self-defense is empowerment.

And I think you're seeing more Republican women are buying guns because they refuse to be victims.

And what you're also seeing is there's a rise in anti-police policies that could put them in danger.

And so when you couple all of these things together and the Republican platform championing the Second Amendment, championing self-defense and championing the right to not only carry arms but to use them to protect your family, I think that's why you're seeing a lot of women increasingly on the right utilizing their Second Amendment.

There's also a rise in some female social shooting clubs.

And so really destigmatizing caring, utilizing weapons and being able to not only protect yourself, but to be able to do it in style has really expand the market not only on firearms, but also on accessories needed to keep that protected on your body.

My assumption would be that the spike is because of the fear mongering that happens from the Republican Party.

With regard to talking about the rise in crime and talking about the rise in immigration and people coming into your communities.

And, you know, and that kind of fear stoking that the Republican Party has done for quite some time increases the level of fear that people have, namely women, namely white women.

And so I can understand why Republican women would then decide that they're going to increase their gun ownership because of the fear.

I think it goes hand in hand.

But don't you think the gun lobby about 20 or more years ago, I remember because we did stories on it, first started marketing, particularly to women and maybe particularly to Republican women.

At about that time, don't you think that might, Danielle, drive gun ownership, too?

Yes, I think that.

And also the NRA and other lobbyists that work on gun issues and expanding their market base, you do so by fear.

They do.

They send out pamphlets, they send out emails, they send out.

They do a lot of work around trying to amp up the fact that this country is not safe.

You are not safe in your neighborhoods.

These people are coming in to get you.

And so you need to arm yourselves every time that there is a shooting.

We see the same rise in gun ownership across different groups, depending on who was the target at that time as well.

Two different things.

One, there is a larger body of Republican women than there were years ago.

I mean, our voter registration is outpacing the Democrats by a lot.

So there's more Republican women from which to draw from.

But yes, the marketing has been more to women.

And we know that more people of color, both male and female, are also.

Gun ownership is up with people of color as well as women.

And it's only fear mongering if there's no basis for the fear and in some of these localities.

That's my second point.

There is a basis for fear, and people are worried about longer response times from police, etc., and they're starting to feel like they have to take things into their own hands.

I've been a gun owner since I was mugged.

I was mugged in D.C. back in the 70s, and when they pulled the gun on me, I went and had a friend of mine who worked at the NRA train me and I got a gun not that long afterwards.

In fact, the joke was I got divorced after my husband kept getting told what a great shot I was.

So.

But, you know, I've done it for sport as well as for protection all these years.

But, Debra, you know, it used to be anyway, I haven't seen any current data on this, but again, maybe up till about ten years ago, it was true that the gun owners were way more likely to use it on themselves or, you know, use it on each other or a child gets a hold of the gun and kills him or herself and the parents.

Then it was to stop a criminal with a gun trying to break into your house.

Are those data still accurate?

Do you know?

Theres a different mindset that goes on with Democrat, more liberal women about guns.

This is a market.

This is.

And the NRA is there to help promote guns, to help, you know, manufacturers of guns.

This is a for profit market.

No doubt about it.

Just in real quick reference, when I was a state prosecutor, when I was a federal prosecutor, when I was a judge, we did not have carry and concealed, but I could because of those positions.

I never chose to, for a lot of reasons.

And, one of those also concerned in my family.

I mean, they don't think I'm irresponsible, but there was fear of what could happen in the home if you mistook for my husband, you know, or some noise in the house and perceived this, that you shoot and hurt somebody.

And I always worried about that.

We have rifles on our family farm for hunting and shooting.

And I also think demographically and gender wise, you have more concern from liberal women about school shootings and the frequency of school shootings, you know, and the massacre of children.

And what is this gun situation that is exploding and coming out in violence this way against children.

The data in the Gallup poll show that, women in between 2007 and 2012, women were, owned 19% of guns.

And now it's something like 43%.

If I remember correctly, what is going on with this spike that huge among Republican women, I mean?

I actually agree with Ann.

Part of her point, that, you know, there is a fear out there.

I was never for defunding the police.

I hated the term.

That's not really what it meant, that we're not going to fund our police departments anymore.

It was for more accountability.

I think that help spiked it.

I do believe that marketing has a great thing to do.

Fear motivates people.

We know this highly motivated by fear, and I think that's part of it.

And the Republican women and conservative women respond to that, I believe, more We're also taught not to fear guns.

And I will tell you, if I could get the liberal women out to a rifle range with me or gun range and have them shoot, I think they'd find it actually can be fun.

Ive seen that.

I've shot every kind of gun you can think of.

Shootings, even machine guns, everything.

And it can be fun.

It can be fun.

There goes your hearing, though.

No, you wear.

You got you.

Yeah, but still not still.

It's just what's transmitted through your bones.

I mean, my God.

I when I was in Army ROTC, that's where I learned to shoot rifles.

Same here.

And, but that's a to me, that's like a more acceptable training for a profession that you may be going into where you're going to be military personnel, then saying, I want to walk around with a handgun.

And I think that's where more liberal women have a problem.

I mean, I at times look around now that we have carry and conceale here in this state and I'll go, who has a gun on them?

You know, going to the grocery store, going anywhere, who has a gun on them.

That at any time can come out and start shooting.

Yeah.

I mean.

That's a reason.

I would just I would add that if, you know, if in fact, more guns made people safer, then America would be the safest country in the world.

And it's not.

We have the most mass shootings in the world.

We have the most school shootings in the world.

And we have more guns in this country than we do people.

And so it's always this conversation about, well, about increased safety.

Right?

And yet we don't create any of the policies that would actually create safer communities.

Instead, it's just about marketing and creating a bigger bounty for the gun lobby and for gun manufacturers.

Good point, Danielle.

And could, do we know if the increased number of people owning guns in this country and the increase in the number of guns many people own is having an impact on violent crime?

Mental health has more of an impact than the number of guns.

Yeah.

I was going to say it is a tool.

Just like a car is a tool.

Theres hit and run accidents, but you don't see them attempting to ban cars.

I think the problem that we have here is that we want to blame the weapon and shift accountability from the person, and more importantly, the mental health of the person.

If these weapons have been around since way before I was born, or anyone on this panel was more, what has changed in our culture to where now people are utilizing this in violent ways against children?

All right, let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter @BonnieErbe.

From gun ownership to AI.

In a groundbreaking study, responses from Chat GPT programs were rated higher on empathy, cultural competence and connection compared with those from experienced human therapists.

Participants also struggled to distinguish between AI and human responses.

That said, experts warn AI lacks the empathy and nuanced understanding of human therapists.

This limits AI's effectiveness in complex therapy scenarios.

Regardless, recent reports say more and more people are using ChatGPT as a substitute for a therapist.

What is going on here, Danielle?

The obvious point to me is it's free.

And therapy is expensive.

A lot of folks need therapy or need mental health counseling.

And they don't have insurance.

But what more than that is driving this thought trend?

One I think that there is obviously a continued fascination with artificial intelligence as it increases.

Right.

It's usage that people have with it.

And the more obviously that you speak with AI, the more that it learns.

The more that it learns you.

It, this terrifies me.

I'll be honest.

I think that if you are somebody that is in need and requires therapy, which I think that everyone, frankly, should have, you should be speaking with somebody that is licensed and trained in order to do so.

But to your point, I think that the rise in it is because it's free.

And I think that you know what, what worries me is that it's artificial intelligence, right?

Like, it does not understand empathy.

It does not understand human expression like it is still very rudimentary regardless of the money that is being put into it.

And so.

And let me also point out, it doesn't have the education that a license therapist has.

And so for somebody that could be in crisis, right.

What is AI actually going to offer to that person?

It's going to be based on the information that they've already received from other sources, that are using it and spitting that back out and regurgitating.

So I think that it's very troublesome.

And there are other ways to access therapy that is online.

Right.

That is cheaper.

That is cheap, but that you know that you're actually dealing with real people.

So this is troubling to me.

The escalation in it.

We have to look at AI as a great equalizer.

And I understand why some people are afraid, specifically when it comes to using language models like a ChatGPT and infusing them and or replacing, honestly, mental health practitioners and therapists with AI.

But the reality is that there's about 70% of people struggling with mental health in this country, and unfortunately, they're not in any pipeline of therapy.

I was able to meet a really amazing founder, Roxie Amadu.

She has a company called roxHealth where she utilizes AI to bridge the gap.

She hasn't replaced a therapist, but they use AI in identifying the different needs of people.

More personalized behavioral interventions and guiding them into care and breaking down some of the barriers within making mental health more accessible and so I think that there's a way to utilize AI within the mental health space that is going to be complementary to therapies as opposed to competing with them.

What about AI being taken over by some evil, you know, James Bond, enemy kind of person and then trying to convince people to convince people to murder each other or, people don't worry about that?

Absolutely.

It's so funny that you say that because I'm actually in Florida at a cybersecurity conference right now.

And so, yes, there are bad actors on the internet and they can, you know, utilize technology in ways that are not good, specifically when it comes to people who are the most vulnerable mentally.

And so that is something that definitely needs to be looked at, is the security element and the trust that we have within the technology and whether or not we should be as trusting or what type of ramifications, are there going to be specifically within some of the software that protect us from being possibly breached?

And then our mental health being manipulated by those on the other side?

Debra, your thoughts about the question that insurance companies keep driving people to Zoom for doctors appointments of all types, not just therapy, but because so much therapy is going on online now anyway?

Is that what is narrowing the perception between people, you know, consulting ChatGPT versus a real human being?

That's a great question.

And I'm a little conflicted about this issue.

I personally would want a real human being and therapist and looking at them and FaceTiming.

But is what we're seeing going on right now?

I mean, there's going to be a lot of people kicked off insurance, a lot of people that, we say, oh, it costs more.

But for some people, this is all there's going to be, and I believe that some is better than none.

Especially if you're in a crisis.

I mean, we all know how difficult it is to get health care and accessibility.

Some of us have better health care and accessibility than others.

I also worry about security breaches.

And where's that information going to go?

And what you said.

And can you just go into your records and find everything that you said to your therapist?

Will this be able to be pulled and in a court case, in divorce proceedings or any other type of court case, but particularly in divorce?

I saw it, trying to get the records, trying to get the therapist on the stand, and people were like, I thought my conversations were private and I felt safe.

So that's a very big concern to me with AI.

I'm glad you brought up the James Bond example, because it just proves humans are still needed in the equation to sort of monitor and keep stuff like that from happening.

So thank you for giving us a purpose on an ongoing basis.

But there are people, as some said on this panel, who this can serve as sort of an opening gateway into other therapy if they need it.

And there are certain personality styles that deal better with machines and dogs for therapy than they do human beings.

So it may well be that, you know, there's at least probably a good half of the population this could benefit tremendously, and they might feel more open talking to a machine than they would a human being.

It would be off-putting because they don't really get along with human beings that well.

Anyway, so again, I see it as maybe something to use as a gateway into other therapy if needed.

Well, there's still a disassociation that we were talking about before we went on camera today.

And, you know, that is the interpersonal reaction with other human beings.

We're into our phones.

We're talking on Twitter, Facebook.

It's just one more disassociation of human contact that I think is very dangerous in our society today.

Is there any way they should change training for human therapists?

To make it more, you know, or I don't know or train more people.

So maybe the cost goes down.

What are other solutions to this problem other than AI.

Well, we clearly need to spend more priority, make it more of a priority to spend more on mental health and, yes, look at expanding services and finding ways to make it more affordable in the private sector.

It isn't just a matter of pumping government money in, but to really get the society look at this as a priority.

I just don't see us going that way, Ann, in our current situation that we're all dealing with every day, I just don't see.

Hey, we need more help, you know, not government money.

Well, you can't rely on insurance companies.

We all know how they reject claims over and over again or refusing to pay claims.

So we were just talking about the gun issue and saying, oh, it's a mental health issue, so we have to back that up then with, yes, we're going to take care of these mental health issues, which we're not doing.

I think you'll find that this Congress and Senate actually have an inclination to do that.

Several of the leading members of both bodies have said that.

Absolutely.

And we're thinking about this in terms of mental health services through the government.

While I'm thinking of it as a private sector issue, when we're talking about therapy and AI and how people are utilizing these, these are private sector problems that deserve solutions from the private sector, and it doesn't always have to flow and go through the government.

What I do think the government should do is create a culture for businesses to be able to thrive while using things like AI, however, making sure that it's regulated so we don't have HIPAA violations.

Right, but thats government intervention, that's government regulation.

That's not government funding though.

It's regulation.

Government should create a culture for businesses to thrive, and then the private sector should then thrive.

The regulations yes, come from the government, but it's not the government paying private industries to do things that they're supposed to be doing and competing.

Im like we have Health and Human Services.

Well, we did for a reason, right?

Which was because of the fact that you're able to help as many people as possible.

And when you're talking about the private sector, again, we were talking about the cost of things.

Right.

So you want to monetize people's pain.

Whereas the government used to actually care about the people as a whole and figure out the ways in which you're able to utilize insurance, the ways that you're actually able to say if everything is about mental health, mental health, and yet there's an entire party that could actually care less about helping people with mental health as you're trying to kick people off of insurance.

And so, no, it's not a private sector problem.

It should be a problem that actual government wants to fix, but not this government that we're currently in so.

We're not trying to kick people off.

Really?

Because I think that there has been, I think that there's been at least, oh, I don't know, 70 some odd votes over the last several, over the last several years to kick people off of their insurance and also trying to kick people off of Medicaid and also trying to kick people off of Social Security and also trying to kick people off.

Thats just not true.

Its not true.

Okay, okay.

And what is true is that people are incredibly afraid right now.

Yes.

Because you just got out of RFK Jr., you know, a list of drugs that are not going to be supported anymore at all.

And a lot of them are mental health drugs.

So, you know, you got to put your money where your mouth is and say, are we supporting or are we not supporting?

I have several friends that have kids that are on bipolar medication, that those medications are on that list.

That's mental health.

Well, some of that will shake out.

But what his concern is our first step is medicate the kids, medicate the kids, medicate the kids.

And he's saying a lot of those kids should not have been medicated.

They were other measures and it made them sicker.

And what's wild is that he's not a doctor.

He's not, I mean, I just, I find it laughable that we're like, first of all, that we have a Health and Human Services secretary that has no medical background whatsoever.

Like, I like space.

Does that mean that I should run space programs?

No, it doesn't.

So like, don't talk to me about the man who's telling people that need medication for their lives, for bipolar, for antidepressants, because he doesn't like them, because he doesn't think that they work, that now all of a sudden people aren't going to be able to access them like this country used to be about choice and having the choice to medicate your child based on recommendations from a doctor, not from somebody who has kook conspiracy theories that is now in charge of the health and safety of 330 million Americans.

Like, give me a break.

I think we've taken this conversation and we've really just smeared the paint because the truth of the matter is that if you are going to sit on this panel and pretend like there is not an issue with pharmaceutical companies in the way in which specifically America has been overly diagnosed, then it's not even a genuine conversation here.

And I. Yeah and I'd love to have that conversation with doctors.

A lot of the problems that we have currently in the health system were perpetuated by the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies.

So just because you're able to diagnose a problem doesn't mean that you're the exact person that should fix it.

And I'm not saying that they shouldn't be at the table, but what I'm saying is it should be a stakeholder approach.

It should be the parents, it should be the clients, it should be the patients.

It should also be the insurance companies.

It should be everyone coming together and doing that.

And so I just want to make sure that we're trying to at least build some common ground around a very divisive and polarizing issue.

Are we actually going after in these last 30 days, are we going after insurance companies?

Are we talking about regulating them?

Are we talking about bringing them into a decision-making process?

And the answer's no.

And then one of the most powerful lobbies in this country, and we all know it.

Its in 30 days.

It's a long way from them making any final decisions.

And it is time we let the process play out a little more before we jump in and declare the end of the world.

All right, we are out of time.

Thank you everybody.

This was a very enlightening discussion.

That's it for this edition of To the Contrary.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, the address on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for To the Contrary, provided by: