Gun Control Research Paper

Gun Control, a Mental Health Issue in America In particular, gun control of late has rapidly become an even more controversial topic in America due to violent acts against the public by troubled individuals. In an article written by Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish, “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings and the Politics of American Firearms”, the authors state that “In the United States, popular and political discourse frequently focuses on the causal impact of mental illness in the aftermath of mass shootings” (Metzl and MacLeish sec.1). This is not to mention the impact that these disturbances have on the society; this issue, unfortunately, remains so overlooked that media sources only offer the subject their attention after a tragedy. No mentally
stable person decides to harm people solely due to the fact that he or she can obtain a weapon easily, meaning that those who kill must have a mental illness of some degree. There is a serious mental health issue in this country that has gone unaddressed for far too long.
Mental illness stands as an extremely serious problem in America, this country needs to take action and provide proper attention and care to the individuals who suffer from a mental illness. According to the article “What is Mental Health”, “The core concepts of mental health identified are mainly individual and functional, [in terms of] the ability or capacity of a person to effectively deal with or change his/her environment” (Manwell, Barbic, Roberts, Durisko, Lee, Ware and McKenzie sec. 5). If a person cannot deal with his or her environment, and becomes disgruntled and violent; while still being able to exercise his or her right to own a gun, then that provides America with a formidable problem. Guns are very capable of inflicting great damage to all members of society, and an operator of a gun needs to be perfectly capable of handling a gun and the responsibilities of owning a gun. Because of the fact that mentally ill people are more susceptible of “snapping” at any moment and becoming dangerous without any warning signs, then that alone is reason enough to strictly regulate the availability that mentally ill individuals have towards guns.
If there were simply a revision or an addition of mental well-being evaluations necessary prior to purchase, this alone would aid in ensuring public safety.
This will not make the overall process of obtaining a firearm harder, though applicants would be forced to pass certain additional criteria to be able to purchase a firearm. If everyone who would appreciate owning a firearm stood legally obliged to receive an evaluation from a psychiatrist first, the situation would be significantly different. Instead of dealing with potential violence in the future, individuals not fit to own a firearm would stand forbidden from ever getting the chance. Once a person is found to be, in fact, unfit, his or her name could be logged in a database, as described in the Public Health Brief composition. In the Article “Using Research Evidence to Reframe the Policy Debate Around Mental Illness and Guns”, the authors describe how “Connecticut and Indiana each provides a process for law enforcement to assess whether an individual poses an imminent danger and whether the interests of public safety warrant a prohibition on the purchase and possession of firearms” (McGinty, Applebaum, Bonnie, Grilley, Horwitz, Sawnson and Webster sec. 4). This happens to be a wonderful precautionary measure and step in the right direction; however, it does not completely solve the problem. Solving the issue at the source will most effectively improve this
ordeal.
The “Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide” article, “Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US Firearms-related fatalities” (Swanson, McGinty, Fazel and Mays sec. 1). Suicide is a product of the unstable and irregular thought process of those who suffer from mental illnesses that can occasionally make them suddenly perform actions without a second thought. suicide is, in fact, a crime, and all gun related crime needs to stop, including suicide, “People don’t [just] kill themselves because they own guns. They kill themselves because they are ill” (Ablow par. 11).
By no means is any group of people trying to claim that mentally unstable people are the only ones committing gun related violent acts. Rather, these stated groups are just claiming that mentally unstable people are the root of the gun related crimes, meaning that the mentally ill are the most likely to snap at any moment and go on a killing spree. Mass murders are the gun related crimes that affect America the greatest, so it would only make sense that America would address mass murders first.
Guns are potentially dangerous; there is no question about that, but with today’s advancements in technology, a gun is virtually dangerous only in the hands of a human operator, for as it is said, it is the finger that pulls the trigger. So rather than banning guns, it would be the wiser decision to ban potentially dangerous individual operators from owning a firearm. If the government were to put added effort into making sure that guns were being obtained by responsible people through set criteria, as well as enacting more severe punishments for those who unlawfully possess or use a firearm, the daily lives of the American people could potentially be much safer with less gun violence. If there were more lawful owners of guns walking the street with a firearm in their possession, more criminals would be hesitant to commit a crime. If a criminal knew that he or she had a high chance of being confronted with a gun if they committed a crime, that criminal very well may not think the crime was worth it anymore. Having additional mentally sane law abiding citizens carrying guns with them in public areas would essentially be the same as having extra law enforcement. The gun holders could easily, safely and effectively ward off criminals, keeping America as a safer place to live, one criminal at a time.
If this enhanced set of criteria was in fact put in place, and full assessed each and every individual before allowing somebody the right of owning a gun, then America would immediately be on a road too a safer community. However, this is not the case, America is currently allowing guns to easily be possessed by anyone with the money to spend on a firearm. In this lack of security, where the United States of America is allowing guns to be purchased so freely without even fully knowing the purchaser’s intent with a firearm, gun related crime rampant. For that very reason, it should be mandated that one undergo extensive mental tests from a professional before purchasing a firearm. This may be an issue for certain individuals, and that is why this cannot be taken lightly. Often, mental illnesses are commonly first identified by the people closest to the individual. A person may not realize that they have a personality disorder and unknowingly harm somebody. On the other hand, there are people who understand that they have a problem, however, refuse to share that with a doctor or family. Due to these circumstances in the “Playing Mind Games” article, “State lawmakers have proposed a bill restricting firearm purchases by individuals who are merely suspected by laymen of having mental health issues. Family members, partners and friends would have the ability to alert law enforcement if they believe that any person poses a threat to themselves, or others” (Terrell par. 17). This could be a successful way to identify illness and be able to treat it. Successfully persuading people to come forward about mental illness is something that needs to be dealt with care and is not to be hurried. As a nation, the United States has to improve its efforts of encouraging people who feel they have a problem to come forward, and in assuring them that they will receive proper and confidential treatment. In no way are ill people a problem, but our entire country has to be absolutely certain that mental illness does not pose a threat, before allowing individuals the full constitutional right of owning a firearm. America as one nation can assure that this happens by treating the mentally ill for their sickness and restricting their access to weapons if needed.
Nevertheless, there is still a need to treat the people affected by mental illness, and it is not a simple task to accomplish. In “Missing the Mark”, the author describes the extensive process of improving the lives of people with these illnesses.
“The recovery or treatment process can span a lifetime, meaning that the individual participating needs individual strength, insight, supportive relationships, and community services in order to function in society.
There are two major aspects of recovery: first, stabilizing symptoms and restoring social function and, second, changing one’s attitude and feelings, and developing a new meaning or purpose in one’s life.” (Wolf and Rosen 855) Due to the longevity of this process, helping somebody become a functioning member of society may provide numerous obstacles.
In the article “Getting the Facts Straight About Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Putting

Compassion Before Fear providing much-needed mental health treatment may have some impact

on reducing the small”, authors Carl E. Fisher, M.D., and Jeffrey A. Lieberman, also M.D. state

that “Ultimately, providing much-needed mental health treatment may have some impact on

reducing the small subset of violence attributable to mental illness, and any effect on a problem

as devastating as gun violence is helpful” (3). Even if there are only few numbers of violent gun

related acts that can be pegged on mental illness, these authors clearly state that any help on
a

topic so devastating is helpful. It just so happens that the few gun related acts that can be

factually attributed to people who possess a mental illness happens to be the ones that grab

America’s utmost attention. These few violent gun related acts consist of mass shootings such as

the Columbine massacre. No one likes to hear about a mass shooting, and events like this and

similar, devastate America’s community as a whole.

There are many accounts of mass shootings inked to mental illness, in the article “Guns And Mental Health” authors explain how “a series of mass shootings from 2007-2012 perpetrated by gunmen who suffered from serious mental illness (Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora, among others) . . . in many cases legally purchased the firearms they used to kill” (“Guns And Mental Health” par. 1). As well as one of the most well-known example of mental illness related gun violence that very well may have been avoided given that the issues were detected in time was the Columbine massacre in 1999. The shooters each had their own mental health issues; Eric, a psychopath, and Dylan who was a suicidal depressive. The boys and their radical behavior became more deranged leading up to the shooting. The evolution of their actions is vividly described in the “Violence Prevention After Columbine” article. “Research on factors that place youths at risk of violent behavior suggests that risk factors tend to operate attentively. In other words, the more risk factors to which a child is exposed to, the added chance he or she might become violent.” (Hobson, Flaccio and Gottfried 157). This was the case with Dylan and Eric, as the severity of their illnesses was not clear at the time, and their behaviors became obsessions that led to the monstrous acts committed. While Eric did take anti-depressants, those reasons were unrelated to him being a psychopath. Nevertheless, if the boys had been acknowledged, diagnosed, and had undergone therapy or medication, their madness may not have reached the extent that it did. Unfortunately, no one noticed Eric or Dylan’s erratic behavior; it could have been due to their peers neglecting to acknowledge that something was wrong, or they did not comprehend that Dylan and Eric’s behavior showed signs of mental disorders. Coinciding, criminal activity that is mixed with mental health issues is unpredictable and challenging to step ahead of due to the instability of mentally ill individuals. Citizens around the world who bear a mental illness, and engage in these violent actions tend to target the utmost helpless and innocent members of a society. The actions that the troubled individuals perform are absolutely appalling, but that is how it is since they do not think of the consequences of their actions ahead of time in a comparable manner to that of a mentally sane individual. The reason mentally unstable people are able to get by the system and commit these acts is because our society is blind to their illnesses, and allows these illnesses to go without treatment. The citizens of the United States of America need to first understand what makes people perform such unthinkable actions and provide them with the care they need instead of overlooking one of the possible roots of violence and punishing all people, including those who truly look to perform responsibly and as law abiding citizens with their firearms’. This major mental health issue could be resolved through awareness, treatment, and funding without restricting gun laws even further. While even the most astute in the fields of firearms and mental health will dispute both relevant and irrelevant facts, and our politicians tend to take a stance that is one of “political correctness” rather than of moral and ethical importance, The people in this nation can certainly aid in, if nothing else, taking a small step towards aiding our brethren with mental illnesses and eliminating some gun violence.