Options and Recommendations for Gun Control and Mental Illness Policy
Options for Gun Control and Mental Illness Policy
Human existence is highly dependent on security mechanisms worldwide. Consequently, every government is responsible for the enhancement of security for its citizens. The use of the firearms by civilians is, thus, prohibited by most world legislation, except for some isolated cases when individuals are allowed to possess firearms for self-defense. Gun control refers to legislations, proposed designs, and restrictions that are set to modify or limit possession, trade and use of the firearms. Virtually, all governments are to ensure that the supply of the firearms by private entities while the task is left in the hands of the government agents. However, the gun control policies exhibit acute variance worldwide. For instance, certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, possess very strict legislations pertaining to gun possession of gun. Such states as the United States exerts modest limits to gun possession. Possession of any gun through gun control framework is relatively refuted in the sense that it possesses significantly huge dangers with respect to widespread ownership of guns (Webster & Vernick, 2013).
There are three distinct criteria used in order to offer insight concerning the options for gun control and mental illness policy. Only two criteria will be mentioned in this study. The first Criterion involves the training incentives to health care professionals, and the seond one involves monetary incentives to gun sale professionals. As a matter of facts, the accord of training incentives to healthcare professionals has failed drastically due to its weakness in addressing the cause of the problem that is the legal framework that has left a lot to the public domain and poorly regulated holding and manipulation of the guns. Furthermore, healthcare professional have also been actively involved into the grafts at the expense of the quality services in the healthcare disciplines (Webster & Vernick, 2013).
Consequently, the recurrent incentives given to the professionals do not only trigger laxity, but also lead to futile attempts to reduce the gun fatalities. It needs be noted that the process of licensing and offering trade licenses for the gun dealers has been filled with logistical issues that the law has been yet to cancel completely. As a result, the training incentives to healthcare professionals does very little to minimize the propensity to manipulate guns for the offensive rather than defensive means. Indeed, most individuals, particularly those suffering from mental disorder, resist voluntary submission to the healthcare professionals or the hospitals for clinical evaluation. This situation is further worsened by the lack of legal stipulation on the revocation procedure of the firearms license for the individuals who turn hostile to the community or lose their mental control (Agger & Luke, 2014).
As a result, the individuals end up in retaining firearms despite being a threat to their own lives and those people around them. In this regard, the mental illness policy fails to address all individuals who willingly or unwillingly fail to return guns through amnesty in the context of becoming a potential threat to the society. Consequently, the high level of training incentives does not offer any tangible change in the mode of addressing the gun fatalities as it does not alleviate the cause of the troubled society (Webster & Vernick, 2013).
Essentially, the Mental Health of America (MHA) was conceptualized by Beers Clifford in 1909. By then, it had been known as the National Committee for Mental Hygiene. The committees work is to improve lifestyles of the mental health victims within the United States via lobbying efforts and pronounced research. Furthermore, there has been a series of the government initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges of the mental health systems. In particular, in 1946, the National Mental Health Act was passed by Harry Truman, thus creating the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). This also involved the allotment of the government funds in order to support research with respect to causes and subsequent treatment of different mental illnesses. In 1963, the Mental Retardation and Community Health Centers Construction Act was passed by the Congress. The latter provided the national governments funding in the prospects of developing community-based mental healthcare for mental illness victims. Furthermore, the National Alliance for Mentally Ill People was organized in 1979. It was aimed at offering education, support and research services to people with the pronounced psychiatric illnesses. Other federal interventions included the reinstating of social welfare programs that have worked solidly to improve access to mental healthcare (Agger & Luke, 2014).
As there has been escalating cases of shooting reported in the media, there have also been major attempts to curtail gun violence at the expense of fixing the cultural issues. The following measures are aimed at perpetuating such violence. The in-depth perception postulates that among most society members, many people believe that the federal government is responsible for the implementation of mental health via the use of medical coverage, as well as evaluations. Consequently, such attempts may bring shooting to an end while stabilizing the citizens. Indeed, gun control among the mentally ill citizens is one of the main concern and a factor that has tended to enhance life protection. In Washington, there had been controversial debate on the proficient levels that would see gun safety laws enacted. Essentially, the most heating debate concerns the issue of giving more resource to mental healthcare providers as a way of improving their capacity to diagnose and treat the mental illness victims while, at the same time restraining, them from subsequent purchasing of weapons (Agger & Luke, 2014).
Thus, there was a clear connection between gross shooting of people and mental illnesses of the perpetrators. Consequently, this issue prompted the Senate to enact mental illness policy that underlines the circumstances under which people should be allowed to own firearms, particularly the mental illness victims.
Many lawmakers assert that the use of the federal background check system derails the prospects to advance the mental health provisions. Such measures, therefore, may be used by the opponents of the expanded checks to restrain restriction of weapons to certain groups only in the future. Some gun rights advocates also assert that the open issue concerning mental health may be used to reinstate the new federal gun laws in the future. Consequently, Senator Richard Blumenthal postulated that fighting such controversy would be done by formulating the mental health policy to address the concerns raised amicably. Consequently, this formed the basis for the formulation of the mental illness policy. However, the unfolding incidences of gun shooting have led to the development of a stricter regulation mechanism (Agger & Luke, 2014).
For instance, following the shootings in Newtown, the New York legislature introduced stricter regulations on gun possession. In particular, the provision demanded that mental health professionals provide timely reporting to local officials about any person deemed to cause harm to either themselves or others. In case the officials consent to the assessment and identify that an individual owns a gun, the law enforcement agency is, therefore, to confiscate the gun, as well as cancelle the individuals gun license. On the other hand, in Florida, the republican-controlled lawmakers enacted a legislation that extended gun bans to individuals who are identified as potentially dangerous to themselves or other people. The latter case also encompassed these individuals who voluntarily admit their mental health instability within the precinct of the mental health facility (Agger & Luke, 2014).
Gun violence and mental illness are closely related since many cases of gun violence are linked to mental illnesses. On the other hand, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to bear arms and ammunitions provided sertain conditions are met. The issue of mental illness is particularly complex because some patients may refuse to commit to treatment and continue handling guns even after developing mental disorders. Such people can end up causing fatal accidents. This would have been prevented if the gun control system had had a favorable method of addressing occurrences, such as mental illnesses that develop after a gun-handling certificate has been provided. Some cities in the United States of America have been paid attention to due to the high frequencies of murder related to the gun fatalities from the mentally ill persons. This necessitates the need to initiate gun control promptly. In response to this, James Brady initiated campaigns to control gun violence in some of these cities. The National Rifle Association (NRA) joined this campaign, and also, a bill was passed to strengthen the gun laws in some of these cities (Levy, Karst & Winkler, 2000).
2.0 Gun Sales Professionals and Gun Control
Gun dealers are the main reason for mental illness, as well as their access to guns. However, most of the mentally ill victims who own guns have acquired them through the legal means. This means that the mental illness policy does not adequately define the process of acquisition of the guns. The overall effect is the increased gun fatalities. Fro instance, in California, there has been an increased demand for mental healthcare and its subsequent access. Nevertheless, better access to improved mental healthcare may not provide the best result in reducing a gun violence problem. Indeed, the perpetrators of gun crimes should undergo a psychological test to reveal such conditions. However, it is also clear that most of the mass shooting in California is perpetrated by three groups of individuals namely: delusional insane, psychopaths, and suicidally depressed. Indeed, most of the crime perpetrators have never engaged in active psychotic conditions (Ciment, 2006).
On the contrary, the perpetrators have premeditated criminal offences, such as shocking disregard of empathy. Consequently, the people perpetrating such behaviors are suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. This makes the mental health professionals unable to cope with the problem given that the issue is far beyond the medical illness, but rather physical disturbances. Training in the field of the psychological problems by mental health professionals would, therefore, help mitigate the problem. This also offers the reasons as to why training incentives to mental health professionals may help combat the problem. However, the sharpening of the professional capacities of the mental health professionals must go hand in hand with the formulating of the stringent mental health policies concerning mentally ill persons who reach hospitals with or without self-will. One of the reasons as to why psychological expertise is deemed essential is that Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) remains complex to diagnose. Most often than not, such victims never seek medical assistance or accept their own fate. Consequently, people avoid any direct contact with the mental health experts who may help in the due diagnosis process. Despite the fact that friends and families may perceive the Antisocial trait, the majority of them perceive it as just a negative trait and may use such terms as insensitivity and manipulative (Schaefer & Lamm, 1997).
It is also very hard to appoint treatment or even separate victims of APD from the general public. Consequently, the mental illness policy that does not define the limits of gun possession should be reviewed. It should be stated that mentally competent individuals only have the right to access and manipulate the guns the day-to-day activities and protection. For instance, the law may be formulated in a way that would raise the revenue towards obtaining a gun for a civilian who has gone through a medical test to establish his/her mental status. Just as the driving test is taken for every individual to qualify to drive in the highways, the same criteria ought to be used before giving licenses to own and use the guns (Ciment, 2006).
For instance, the employment of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) towards those individuals who want to possess guns could be rolled out. The MMPI refers to a scientific test that is used by psychologists to assess the mental state of individuals. This would help in ensuring that only the mentally fit persons can access and own guns. However, gun dealers should also refrain from making direct sales of guns. They also should cooperate with the medical institutions to identify persons who can be allowed to use and possess guns. This move would help in mitigating the prospects of crime based on the gun fatalities (Ciment, 2006).
2.1. Why Monetary Incentives to Gun Professional Dealers would/would not Work?
The choice of these criteria was particularly based on a number of things. Firstly, this criterion provides a fast appeal to anyone who hears of it, as well as the gun dealers. Secondly, it is easier to provide such incentives as clearance of the tax burden that allows investing in various physical means, such as construction and hiring of personnel to set up taskforce to oversee the process of the gun sales. Thirdly, this process is also increases a profit margin of the dealers and, therefore, minimizes their greed to accumulate more money through all means, including bending the laws. The provision of monetary incentives to gun dealers may be quite effective in order to reduce the prospects of gun sales to persons believed to be potential threats to themselves, as well as other people. This is particularly the case since the gun dealers target high profit generation as any rational producer could do. Consequently, monetary incentives ensure that such dealers have accumulated normal profits and, therefore, boost acuity in their jobs (Ciment, 2006).
Any merchant aims at maximizing profits while reducing incidences of his/her losses. As a result, the use of monetary incentive to the gun sellers is a way of increasing the net profits by the dealers, on the one hand, while mitigating the greed for the maximum profits by individuals, on the other hand. Fro instance, in California, the individuals owning guns, dealers, as well as collectors have to follow certain federal laws if they want possess firearms or run a business dealing with weapon. In particular, the US Constitution underwent the Second Amendment that provides the right to citizens to own and produce arms. This controversial statement often act as a major impediment to the owning of guns by the arbitrary parties in California while the victims argue against current restrictions (Mantel, 2013).
On the other hand, the gun laws often stipulate the type and degree to which an individual may own firearms. The national laws also vary accordingly. The gun policy allowing free trade in guns regardless of the mental capacity and quality of the individuals is a major impediment to the gun control framework. Ideally, offering monetary incentives to dealers provides a platform to close the gap between the loose gun regulations from one country to another. Since people migrate from one country to another, they may buy guns without the due process of psychological tests, such as the MMPI. Consequently, this leads to extensive spread of guns in the world. However, with monetary incentives, the gun dealers can exercise some critical roles of regulating the actual spread of the guns despite the revenue generation in the absolute terms. Gun dealers sell gun to civilians and the military forces (Agger & Luke, 2014).
The use of monetary incentives, such as the tax benefits, may end up in enhancing different gun control mechanisms. Such mechanisms would encourage most professional gun dealers to redefine their production while, at the same time, enhancing credible transfers of guns to individuals believed and psychologically tested to be mentally capacitated to handle and use guns. The use of monetary incentives would of great significance. Secondly, monetary incentives would encourage the perpetrators to use and manipulate the historical perspectives of the individuals involved in the gun fatalities or otherwise. This clear record would further enhance the legal measures setup to strengthen the capacity of the government to control firearms in the region. Indeed, the use of such incentives leads to the enhanced procedural gun sales, as well as provides a pronounced level of gun control within the established legal framework. Thirdly, the improvement of record keeping with regard to gun sales for the professional traders would also enhance their networks and subsequently ease the tracing prompt if an incredible individual is caught purchasing guns (Mantel, 2013).
On the other hand, the offering of monetary incentives to the gun sale professionals neither reduces nor eliminates the gun fatalities completely. Monetary incentives only increase the pleasure of job retention capacity for the gun dealers, but they do not address the issue of gun possession in absolute terms. The aim of monetary incentives is aimed at reducing fraud sales of guns to the non-accredited individuals who may account for lethal engagement. It is clear that the majority of the illicit firearms in the world, particularly the small arms, are found in the domain of civilians. The policy makers also fail to solve the problems through protective measures that would see the reduction in the spread of guns to civilians, which, by far, represents the main source of gun fatalities worldwide (Mantel, 2013).
Although this process may lead to successful control of gun possession and use, gun sale professional are subject to rational expectations of investors. Essentially, any rational investor aims at increasing profits at all cost provided it is not possible. Ideally, the prospects of clean records are a subjective case in the domain of the professionals. It should be noted that gun dealers can easily manipulate their records in order to garner the gains when good records are provided. Consequently, such biased records would negatively influence the gun distributions, particularly in the domain of civilians and those who may be deemed unfit by law in particular. For instance, in the US where the majority of the people believe in the right of gun ownership, the case of data manipulation may be pronounced at the expense of societal gains from the widespread guns. Thus, for the measures to succeed, mental illness and gun control policies must be reinforced with the cooperation of all interested parties who are involved into production, supply and use of the guns, such as the government, law enforcement agencies, health care professionals, and gun dealer professionals (Agger & Luke, 2014).
Secondly, monetary incentives do not offer guarantee of subsequent accountability. Those gun professional dealers may not be held accountable for enjoying the incentives provided by the federal agencies for weapon control as a result of failure operation within the provisions of the law. Indeed, most operators are huge cartels with strong influence, both politically and financially. This implies that loose sale of weapons are done at the expense of controlling the spread of weapons.
Thirdly, monetary incentives may also deliver unanticipated outcomes. This may enable the suppliers to increase supply. Given that the legal supplies, such as the military forces and the law enforcement agencies, acquire a distinct amount of supplies, the gun sale professionals may aim at accumulating the high levels of revenue through the increased sales. In this case, professionals may expand their income base by expanding the consumer base by any means. As a result, most firearms may get in the hands of the uncertified persons given that the subjective test may not be accorded to the individuals concerned in the illegal transfer of the guns (Cole & Gertz, 1998).
In this regard, the government must seek to address the problem by tightening the regulations pertaining to gun ownership and use particularly by the public. This may involve the overall simulation of pro-active legislation that does not only regulate civilians ownership of the guns, but also the suppliers with respect to quantity that can be produced at any particular time. Also, every individual who wishes to own a gun should pass the mandatory tests. This process may involve intensive use of a scientific evaluation plan, such as the MMPI, in order to identify the prospective individuals who can acquir and use the guns. It is worth stressing that only the government should deal with all intensives and restrictions concerning the firearms. Furthermore, all registered professional suppliers should be submissive to a certain state agency on a periodical basis. This would ensure a tracking process of the probable fraud exchange between the professionals and the illegal recipients. The dynamics revolving around the gun use, particularly the rising cases of misuse of guns, underlies the need for the time-to-time review of regulations pertaining to gun ownership and use (Ciment, 2006).
2.2. Do the Gun Laws Abide the Gun Sales Professionals?
Essentially, gun laws are basically framed to control the possession of the guns by civilians. For instance, in the US, under the Gun Control Act, there have been the loose restraints of gun dealers and their operations. In accordance with this act, the gun sale professionals ought to engage in the real business for either livelihood or profit. Through this provision, the unlicensed individuals may also get into the system of firearms trade without particularly performing any background check on their respective buyers. Indeed, this regulation led to a situation of a loophole where sellers can undertake their business in the gun shows. However, the law still provides that the guns should not be sold to the prohibited individuals. However, with the latter loophole already in place, professional gun sellers may also conduct their business without due performance of a background check as it may be impossible in the gun show. Consequently, this presents the controversy within the prospects of the Gun Show Loophole. The special case presents a sample instance where the law loosely considers the gun sale professionals and perhaps exempts them from certain strict checks that would lead to the process fraud (Cole & Gertz, 1998).
3.0. Health Care Professionals, Mental Illness, and Gun Control
Mental health professionals may prevent controversial ownership and use of guns by medically unfit persons. Most professionals do not exercise professional ethics by adhering to quality and preciseness of their reports. Laxity in job and lack of preciseness are among the major causes of unreliable data stated in the professional mental health records. Sometimes erratic examination may result in poor decision making with regard to entrusting individuals with firearms or otherwise. This condition further influences the process of gun control as opposed to the initial intension of using a medical background check as an essential preference in selling guns (Levy, Karst & Winkler, 2000).
Essentially, gun control refers to any legislation or practices that defines, restricts or even limits ownership, production, use or even subsequent transfer of firearms. Gun control legislations and policies are different across the world. In some countries, for instance, there are very strict gun control limits to possession while other nations have very loose regulations. The examples of states with strict and loose regulation include the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. Those individuals who support the gun controls policies and regulations postulate that there is pronounced danger of widespread ownership of guns and other types of weapon. Opponents argue that such control does not really reduce the prevalence of the gun-related injuries, suicide or gun-originated murders. Some people argue that such control violates individual freedoms (Levy, Karst & Winkler, 2000).
Currently, the world accounts for about 875 millions of small arms in circulation. These arms are used by the law enforcement agencies, civilians, as well as military forces. Out of this total, about 75% are in the hands of civilians. For instance, the US civilian accounts for 270 million arms. Furthermore, 200 million small arms are used by the national military forces. The law enforcement agencies account for 26 million arms only while non-state organs account for about 1.4 million of small firearms. However, the gang men are not exempted from the latter possession. Indeed, the gangs hold approximately 7 million small arms worldwide. Small arms in the civilians hands are particularly regulated by the government agencies. However, most countries worldwide allow civilians to possess firearms in spite of specific regulations defined by law or global regulations (Mantel, 2013).
In accordance with the findings of a survey conducted in 2011 within 28 countries, most national regulations defines the ownership of the firearms by civilians as an act, privilege or right. For instance, in the United States and Yemen, ownership of the guns by civilians is, indeed, a basic right other than a privilege. However, other countries that were involved in the survey revealed that gun possession was considered a privilege and, therefore, highly restricted to very special cases. Essentially, many countries practice various gun control measures through legislations (Mantel, 2013).
3.1 Why Training Incentives to Mental Health Professionals would/would not Work?
Nowadays, mental health issues are highly hidden by the family members or individuals themselves. In order to identify this condition, a third party should conduct a thorough professional medical examination of an individual. In such an instance, high level of training is a prerequisite. Besides, high training and professionalism should be applied to reinvent the gun control measures. Mental health professionals encourage the peoples confidence in the liberalized regions, characterized with sanity and normalcy. Secondly, training incentives ensure that there are many professionals who can undertake the psychological tests and give a conclusion that an individual can own, use, and manipulate a gun. In this regard, the chances of the mentally unfit individuals handling a gun may be sharply minimized in the long run (Cole & Gertz, 1998).
Thirdly, the profound development in the area of mental health may contribute significantly to the whole procedure of gun control. People who have persistent mental disorder may not be allowed to possess or use weapon. However, some sane people owning guns legally may also fall victims of a mental illness. These people may be professionals, such as military personnel. In this regard, the presence of the highly trained mental health professionals in special places would ensure that they will manage to oversee any changes in the mental conditions of people. This procedural measure is aimed at minimizing gun fatalities that occur in the places where arms are legally allowed. Similarly, high training incentives also offer essential capacities for civilians and other people owning guns. For instance, they may go to an individual psychologist to conduct special tests (Agger & Luke, 2014).
On the other hand, training incentives may not produce positive outcomes in regard to gun control and related fatalities. It is rather difficult and particularly impossible to made individuals test their mental health. Similarly, it is particularly impossible to identify people with mental illnesses, especially from the general public. This move may also not produce a growing resistance from people with mental illnesses since it may not provide the due formulae that may be used to identify and subsequently diagnose those people with mental illnesses. Consequently, an increase in professional trained personnel is not a guarantee of an advanced mechanism that would lead to a direct reduction of mental illness related to the gun fatalities since it is highly depended on self-will. Thirdly, the family may suffer from stigmatization of one of their members suffering from a mental illness. In most cases, the suffering people remain indoors. It is rather difficult for them to access proper medical care despite the improved technical panel towards the care and cure of mental illnesses (Cole & Gertz, 1998). This is a major hindrance to the reduction of the mental illness generated gun fatalities that hinders the prospects of healing. Consequently, small mental problems may speedily accelerate to the unconceivable levels. Thus, the victims end up in causing fatality. In most case, they have possessed guns prior to the time of their suffering.
3.2 Are the Mental Health Professionals Held Accountable for Gun Spread?
Essentially, the majority of the countries apply no resolute measures to hold the medical personnel accountable for the increased spread of guns. Despite heavy financial budget on training and other necessities, medical personnels output remains negligible. The ratio of the gun fatalities arising from the mental illness cases rises above ordinary. For instance, it is especially evident in California where mass shooting is eminent. However, mental illness policies have tightened the regulations in order to enhancing low affiliation of gun use to the mental illness victims. Recently, training of mental health professionals has been intensified (Cole & Gertz, 1998).
Furthermore, a clear course of responsibilities that the mental health professionals are required to followed have been put in practice. For instance, in their reports, mental health professionals should indicate any probable element or feature of mentally ill persons. This measure will allow conducting quick assessment and tracking persons with mental disorders in the future. Also, this may result in restriction and licensing of gun possession, particularly to civilians. However, it is a complex process with a wide series of loopholes that are aimed at stopping the spread of guns in the hands of the unprecedented persons (Agger & Luke, 2014).
For example, in California, mental health regulations require that the mental health departments submit records to the special department charged with the following task. In Illinois, according to the law, all health institutions and mental facilities are to submit all mental health records to the police of the state . These records assist in enhancing measures to reduce access and acquisition of guns and other firearms to mentally ill people. Also, the same information is legally required to be transferred to the FBIs special task force, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) catalog. With these measures, the country undertakes extensive steps to prevent people with mental illness from acquiring firearms and, therefore, minimizes subsequent fatalities. Such states as Colorado, California, Virginia and Utah also require the submission of mental health data to the NICS or the State Database. These mechanisms put in place enhance the reduction of gun possession by the mentally ill persons while addressing the problem of illegal ownership of firearms (Schaefer & Lamm, 1997).
Furthermore, additional incentives that concern the reporting on mental illnesses include: the provision of monetary incentives through direct bid. For instance, another contemporary federal legislation encourages the states to provide reports on all mental illness cases to the FBI by offering $1 billion. This money may be used to improve the reporting systems, as well as work in general. However, these mechanisms do not guarantee that there will be the reduction in the spread of gun through gun control. The following mechanisms rather provide a framework upon which people can report and, thus, reduce such fatalities at will.
Some countries, however, lack the capacity to undertake such coerced methods of improving the reporting framework for the mentally ill victims. Consequently, the move to enhance record transfer from the mental health professionals to the respective security agents is marked with fraud and is considered as highly incapacitated. Though most mental illness policies have been provided, there are a great number of challenges in actual implementation. In order to address these challenges, countries and regions worldwide should establish a data call center where mental health medical record could be transmitted and evaluated for the sake of the regional check on the peoples mental conditions (Mantel, 2013).
The law firmly restricts the professional gun sellers. For instance, according to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of the US, any federal professional gun dealer must carry out background checks before there occurs any transfer of weapon to his/her prospective buyers. This process allows identifying the criminal or health status of the individuals who want to buy weapon. Consequently, the prevention of high risk personalities from acquiring guns is perhaps one of the critical solutions to gun control; though, there are a number of challenges. Furthermore, possible impediments to effective background checks could also provide a suitable mechanism that allows the gun sales to be made only by medically fit persons. Such impediments include the aforementioned Gun Show Loophole. Finally, the establishment of a strong scrutiny of historical perspective of the gun sale professionals or dealers also provides an instance for the enhancement of the gun control framework.
Despite the high monetary and training incentives to the gun dealers and the mental health professionals respectively, very little has been achieved. For instance, in California, the mental health policy has been formulated in order to help in the reduction of gun fatality. However, the overall implication of the laws is negligible given that the laws are loosely enforced in most counties. This results in minimal if any reduction in fatalities; though, the incentives are aimed at doing so. However, the law has stipulated narrowly defined criteria upon which serious mental health cases can be handled in order to integrate the victims within in the society.
Though all the counties have the capacity and the option to implement the law, the majority of them have failed to do this. Furthermore, the law directs the courts systems what measures or treatments should be applied for a certain individual.
Though high monetary incentives towards mental health professionals have been introduced and put in practice, the number of gun fatalities has not been reduced. Furthermore, mental health policies do not provide the way how such incidences should be followed. It is clear that the careful implementation of the mental health laws leads to a subsequent reduction in gun fatalities. For instance, due to the implementation of the Laura laws by the Nevada County, the rates of hospitalization and incarceration have reduced by 46% and 65% respectively.
The gun control framework is expanded to contain other elements, such as light guns, also known as SALW, in the context of arms trade. However, gun control can also be defined depending upon the civilian or military context. In this regard, the civilians definition may limit it to carbines, hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. Within the context of gun control, there are separate but integral concepts that may include the overall global arms industry (Levy, Karst & Winkler, 2000). The arms industry is a worldwide business. It comprises the manufacturing of weapon, as well as diverse categories of military equipments and technology. It is evident that the arms is interrelated with other industries. This interrelation comprises research, production, transport, as well as subsequent development of weapons and related products. In most developed nations, the arms industry manufactures and supplies weapons to their own military forces. Other countries also have a strong and effective legal or illicit local trade of firearms. Most countries have pronounced illicit trades in small arms in the regions where there are political stability.
Furthermore, gun sale professionals have been playing a significant role in enhancing gun control. The law should define the mechanisms who the strong background check should be conducted because it is one of the main constituents in the gun sale procedure. However, most countries, such as the US, have the loose regulations of gun ownership and use by civilians. Consequently, this contributes to escalating incidences of mass shooting as people possess a great number of guns. Some people are deemed to be potential threats to themselves and the public in general. Indeed, the US Constitutions following the Second Amendment stipulates the right to own a gun by individuals. The following statement has been subjected to gross abuse over time.