Options and Recommendations for Gun Control and Mental Illness Policy

Options for Gun Control and Mental Illness Policy

Why Criteria 2 & 3 are not Working?

Human existence is highly dependent on security mechanisms worldwide. Consequently, every government is responsible for the enhancement of security for its citizens for its citizens. The use of firearms by civilians is thus prohibited by most global legislation except for some isolated cases where individuals are allowed to possess firearms for self defense. Gun control therefore refers to legislations, proposed designs and restrictions which are set to modify or limit individual possession, trade and use of the firearms. Virtually all governments are entitled to ensuring that the supply of firearms by private entities while the task is left in the hands of the government agents. Gun control policies however exhibit acute variance globally. For instance certain countries such as the United Kingdom possess very strict legislations pertaining to possession of gun while at the same time other states like United States exerts modest limits to gun possession. Gun possession 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).

Basically, there are three distinct criteria used in offering insight as to the options for gun control and mental illness policy. These are: Criteria two which involves the training incentives for health care professionals and criteria three involves monetary incentives for gun sale professionals. As a matter of facts, the accord of training incentives on healthcare professionals has failed drastically due to its weakness in addressing the root cause of the problem which 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 in grafts at the expense of quality services in the healthcare disciplines. Consequently, the recurrent incentives given to the professionals do not only trigger laxity but also lead to futile attempts to reduce gun fatalities. As a matter of facts, the process of licensing and offering trade licenses for gun dealers has been swept with logistical issues that the law has been yet to wipe out completely. As a result, the training incentives on healthcare professionals does very little to minimize the propensity to manipulate guns for offensive other 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 lack of legal stipulation on the revocation procedure of firearms license for individuals who turn hostile to the community or looses their mental control. 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 the entire cycle of individuals within the cycle who willingly or unwillingly fails to return guns through amnesty in the context of becoming a potential threat to the society. Consequently, high level of training incentives does not offer any tangible change in the mode of addressing gun fatalities as it does not alleviate the root cause of the troubled society

On the other hand, the offering of monetary incentives to gun sale professionals neither reduces nor wipes out the gun fatalities completely. Indeed, monetary incentives only increase the pleasure of job retention capacity for the gun dealers but do not address the issue of gun possession in absolute terms. The aim of monetary incentives however is noble and targets to reduce fraud sales of guns to non-accredited persons which may amount to lethal engagement. However, it is clear that majority of the illicit firearms in the world, particularly, the small arms are found in the domain of civilians. The latter situation presents itself despite the escalating monetary incentives to the gun dealers. The policy makers also fail to contain the problems through protective measures that would see the reduction in spread of guns to civilians, which by far represents the main source of gun fatalities worldwide.

Indeed, despite the high monetary and training incentives on the gun dealers and the mental health professionals respectively, very little has been reaped from the move. For instance, in California, the mental health policy has been formulated that could assist in the reduction of gun fatality by significant margins. However, the overall implication of the laws is negligible given in mind that the laws are loosely enforced in most counties. This results in minimal if any reduction in fatalities despite the incentives to do so. In particular, the formulation of the Laura laws had been on e of the major steps towards reducing gun fatality and therefore enhancing gun control legislations that followed the courts permit to uphold the laws across the region (California). However, the law had stipulated a narrowly defined criteria upon which serious mental health cases can be handled with a view to integrating the victims with in the society. While all the counties have the capacity and the option for implementing the law, it is clear that majority have not yet implemented it. Furthermore, the law directs the courts systems commands the refractory mental health systems to offer treatments. In this regard, despite the provision of high monetary incentives towards mental health professionals, there are derailed impacts on the overall impact in reducing gun fatalities and enhancing gun control as a means of reducing manipulation of guns for non-intended purposes which may amount to heavy losses. Furthermore, mental health policies do not provide the way out following such incidences. Indeed, it is clear that the careful implementation of the mental health laws leads to a subsequent reduction in gun fatalities in absolute terms. For instance, through the implementation of the Laura laws by the Nevada County resulted in a reduced hospitalization and incarceration by 46% and 65% respectively. Mental Illness Policy

Essentially, the Mental Health America was conceptualized by Beers Clifford back 1909. By then it was known as National Committee for mental hygiene. In its mandate, the committee work is to improve lifestyles of the victims of mental health within the scope of United States via lobbying efforts and pronounced research. Furthermore, there has been a series of government initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges of mental health systems. In particular, the National Mental Health Act was passed in 1946 by Harry Truman thus creating the National Institute of Mental Health. This also involved the allotment of government funds aimed at supporting research with respect to causes and subsequent treatment of mental illness. This followed the passage of Mental Retardation and Community Health Centers Construction Act in 1963 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 came into existence in 1979 with the basic initiative to offer education, support and research services on people with pronounced psychiatric illnesses. Other federal interventions included the reinstating of social welfare programs which have worked solidly to improve access to mental healthcare (In Agger, 2014).

Indeed, 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 cultural issues which basically tend to perpetuate such violence. The in-depth perception basically postulates that among most society members, many people believes that the federal government is solely responsible for the formulation and implementation of mental health via the use of medical coverage as well as evaluations. Consequently, such attempts may bring shooting to an end while at the same time 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 of debates that would see gun safety laws enacted. Essentially, among the most heating debate is on the issue of giving more resource to mental healthcare providers as a way of improving their capacity to treat mental illness victims while at the same time restraining them from subsequent purchasing of weapons. Indeed, there had been clear connection between gross shooting of multitudes and mental illness of the perpetrators. Consequently, this issue prompted the senate to enact mental illness policy that underlines the circumstances under which people should be allowed firearms particularly, the mental illness victims.

Indeed, many lawmakers assert that the use of federal background check system derails the prospects to advance mental health provisions. Such measures therefore may be used by opposers of expanded checks with a view to restrain restriction of weapons to certain groups only in future. Indeed, some gun rights advocates also assert that the open venture into discussion concerning mental health may be used to reinstate new federal gun laws in future. Consequently, Senator Richard Blumenthal postulates that fighting such controversy would be done amicably by formulating mental health policy to address the concerns raised amicably. Consequently, this formed the root for the formulation of mental illness policy. However, the unfolding incidences of gun shooting lead to development of stricter regulation mechanism.

Following the shootings at Newtown, the New York legislature drafted stricter regulations on gun possession. In particular, the provision demanded that mental health professionals provide timely report to local officials about any person deemed to cause harm to either themselves or others. In the event that the officials consent to the assessment and identifies that the person owns a gun, the law enforcement agency is therefore arrayed to confiscate the gun besides cancelling the individuals gun license. On the other hand, in Florida, the republican-controlled lawmakers enacted a legislation which basically extended gun bans to individuals who are identified as potentially dangerous to oneself or others. The latter case also encompassed these individuals who voluntarily admit their mental health instability within the precinct of mental health facility.

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, which includes guns and ammunitions provided the users meet the conditions. The issue of mental illness is particularly complex because some patients may refuse to commit to treatment and continue to handling guns even after developing mental disorders. Such people can end up causing fatal accidents, which would have been prevented if the gun control system had a favorable method of addressing occurrences such as mental illnesses that develop after issuance of a gun-handling certificate. A number of reports have highlighted some major cities in the United States with high frequencies of murder related to gun fatalities from 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 joined this campaign and a bill was passed to strengthen gun laws in some of these cities (Levy & Winkler, et al. 2000).

Mental Health Professionals may be considered as the main cause of controversial ownership and use of guns by medically unfit persons. Indeed, most professionals do not exercise professional ethics by adhering to quality and preciseness of the report. Laxity in job and lack of preciseness is among the major causes of unreliable data from professional mental health records. At times erratic examination may result in poor decision making with regard to entrusting individuals with firearms or otherwise. This condition further cripples the process of gun control contrary to the initial intension of using medical background check as an essential preference in selling guns. Essentially, gun control refer to any legislation or practices that defines, restricts or even limits the 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. Example of states with strict and loose regulation includes the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. That personality that supports gun controls policies and regulations argues postulates that there exist pronounced dangers of widespread ownership of guns and other types of arms. On the other hand, opposers argue that such control does not really reduce the prevalence of gun-related injuries, suicide or gun-originated murder while other argues that such controls violate individual freedoms (Levy & Winkler, et al. 2000).

Indeed, gun control entails a more pronounced inclusion of other objects. Basically, the gun control framework is expanded to contain other elements such as light weapons which are also known as SALW in the context of arms trade. However, gun control can also be defined in the context of civilian with varying phrases and confined to a smaller set of arms than such could be on the event of 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, we also have separate but integral concepts which may include the overall global arms industry. Indeed, arms industry is a worldwide business which is charged with the manufacturing of weapons as well as diverse categories of military equipments and technology. In this domain, we have a combination of commercial industry which is characterized with research, production, transport as well as subsequent development of weapons and related products. In most developed nations, there are pronounced local arms industries which manufacture and supply weapons to their own military forces. Other countries also have a strong and effective legal or illicit local trade involving firearms. In particular, most countries have pronounced illicit trades in small arms and regions which affects the political stability of the regions (Levy & Winkler, et al. 2000).

As a matter of facts, the worlds accounts for about 875 millions of small arms in circulation targeting law enforcement agencies, civilians as well as military forces. Of this total, about 75% falls in the hands of civilians globally. For instance, the US civilian accounts for 270 million arms in the civilians domain. Furthermore, 200 million small arms fall in the hands of national military forces. 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, gang holds approximately 7 million small arms worldwide. The small arms in the hands of civilians are particularly regulated by government agencies. In particular, there are bars to few exceptions. However, most countries worldwide allow civilians to possess firearms prior to specific regulations defined by law of the land in the regions besides a shield of global regulations. According to the findings of a survey conducted in 2011 within 28 countries, the critical outcome showed that most national regulations defines the ownership of the firearms by civilian in the sense that such act as a privilege or a right. For instance, a clear distinction revealed that both the United States and the Yemen had congruent distinction in the sense that it presented a notion that ownership of the guns by civilians is indeed a basic right for the citizens other than a privilege. However, other countries that were involved in the survey revealed that indeed, gun possession was considered a privilege and therefore highly restricted to very special cases. Essentially, both individual countries and the globe at large exercise gun control measures through legislations (Mantel & CQ Press 2013).

International Gun Control Measures

Both the international and regional bodies have come together to restrict and contain the prospects of gun possession. Indeed, diplomatic attention has been accorded to cross-border illicit trade in firearms particularly involving the small firearms. In this kind of regulations, the cross-border or regional regulation confines much attention towards special concerns of transfer rather than the actual regulation of civilians held arms. For instance, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNECOSOC) raised a number of resolution measures which appertains to the regulations of small arms in the civilians domains. In order to address the issue of firearms regulations as postulated by the UNECOSOC, the body required exchange of information regarding individual states levels of regulations of firearms besides a subsequent of localized global study of the issue.

In 1997, UNECOSOC produced the prime resolution that defined the responsibility of UN state parties to reinforce measures that would enhance regulation measures for ownership of small arms. In this outlook, the body provided that the member states should ensure that there regulations comprises of the following components. These elements include: storage and safety of the firearms; heavy penalties on illegal ownership of the firearms as well as subsequent misuses of the arms; pro-active licensing course that would help prevent ownership of the firearms by undesirable parties; widespread amnesty on citizens who submit the illegally possessed firearms; unwarranted guns as well as pronounced bookkeeping on the ownership of the firearms by civilians which would the tracking process of the civilians with firearms. Over the same year, the UN also produced a document titled, United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation a document that was updated in 1999. The latter study formed a background upon which a database with regard to the firearms in the hands of civilians can be recorded for regulation purposes. This database was set to be run by the Center for International Crime Prevention whose headquarter is Vienna. However, very little achievement was realized from the latter effort by the UN. Consequently, the United Nation further established international traditions towards regulating civilian-held firearms. However, this mention was faced by a strong opposition from states against gun control. In particular, the United States government opposed the move to illegalize civilian ownership of guns, a move that led to the removal of draft proposal made within the context of the UN programme of Action on Small Arms of 2001(Ciment & Sharpe Online Reference, 2009).

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 legal means. This means that the mental illness policy does not define the process of acquisition of the guns adequately. As a matter of fact, the overall effect is increased gun fatalities. In California and the globe at large, there has been increased demand for mental healthcare and its subsequent access. Nevertheless, better access to improved mental healthcare may not provide the best result in reducing 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: delusionary insane, psychopaths and suicidally depressed. Indeed, most of the crime perpetrators never engage in active psychotic conditions (Ciment & Sharpe Online Reference, 2009).

On the contrary, the perpetrators have premeditated criminal offences thus, a shocking disregard of empathy. Consequently, the people perpetrating such behaviors are essentially suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. This makes the mental health professionals unable to cope with the problem given that the issue flies beyond the medical illness but rather physical disturbances. Training in the field of psychological problems by mental health professionals would therefore help mitigate the problem. This also offers the reasons as to why training incentives on mental health professionals may help combat the problem. However, the sharpening of the professional capacities of the mental health professionals must however go hand in hand with the formulating of stringent mental health policies mentally ill persons reach hospitals with or without self will. One of the critical 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, the people avoids direct contact with mental health experts to aid in the due diagnosis process. Despite the fact that friends and families may perceive the Antisocial trait, majority of them perceive it as just a negative trait and may use such terms as, insensitivity and manipulative (Schaefer, 2005).

Indeed, it is also very hard to legislate treatment or even separate victims of APD from the general public. Consequently, the mental illness policy which does not define the limits of gun possession should be reviewed to provide that mentally competent individuals only have the right to access the guns and manipulate it too in the day to day activities and protection in particular. For instance, the law may be formulated in a way that would raise the revenue towards obtaining a gun for a civilian having gone through a medical test of mental status. Indeed, just as the driving test is taken for one to qualify to drive in the highways, the same criteria ought to be used in giving licenses towards owning and using guns. For instance, the employment of the MMPI towards gun possession could be rolled out. MMPI refers to a scientific test based on time use by psychologists to assess the mental state of individuals. This would help in ensuring that only the mentally fit persons access and own guns. However, gun dealers should also refrain from making direct sales of the guns while at the same time liaising with the medical fraternity towards identifying persons fit for gun possession and use. This move would help in mitigating the prospects of crime based on gun fatalities (Ciment & Sharpe Online Reference, 2009).

Why Monetary Incentives to Gun Dealers would/would not Work?

The provision of monetary incentives to gun dealers may be quite effective in reducing the prospects of gun sales to persons believed to be potential threats to themselves as well as other people. Indeed, any merchant aims at maximizing profits while reducing incidences of losses. As a result, the use monetary incentive to the gun sellers is a way of increasing the net profits by the dealers while at the same time mitigating the greed for maximum profits by individuals on the land. In California, the persons owning guns, dealers as well as the collectors have to follow certain federal laws if they have to possess firearms or else run a business dealing with firearms. In particular, the US constitution underwent a marginal second amendment which asserted the true spirit and the right of citizens to own and produce arms anchored in the constitution. This controversial clause often act as a major impediment to the owning of guns by arbitrary parties in California while the victims argue against current restrictions (Mantel & CQ Press, 2013).

On the other hand, the gun laws often stipulate the type and degree to which someone 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 gun control framework. Ideally, offering monetary incentives to dealers provides a platform to close the gap between loose gun regulations from one country to another. As a matter of facts, as people migrate from one country to another, they may buy guns without due process of psychological test such as the MMPI. Consequently, this leads to extensive spread of guns throughout the closets of 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 absolute terms. Gun dealers sell gun to civilians and the military forces (In Agger, 2014).

The use of monetary incentives such as the tax benefits may end up in enhancing gun control mechanisms. Indeed, such mechanisms would encourage most professional gun dealers to redefine their production while at the same time enhancing credible transfer of guns to persons believed and psychologically tested to be mentally capacitated to handle and use a gun. As matter facts, the use of monetary incentives would spearhead. Secondly, the monetary incentives would encourage the perpetrators on the use and manipulation of historical perspectives of the individuals involved in gun fatalities or otherwise. This clear record would further enhance the legal measures set up to strengthen the capacity of the government to control firearms in the region. Indeed, the use of such incentives lead to enhanced procedural gun sales besides providing a pronounced level of gin controls within the established legal framework. Thirdly, the improvement of record keeping with regard to gun sales for professional traders would also enhance their networks and subsequently ease the tracing prompt in the event that an incredible is caught up in the line of purchasing guns.

Although this process may lead to successful control of gun possession and use, gun sale professional are subject to rational expectations of an investors. Essentially, any rational investors aims at increasing profits at all cost provided there is room for that. Ideally, the prospects of clean records are a subjective case in the domain of the professionals. As a matter of facts, gun sales professionals can easily manipulate their records with the intention of garnering the gains accruing to good records. Consequently, such biased record would paint wrong impression on the fate of gun distributions particularly in the domain of civilians and those who may be deemed unfit by law in particular. For instance, in places like the US where majority of the people believes in the right of gun ownership, the case of data manipulation may be pronounced at the expense of societal gains from the widespread guns. Indeed, for the measures to succeed, mental illness and gun control policies must be reinforced with the cooperation of all players in the line of production, supply and use of the guns particularly: the government, law enforcement agencies, health care professionals, and gun dealer professionals (In Agger, 2014).

Secondly, monetary incentives does not offer guarantee of subsequent accountability. As a matter of facts, those gun professional dealers may not be held accountable for enjoying the incentives provided by the federal agencies for weapons control as a result of failure operate 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, the monetary incentives may also deliver unanticipated outcomes in the sense that it may enable the suppliers to increase supply. Given that the legal supplies such as the military forces and the law enforcement agencies acquire distinct amount of supplies, then the gun sale professionals may be moved by the desire to accumulate high levels of revenue through increased sales. In this case, the professionals may expand their income base by expanding the consumer base by any means. As a result, most firearms may land in the hands of uncertified persons given that the subjective test may not be accorded to the individuals concerned in the illegal transfer of the guns (Cole & Gertz, 2013).

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 and the mandatory test analysis for anyone wishing to own a gun. This process may involve intensive use of scientific evaluation plan such as the MMPI in identifying the prospective persons fit for acquiring and using the guns. In particular, these tasks should be left in the government discretion and free from individual manipulation. Furthermore, all registered professional suppliers should be submissive to certain state agency on a periodical basis. This would ensure the tracking process of the probable fraud exchange between the professional and illegal recipients. The dynamics revolving around the gun use particularly the rising cases of misuse of guns underlies the cause of time to time review of regulations pertaining to gun ownership and use (Ciment & Sharpe Online Reference, 2009).

Do the Gun Laws abide the Gun Sales Professionals?

Essentially, gun laws are basically framed to control the possession of the guns by civilians. Under the Gun Control Act in US for instance, there has been a loose restraints of gun dealers are there operations. Indeed, it provided that the gun sale professionals ought to engage in the real business for either livelihood or profit. Through this provision, unlicensed persons may also have a get into the system of firearms trade without particularly performing background check on their respective buyers. Indeed, this regulation led to a situation of loophole where sellers can undertake their business in gun shows. However, the law still provides that the guns should not be sold to 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 which may be impossible at the gun show. Consequently, this presents the controversy within the prospects of 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 lender the process fraud.

Why Training Incentives would/would not Work?

Mental health issues are highly hidden under the conscience of the family or individual precepts. In order to identify this condition by a third party, thorough professional medical examination must be done on the victims. In such an instance, high level of training is a prerequisite. Indeed, the employment of high training as well as professionalism is a major step towards reinventing the gun control measures. Mental health professionals encourage the peoples confidence in liberal regions characterized with sanity and normalcy. Secondly, training incentives ensures that there are many professionals to undertake the psychological test and subsequent discovery of the human fitness to own, handle and manipulate a gun. In this regard, the chances of mentally unfit individuals handling a gun may be sharply minimized in the long-run. Thirdly, the profound development in the area of mental health has been generating more pleasure on the legal framework that may be necessary in redefining the whole procedure of gun control. People in persistent mental disorder may not be primarily tasked with the gun ownership or use. However, some sane people owning guns under legal means may also fall victims of mental illness. These people may be professionals too such as military personnel. In this regard, presence of highly trained mental health professionals would ensure that places that may be deemed necessary to have professionals oversees of the contemporary personnel mental conditions. Through this procedural development, the move minimizes gun fatalities that occur in places where arms are legally bound. Similarly, high training incentives also offers essential capacities where civilians and other people owning guns may go for regular tests of individual psychology (In Agger, 2014).

On the other hand, training incentives may not produce positive outcomes towards gun control and related fatalities. Indeed, it is hard to and particularly impossible to confront individuals by coercing them to go for a medical test on mental health. Similarly, it is particularly impossible to identify people with mental illness especially from the general public. This move may also not produce a growing resistance from the people with mental illness since it may not provide the due formulae which may be used in identifying and subsequent delivery of the people with mental illness towards the respective medical professional. Consequently, increase in professional trained personnel is not a guarantee of advanced mechanism that would lead to a direct reduction of mental illness related gun fatalities since it is highly depended on self-will. Thirdly, majority of family suffer from stigmatization of one of their members suffering from mental illness. By virtue of the latter, most of the suffering people remain indoors thus, difficult to access proper medical care despite improved technical panel towards the care and cure of mental illness. This is a major hindrance to reduction of mental illness generated gun fatality which derails the prospects of healing. Consequently, small mental problems speedily accelerate to unconceivable levels where the victims end up in causing fatality in the event that they possessed guns prior to the time of their suffering.

Are the Mental Health Professionals Held Accountable for Gun Spread?

Essentially, majority of the countries holds no resolute measure to hold medical personnel accountable for the increased spread of the guns. Most personnel, despite heavy financial budget on training and other necessities, their output remain negligible. Indeed, the ratio of gun fatalities arising from mental illness cases rises above ordinary especially in the California where mass shooting is eminent. However, in recent past mental illness policies have tend to tighten regulations with a view to enhancing low affiliation of gun use to metal illness victims. Indeed, training of mental health professionals has been intensified. Furthermore, the high investment in training has further been revamped with a clear course of responsibilities where the mental health professionals are required to submit their reports on the probable element of the spread and the number of cases of mentally ill persons for quick assessment of the way forward in restraining gun possession. Such records are also kept to keep a track for persons with mental disorders as a consideration for licensing and subsequent entrustment of guns particularly to civilians. However, this is a complex process with a wide series of loopholes that end up in allowing spread of guns in the hands of unprecedented persons (In Agger, 2014).

Some countries such as California where gun incidences are swelling, mental health regulations requires that mental health departments submit record to the Department charged with the latter task. For instance, law in Illinois provides that all major health institutions and mental facilities in particular submit record to Illinois police of state with record to overall mental health records. These records assist in enhancing measure 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, 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. Other country that provides for submission of such reports includes Colorado, California, Virginia and Utah among also requires submission of mental health data to the NICS or the State Database. These mechanisms put in place enhance the reduction of gun possession by mentally ill persons while at the same time addressing the problem of illegal ownership of firearms (Schaefer, 2005).

Furthermore, additional incentives to reporting of mental illness include the provision of monetary incentives through direct bid. For instance, another contemporary Federal legislation sets to encourage individual states in reporting mental illness cases to FBI by offering $1 billion towards improved reporting systems as well as working on privacy issues. However, these mechanisms do not offer a guarantee of reduced spread of gun through gun control but rather provides for a framework upon which people can report and reduce such fatalities at will. Some countries however lack the capacity to undertake such coerced methods of improving 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 highly incapacitated. However, most mental illness policies provide for this issue but have protracted challenges in actual implementation leading to failing target. In order to address these challenges, countries and regions worldwide should collude in establishing 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 & CQ Press, 2013).

Finally, in absolute terms however, the law firmly abides the professional gun sellers. For instance, the Brady handgun Violence Prevention Act of the US provides that any federal professional gun dealer must carry out background check before establishing any transfer of weapons to their prospective buyers. This process enables the fateful identification of the criminal or health status of the individuals under the shield of a buyer. Consequently, prevention of high risk personalities from acquiring guns is perhaps one of the critical solutions to gun control despite a series of challenges surrounding it. Furthermore, possible impediments to effective background checks could also provide a suitable mechanism on which gun sales can be made to medically fit persons only. 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 enhancing gun control framework as discussed across the coverage of the paper.