A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Gun violence in the United States is a highly emotional and divisive issue. In recent years, gun violence has become a major public health crisis in the United States. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were over 40,000 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2019, including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. These numbers represent a significant increase in gun violence compared to other high-income countries. Regardless of whether you believe in the Second Amendment or support gun control measures, the high number of deaths related to gun violence in the United States calls for action to address the issue. Addressing this issue requires a nuanced and evidence-based approach that considers the perspectives of all stakeholders.
When it comes to addressing gun violence in America, the conversation often revolves around one key topic: gun control. In America, unlike other western nations, the right to own guns is enshrined in the Constitution, specifically the second amendment.
Opponents to gun control point to the second amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause as proof that gun ownership is an absolute right and that any attempt to regulate gun ownership is a direct infringement on the second amendment.
Of the eleven states and the District of Columbia that have implemented mandatory wait periods during gun sales, seven are listed in the top ten for lowest gun death rates in the country.
Proponents to gun control, myself included, look to the “well-regulated militia” clause as evidence that the right to own firearms in the United States is not an absolute right and that any laws governing control of weapon ownership in the United States must be regulatory in nature and designed to ensure a well-regulated militia.
To that end, the requirement of such things as background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of a weapon are necessary to ensure that gun owners are demonstrated to be responsible members of the “well-regulated militia” our founding fathers referenced when writing the second amendment of the constitution. The simple argument here is that responsible gun owners make for a responsible militia. Statistically it has been demonstrated that regulatory actions such as universal background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases have significantly impacted rates of gun violence in those states that have implemented them. The Annals of Internal Medicine found that of the eleven states and the District of Columbia that have implemented mandatory wait periods during gun sales, seven are listed in the top ten for lowest gun death rates in the country. Rand Corporation conducted a study in January of 2023 that resulted in findings providing evidence that background checks help in reducing the overall gun related homicide rate.
Proponents to banning all or even certain types of guns argue that statistics show a significant decrease in levels of gun violence once access to guns is restricted or cut off completely. Proponents of bans point to the United Kingdom and Australia as perfect models of what happens when nationwide bans are implemented. Both nations have established bans on certain types of guns and have seen decreases in gun related homicides and suicides, notedly one main counter argument is that there is no evidence that the bans are directly related to the decrease.
Often the only way to identify mental health issues with the shooter is through post incident diagnoses.
Regardless of the varying opinions on gun ownership, every American understands that there is a need to address the problem of gun violence in America. A common issue for gun rights proponents to point to is the issue of mental illness. This is primarily because the first thing that news agencies ask following a gun related incident is related to the shooter’s history with one or more mental conditions. The reality is that understanding the role of mental health in all gun-related incidents beyond suicide is difficult. According to a 2021 study by the Rand Corporation, 65% of adults who had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year received treatment for depression in 2018. However, of adults with any mental illness, only 43% received treatment, and of those with serious mental health issues, only 64% received treatment. The point here is that in many cases there is no clinical diagnosis of mental health issues prior to most gun related incidents making connection of gun violence to mental health problematic. Often the only way to identify mental health issues with the shooter is through post incident diagnoses. This means that shooters would be able to legally purchase weapons without flagging on the background check.
Despite popular belief, mental health issues are not a major contributing factor to gun violence. In fact, individuals with mental health problems are more likely to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators.
The Rand Corporation notes that there are mental conditions that are more prone to gun-related violence. For example, a 2015 study of 951 patients released from a psychiatric facility found that 2% were later implicated in gun violence in which the victim was known to the shooter, while only 1% were implicated in incidents in which the victim was a stranger. However, it is important to note that more context is needed for this study - for example, who conducted it, what kind of psychiatric facility was involved, etc.
In another study cited by Rand, it was found that there are some mental health diagnoses that tend to be more prone to committing homicide than those with no diagnosis of mental health disorders. For example, in the study, schizophrenia was identified as having a .3% risk of committing a homicide compared to .2% of those with no diagnosis. However, more analysis is needed to understand why individuals with schizophrenia might be more likely to commit homicide.
In the case of mass shootings, Rand Corporation cites another study that found that research into mental health can be separated between those that include non-professional diagnoses and professional diagnoses. In those that include non-professional diagnoses it was found that mental health was a factor in 30-60 percent of the incidents studied, contrarily, in those that included only professional diagnoses the rate was much lower: 13-15 percent. However, more context is needed for this study - for example, who conducted the study, what criteria were used for "non-professional" diagnoses, etc.
Given the documented reality that screening for mental health issues prior to purchasing a gun, mental health should not be used as a major factor in the sales of firearms. Nor should we require that everyone get a mental health screening prior to the purchase of a firearm.
Utilizing mental health as a major factor in background checks for gun purchases could have negative impacts, specifically the stigmatization of mental health to a point that it results in people resisting or avoiding treatment out of fear of not being able to purchase a gun.
Mental health should only be a factor when other risk factors are flagged, these include factors like a history of violent behavior or involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility. A positive outcome of eliminating the voluntary treatment for mental health issues could lead to more individuals being less concerned of potential issues that may be associated with such care.
A requirement for mental health screenings would have the same stigma effect that placing an emphasis on mental health in background checks does. Any effort to eliminate actions that discourage voluntary mental healthcare should be avoided. Beyond the stigmatism such an act would have, the logistics of such an effort would require a massive manpower and resource lift that would inevitably create delays in the purchasing process and be viewed as a punishment for crimes, by law-abiding gun owners who are responsible and would likely never be perpetrators in gun related incidents. Finally, compounding the issue of logistics is the question of privacy, requiring mental health screenings would add to the amount of information that is already severely at risk of being used in the event of privacy violations.
All in all, gun violence and the associated discussion on gun control is highly nuanced and complex and quite often discussions on the topic end in emotionally fueled and heated debates with no solution being found. Regulatory actions such as background checks and waiting periods have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing gun violence while not infringing on the second amendment of the American Constitution. Additionally, while mental health is an important factor to consider, it should not be a major factor in background checks for gun purchases due to the potential negative consequences.
Moving forward it is important for lawmakers to work together to employ a balanced and well researched approach to developing laws that will effectively utilize an objective viewpoint approach to reducing gun violence while at the same time respecting the rights of every American under the Second Amendment of the American Constitution.
Kommentare