Answer

To Reduce Gun Violence, Background Check for Firearms must include the Individual`s Psychiatric Health History

Reporting approximately forty thousand gun deaths each year, gun violence in America is on the rise. The menace associated with gun and gun-related violence has resulted in controversies towards Second Amendment that gives an individual the right to bear a gun for safety purposes. Irrespective, D.C. v. Heller case influenced the Supreme Court to rule in support of subjecting regulations on the rights to keep arms (Swanson et al., 2015). With this in mind, the government has a solemn responsibility to control gun violence by implementing stricter gun control laws. There are many viewpoints that can be talked about, and there can be other ways to tackle the menaces of gun violence. one way is “reforming mental health care systems and improving point-of-purchase background checks to keep guns from mentally disturbed people will address the problem” (Swanson et al., 2016). Also, Swanson et al. (2015) noted that the aftermath of gun violence accounts for nearly 90 deaths every day in America. An opposing position raised by the National Rifle Association suggests that mass shooting is a matter of untreated mental illness rather than unregulated gun laws. In response, the association proposed the establishment of a database of mental illness individuals (Swanson et al., 2015). In this paper, vocabulary terms used are social environment, Physical environment, and structural and societal factors that contribute to observed disparities in health (National Research Council, & Committee on Population, 2013).

             Amidst a glare of heightened media coverage over mass shooting events and a dazed public, tackling gun violence has become almost inevitable for policymakers. The majority of Americans have supported addressing gun violence control by tackling mental health in America. (Swanson et al., 2015) opines that the logic behind including an individual`s psychiatric health history in background checks is that it offers a mutual ground between gun rights and gun control protagonists When basing gun violence on the spectrum of suicide, mental illness becomes a significant vector of concern. According to CDC reports, suicide accounts for nearly 61percent of the total gun death rolls in America (Swanson et al, 2015). Suicide is a fatal national concern, and a considerable number of suicidal victims are identified with mental illnesses. Risk fractions for suicide-related mental disorders range between 47percent to 74 percent (Swanson et al., 2015). Correspondingly is literature affirming that gun ownership strongly influences the increased risk of suicide cases in the United States. Further, studies prove that restrictive gun control significantly influences reduced suicidal rates. For instance, the District of Columbia reported a rapid decline in suicide rates following the implementation of restrictive handgun licensing (Swanson et al. 2015). Therefore, improving point-of-purchase background checks by including an individual`s psychiatric health history will largely address the problem of gun violence, specifically suicide. 

 Contrary, mental health stakeholders strongly reject an opinion that merely reflected mental health stigmatization and stereotype. In defense, mental health experts argued that the majority of individuals with mental illness are never violent towards others. Basing on scientific evidence, social-environmental factors such as substance abuse were more likely to trigger violent behavior as compared to mental illness. Regardless, this does not entirely conclude that mentally ill persons are not prone to violent behavior. Swanson et al. (2016) argued that the prevalence of violence in a mentally ill patient is strongly dependent on the type or stage of their mental illness. Psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar are considered stronger triggers for violent behavior compared to other mental and personality disorders. Risk proportions for violence range between 2 to 10 percent for the psychoses, approximately 20% for personality disorder, and between 20 to 25 percent for substance use disorder (Swanson et al., 2015). Additionally, violence is often a result of risk exposures such as early life trauma experience or early involvement in substance abuse. This means that mentally ill individuals are at equal risks of crime and violence as any other member of society. 

Enacting laws based on the public opinion that “mentally ill are violent” unjustifiably makes the mentally ill vulnerable to deprivation of their rights.  Swanson et al. (2015) epidemiological evidence on public perception towards mental illnesses prove that news media coverage is responsible for the negative stereotype towards mentally ill persons. On multiple occasions, news stories show mass shootings by mentally ill persons influencing negative public perception towards this group. Swanson et al. (2016) argue that public attitudes and perceptions play a significant role in influencing public policy. Hence, if the public believes that mentally ill individuals are dangerous, they are most likely to support laws that restrict the rights of people with mental illnesses, regardless of whether they are just or effective. 

 Gun violence is an issue that needs immediate attention to keep our Nation, America safe! The question of whether including the individual`s psychiatric health history in the background check for firearms raise ethical concerns worth revisiting. On one hand, is a strategy to reduce the risk of first violence crimes by restricting access to guns to mentally ill persons. On the opposing side is an approach to address gun violence by tackling untreated mental illness rather than unregulated gun laws. While both opinions are strongly supported by epidemiologic evidence, I would confidently root for the opinion of addressing untreated mental illness as a strategy to reduce gun violence. First and foremost is that the existing federal database on mental health records is far from perfect. There are thousands of Americans suffering from undiagnosed mental illnesses that go unrecorded. Similarly, the criteria for gun-disqualifying mental health records may be biased to some extent. From the public opinion, about 48% consider the mental health system to be highly accountable for the gun violence in the United States as compared to the 40 % who blame easy access to firearms (Swanson et al., 2015). 

 Policymakers need to view the failing of mental health institutions and gun violence issues as two extremely different public health concerns. Similarly, while addressing them, they need to support evidence-based policies, rather than supporting tainted opinions from the public often fueled by sensationalized media coverage. The way forward is to promote public safety without compromising the rights and privacy of people with mental illnesses. The mental health system needs to not only address untreated mental illnesses but also improve the public image of mental health to reduce social stigma and stereotypes. As Everytown (2015) suggests to reduce gun homicides and assaults within cities, leaders, and legislators must invest in community-driven, evidence-based interventions.  A proposal for an evidence-based intervention would be that proposed by the National Rifle Association on establishment of a database of mental illness individuals. With an accountable database of mental illness persons, the government can effectively establish programs that reach out to all mental illness individuals across America, boosting the mental health system.