Mental Health Issues, Gun Control and the Second Amendment, Essay Example

Introduction

Drug addiction is increasingly becoming rapid in the US because of mental health issues among the victims. Marijuana is a battle illicit drug in the American state. Banning its production may reduce the number of drug addicts and therefore help improve mental health issues. It is, however, critical that Gun control (that supports drug production) in the US as mitigated by the second amendment is highly ignored by criminals. This is giving it an underscore in the control of mass crimes and shootings in the American streets. This paper will discuss how gun control is not the effective subject concerning mass shootings but the mental health issues, and therein we may attribute to certain changes of mass shootings by addressing mental health issues.

Mass shootings in the US have increased highly, as covered by the media. According to Lowe et al. (p.62), exposure to certain cases of assault and violence or rather learning from a loved one or a close friend may result from mental health issues. It is quite notable that the prevalence rate of mental health outcomes in the recent past may have been a pathway or pre-incident factor that predicts violence. Studies show that attackers or violent predators are often found with depression, PTSS and lower self-esteem, social support, and benevolence belief (Lowe et al., p. 78). Psychological distress, in this case, maybe a model through which mass shooting is embedded to. Events exposure may be an emotional trigger to certain difficulties. Different individuals may be exposed to certain actions in the event of trauma, such as mass shootings.

With the debate on gun control, there is a need to address mental health issues to prevent public anger. The fabric of gun culture in the United States is politically fought in the United States. Rosenberg (p.116) says that mentally ill people are the agents of violence and even more. She further suggests that advocating for mental health may welcome the link to put down certain issues related to violence and guns (p.117). Agreeing to the fact that mental health is related to violent actions, it is recommended that such individuals should be made aware of their state and be given psychological support to prevent them from doing such atrocities. According to the Obama government, the campaign on mental health awareness needed to combat the mental health stigma and bring down the risk through media campaigns (p.117). In that case, the government needs to address this issue by issuing affordable care and offering resources that can sabotage mental health effects.

How possible can overwhelmingly circulated Guns be managed? It may be impossible, and possibly it may undermine the second amendment of gun ownership in the US. Adopting a culture that is not similar to the status quo might sometimes be difficult: it is clear that gun owners are aware that they need to step down gun-related deaths (Marino et al., p. 111). Research suggests that limiting access to guns may have an improved effect on reducing violent acts; however, it does not impact certain violent thoughts. The risk is still high, and it could be worse. Gun restriction possibly is impossible since the wave of its own is beyond eradication or restriction. However, certain regulations may be improvised to manage the continuous but strict ownership of guns.

Restriction to own guns may be a limiting factor and an infringement to the US’s second amendment, which gives a stringent measure on gun ownership in certain public areas. It is quite notorious and baseless to infringe ownership of guns by those that are God-given right to bear arms. In a practical ability, every US resident has the freedom to partake in risky behaviour that has legal ramifications (McClurg, p.2). Within the law principles, the events that may lead to shooting may not be foreseen, which may justify a proximate cause for holding a loaded gun (McClurg, p.28). If the court finds it insignificant to have the right to own guns, it deprives the concept of intervening in certain criminal acts such as robbery with violence. An unforeseen death could be prevented in a case of robbery. Restricting Gun ownership may not be a just course. It may be an unreasonable course of action that tends to intervene in a grossly negligent act. Possibly we may question the aspect of judicial foreseeability. However, stolen guns may suffer the law concept and perhaps represent a particular tackle on gun control. It is advised that there should be little or no infringement on the bearing of arms by legal, law-abiding citizens concerning the second amendment.

Gun controls in a perfect society intend to reduce any crime occurrence. Gun control tends to restrict the issuance or ownership of guns by those termed as risky of committing violence. The major population may suffer a victim of violence and offence due to unregulated gun possession (Kleck et al., p.489). It is, however, needful to understand that Gun control may not prevent any form of crime. Weapons may not be subjective to causing mass shootings. However, with its restrictions, it may level down gun-related violence in a perfect society. Considering it is widespread, the law may not be able to enforce certain measures. Agencies may, however, be stricter to stop down the number of murders caused by guns and assault weapons. Being strict in this case suggests that those that are termed as risky may be deprived of these guns, yet those legally abiding with the country’s laws may give the right to own the guns. I would recommend gun control that cuts across both sides; loyal and disloyal citizens. The loyal may be issued with guns and owned privately, and the disloyal should have limited access.

Conclusion

People that have had a history of mental health issues are criminals based on drug use. In case mental health issues were eliminated. Gun violence in the US could go down by a little percentage. Therefore there is a need to lay down certain strategies that may be used to eliminate gun violence, such as dealing with issues that bring mental health such as illegal drug use. However, the risk of violence is not caused by guns but by the ownership by people who are subject to injustices and disparities. In case the vast majority become good people, gun ownership may not be a matter to consider, but then, it must be considered that gun violence needs to be tackled by managing mental health issues at first.

With a clear state of mind, it is obvious that we need to stand firm and fight for the laws regarding the second amendment and gang down the bullies to this course of action. Mental health issues should be a clear consideration to help reduce mass shootings. In that case, government agencies are required to find a root cause analysis of mental health. For example, the high intake of marijuana may increase mental health issues, resulting in violence. In that manner, the government should improvise certain measures to address mental health issues instead of battling gun ownership.  The rights of the people shall be upheld with minimum notoriety. Every individual who understands their rights to owning guns should stand firm and reject any negative wave. A clear government outline should be projected and probably check on how gun control should be addressed without creating a conflict of interest, as addressed in the paper above.

Work cited

Kleck, Gary, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Jon Bellows. “Does gun control reduce violent crime?.” Criminal justice review 41.4 (2016): 488-513.

Lowe, Sarah R., and Sandro Galea. “The mental health consequences of mass shootings.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 18.1 (2017): 62-82.

Marino, Elizabeth, et al. “A culture gap in the United States: implications for policy on limiting access to firearms for suicidal persons.” Journal of public health policy 37.1 (2016): 110-121.

McClurg, Andrew J. “The second amendment right to be negligent.” Fla. L. Rev. 68 (2016): 1.

Rosenberg, Jessica. “Mass shootings and mental health policy.” J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare 41 (2014): 107.