The topic of the free sale of weapons is an urgent and acute theme in modern society when cases of terrorist acts and mass killings are common. Disputes regarding the possibility of granting free purchase rights are determined not only by legislative but also social aspects. In the recent history of the United States, many massacres were committed by people with confirmed mental disorders, who, nevertheless, had an opportunity to acquire and store firearms. The issue of buying automatic and semiautomatic guns is of greatest relevance because such weapons in the hands of an unhealthy person can entail massive casualties among the civilian population. At the same time, there are legislative nuances and obstacles that impede the process of monitoring this issue. Selling automatic and semiautomatic guns to people with mental disabilities and documented disorders is not the norm, and real-life examples prove the danger of such a social practice.
Reasons for Banning Guns Sales
The issue of expanding the rights to purchase and store guns entails associated problems and explains the need to tighten controls on this topic. This assumption is explained by the fact that the provision of a free right to acquire firearms reduces the likelihood of identifying individual cases significantly. According to Mencken and Froese (2017), “the greater the degree of gun empowerment, the lower the probability that gun owners support more mental health screening” (p. 16). In other words, it is unprofitable for sellers of firearms to reduce sales of their products due to restrictions, which affects the control of purchases negatively. However, the lack of appropriate practices for tracking potentially dangerous buyers is fraught with not only ethical but also legal risks. Freedom to acquire automatic or semiautomatic weapons cannot be considered a sign of a democratic society since threats to people outweigh the principles of respect for human rights.
In the USA, the issue of restricting the right to sell firearms is particularly acute. As Swanson, McGinty, Fazel, and Mays (2015) argue, around 74,000 people become victims of gunshot incidents annually (p. 368). Such statistics are alarming in the context of the lack of sufficiently strict legislation prohibiting the carrying of weapons to people with an unstable psyche. Swanson et al. (2015) emphasize that, according to a 2013 national survey, approximately 46% of Americans are convinced that people with mental illnesses are significantly more dangerous than healthy citizens (p. 369). The main threat is the unpredictability of these people’s behavior and their potential tendency to aggression. The Australian example is evidence of the effectiveness of tough controls. Swanson et al. (2015) note that in 1996, after a tragic massacre, a law was passed in the country, which restricted access to firearms. As a result, over the next decade, there was not a single documented case of mass killings, although before, there were 13 cases for 18 years (Swanson et al., 2015, p. 376). These results confirm the relevance of control and the importance of policies to deter free sales.
Judging by the current trend in society, people are ready to support the restrictions and prohibitions on the sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons to people with mental illnesses. Citizens are convinced that in addition to the fact that such guns pose a higher threat due to their rapidity of fire and the affected area, they cannot be sold freely to everyone, without exception. Barry et al. (2018) cite recent statistics, and in accordance with their results, about 83.6% of the respondents support the criminal prosecution of mentally ill people who hide the possession of firearms (p. 879). Such excitement is caused by frequent cases of attacks on civilians, and the outcomes of forensic examinations often prove the mental insanity of criminals. These factors are the reasons for additional consideration of the issue of arms sales to the audience in question. Given the readiness of the population to take strict control measures, the authorities should strengthen the mechanism of regulating legislative practices that impose restrictions on the possession of guns by people with mental illnesses.
Legal Conventions and Obstacles
The prerequisites for a detailed discussion of the acquisition and storage of firearms are due to the laws and regulations that cause mixed reactions among both individual politicians and the public. Spitzer (2017) describes the history of this issue, starting with the 2008 law that interprets the Second Amendment and defines the free possession of weapons as a constitutional right. The author notes the controversy of this act and a wide resonance caused by the decision of the government to legalize this decision (Spitzer, 2017). Some exceptions were made, for instance, restrictions on the storage of the weapons of mass destruction and other dangerous ammunition that could lead to mass casualties. Nevertheless, the provision of the right to own firearms at the legislative level led to discussions regarding the validity of this law from a social perspective. In particular, the possibility of acquiring guns by certain categories of the population was a controversial topic. As a result, the separation of opinions became so significant that the issue acquired a national significance.
The solution to the problem at the legislative level is due to the current social situation. According to DiMaggio et al. (2019), over the past 30 years, the number of mass massacres doubled in the United States, which became a good reason for discussing the issue of acquiring weapons. The authors note that many terrorist acts were carried out by using automatic and semiautomatic rifles and insist on the need to limit the production and sales of these guns (DiMaggio et al., 2019). In this context, the Assault Weapons Ban adopted at the federal level in 1994 was an important decision contributing to the decline in sales of automatic and semiautomatic firearms to civilians. However, the repeal of this law in 2004 due to democratic sentiments in society was the factor that affected the level of mass killings negatively. As DiMaggio et al. (2019) state, after removing the ban, attacks with automatic and semiautomatic rifles increased significantly. Consequently, the tendency towards legislative grounds for the provision of freedom in the purchase and storage of these weapons is a dangerous trend.
One of the significant topics of concern is restrictions on specific weapon models. Gius (2015) notes that even limited sales of automatic and semiautomatic guns cannot guarantee safety. The author states that a number of weapon models were banned due to the 1994 Ban, but some samples retained their status of authorized, despite similar slaughter properties and magazine capacities (Gius, 2015). The authorities’ inability to limit sales of all the models of dangerous weapons, without exception, is one of the reasons that affect the problem persistence. In addition, despite Obama’s personal decree of 2016 on limiting firearms sales, many Congress representatives disagreed with that decision, citing the aforementioned Second Amendment as a reason to legalize citizens’ free access to automatic and semiautomatic guns(Spitzer, 2017). Thus, selling firearms to people with mental illness is the topic that is complicated by legal conventions.
Relationship Between Mental Illnesses and Aggression
The relationship between mental disorders and aggression expressed in violence and an uncontrolled desire to kill innocent people is obvious and requires addressing at the national level. According to Fox and Fridel (2016), in the context of this topic, mental abnormalities are often associated with public shootings under the influence of paranoid ideas that arise from criminals. At the same time, from a clinical perspective, it is not possible to predict sick people’s specific behavior and anticipate their dangerous actions. As a result, in order to maintain the safety of citizens, it is essential to unify the system of control over the purchase and storage of firearms since this measure is the only obvious one to solve the problem under consideration. Otherwise, as Fox and Fridel (2016) remark, the problem will be aggravated because, in accordance with the research of 2015, 38% of the massacres were committed by persons who were not entitled to possess weapons (p. 16). Therefore, the correlation between mental disorders and violent behavior is obvious.
The difference of opinions regarding the influence of mental illnesses on aggressive behavior is the reason for distinctive views on the drivers of violence. Flaskerud (2019) notes the opinions of liberals insisting on tightening gun control in the country and conservatives blaming video games and mental disorders for inciting violence. The author also argues that although many mental illnesses do not cause an uncontrolled desire to kill people, risks are significant, and even a small percentage of the threat is an incentive for restrictions (Flaskerud, 2019). The danger of mental disorders lies in their unpredictability and inability to assess the condition of a particular patient instantly. Thus, the restriction on the sales of automatic and semiautomatic guns to people with mental disorders can have minimal positive implications, but it may be enough to save the lives of some people.
The relationship between mental illnesses and aggression should be considered not only due to the unpredictability of mentally unbalanced people’s behavior but also individual risk factors. Rozel and Mulvey (2017) analyze this topic and note that patients’ different personal characteristics affect their worldview distinctively, which complicates control over their behavior. The authors note the increased interest of the media in this topic and argue that ignoring the problem may be fraught with massive discontent among citizens (Rozel & Mulvey, 2017). The need to take urgent measures to limit the sales of weapons to potentially dangerous populations is crucial. Despite this biased approach and the deliberate separation of people with mental disorders into a single category, in the context of national security, such a solution may be justified. Neglecting obvious threats, conversely, can be fraught with the growth of victims of mass shootings.
Possible Dispute Resolution
In order to resolve existing problems and address legislative issues regarding the limitation of firearms sales, related issues should be taken into account. The adoption of additional security measures may contribute to reducing public resonance and, at the same time, help protect people. Morabito and Socia (2015) argue that social services, in particular, the police are to be prepared to identify and prevent dangerous incidents involving mentally ill citizens. The authors note that officers should undergo special training to recognize suspicious individuals and take the necessary measures to prevent threats to civilians (Morabito & Socia, 2015). In addition, the police should monitor the operation of specialized stores offering arms and ammunition to the population and control the observance of legitimate trade in order to prevent the sales of forbidden goods. Such measures can secure citizens and create an atmosphere of stability guaranteed by the vigilance of law enforcement agencies.
The examples of individual countries in addressing the issue of restricting firearms sales can be valuable in resolving this problem in the United States. Evans, Farmer, and Saligari (2016) cite the legislation of the UK and Australia and note that local laws are significantly more demanding and stringent regarding the storage of guns. The authors note that in the UK, it is not easy for residents to acquire weapons, and police officers who control public order are also rarely armed (Evans et al., 2016). As a result, the threat to both ordinary citizens and mentally ill people is minimized by smoothing out aggressive forms of resolving violent situations. Australian laws are no less demanding in restricting the sales of weapons to the public, although local officers are armed. Thus, as Evans et al. (2016) state, aggressive and mentally ill people are at risk because law enforcement officers are to provide armed resistance in case of any signs of violence demonstrated by citizens. However, the difficulty of buying an automatic or semiautomatic gun reduces the likelihood of attacks on civilians and simplifies control over the problem.
To reduce public resonance and soften discussions regarding the ban on the storage of firearms by mentally ill people, addressing healthcare issues can be no less important than taking legislative measures. Varshney, Mahapatra, Krishnan, Gupta, and Deb (2016) emphasize that from a public health perspective, this problem is an objective reason for interventions and the reassessment of approaches to interacting with patients with confirmed diagnoses of mental disorders. If society considers this category of the population as vulnerable rather than dangerous, this may contribute to a more productive resolution of disputes regarding firearms storage and sales. Varshney et al. (2016) state that national healthcare programs should have sufficient resources to help citizens with mental illnesses and identify any tendencies for deviant behavior timely. All the measures considered can be valuable methods for resolving the issue under consideration and mitigating the positions of individual citizens with respect to the current legislation.
Conclusion
In the realities of the modern world, the sale of firearms, in particular, automatic and semiautomatic guns, to people with mental illnesses should be limited due to risks to the civilian population. Various legislative conventions impede the implementation of current control practices, although the problem is acute, and the statistics of mass killings confirm this assumption. Manifestations of aggressive behavior among people with such disorders are difficult to predict, which increases the need for preventive measures. Addressing this topic should take place not only at the social but also healthcare level in order to protect both the population and mentally ill patients themselves.
References
Barry, C. L., Webster, D. W., Stone, E., Crifasi, C. K., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2018). Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), 878-881.
DiMaggio, C., Avraham, J., Berry, C., Bukur, M., Feldman, J., Klein, M.,… Frangos, S. (2019). Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 86(1), 11-19.
Evans, R., Farmer, C., & Saligari, J. (2016). Mental illness and gun violence: Lessons for the United States from Australia and Britain. Violence and Gender, 3(3), 150-156.
Flaskerud, J. H. (2019). Mental illness and/or guns? Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 1-4.
Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2016). The tenuous connections involving mass shootings, mental illness, and gun laws. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 14-19.
Gius, M. (2015). The impact of state and federal assault weapons bans on public mass shootings. Applied Economics Letters, 22(4), 281-284.
Mencken, F. C., & Froese, P. (2017). Gun culture in action. Social Problems, 66(1), 3-27.
Morabito, M. S., & Socia, K. M. (2015). Is dangerousness a myth? Injuries and police encounters with people with mental illnesses. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 253-276.
Rozel, J. S., & Mulvey, E. P. (2017). The link between mental illness and firearm violence: Implications for social policy and clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 445-469.
Spitzer, R. J. (2017). Gun law history in the United States and Second Amendment rights. Law & Contemporary Problems, 80, 55.
Swanson, J. W., McGinty, E. E., Fazel, S., & Mays, V. M. (2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: Bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of Epidemiology, 25(5), 366-376.
Varshney, M., Mahapatra, A., Krishnan, V., Gupta, R., & Deb, K. S. (2016). Violence and mental illness: What is the true story? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(3), 223-225.