At Monday’s public forum titled “Beyond Newtown,” psychologists argued that mental illness should not be a focus of the latest gun control legislation. Panelists at the Syracuse University Department of Psychology event claimed individual behavior should instead be the concentration.

Though there is value in considering behavior on an individual level when formulating anti-gun legislation concerning mental illness, it is not logistical for it to replace the focus on mental illness. Rather, evaluating behavior should be an additional factor when deciding who can purchase a firearm.

New York legislators should re-evaluate their most recent laws to take behavior into account, and to provide clarity and detail concerning what exactly should constitute as a gun-restricting mental illness. Because behaviors play a role in mental illness, it is important to consider this component.

But the inclusion of behavior would have to be extremely specific, as looking into potentially alarming behaviors in general is too broad, ideal and subjective.

Diagnosing mental illnesses should still be a significant factor, as it is in the latest gun control measures. But clearly defining which mental illnesses restrict one from owning a gun is vital, as mental illnesses are not necessarily a direct cause of violent actions.

The argument made by some panelists that there should be more focus on the warning signs from people close to the shooter is valid. But attempting to identify behaviors that are considered warnings before potential shootings may prove problematic. This could result in the negative consequence of individuals being wrongly accused of showing violent tendencies.

Taking behavior into account when assessing the latest gun control legislation is a worthy evaluation, and this factor should be more highly considered. But behavior should not replace the language about mental illness, as it is a needed component in progressive gun measures.