• David Katz (Madden Shooter) could buy guns despite mental health issues
    33 replies, posted
Did it ever occur to you that, for some of those people, closing those doors would actually be a good thing? For people that are mentally ill and shouldn't own firearms, that's exactly what would be happening to them, what's the limit exactly? If people are afraid to get help because they will take their guns away, if their issues are that bad, then maybe those are the types of people that should have them taken away. How many shooters shared that same mentality didn't get help, then took the lives of others just because they didn't want to lose access to guns, even though that's what was needed? Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun nut myself, but if I was told I needed to surrender my guns until such time that I was not a danger to myself or others, I would do it. It's not for me to decide.
You misunderstand: People are afraid to get help because their issues aren't that bad, but all it takes is one overreacting unelected official to have a disproportionate reaction and boom, there go your rights, with little chance of ever having them restored. I'm genuinely disappointed to see several people in this thread demonstrate the same old stereotypes about mental illness. Mentally-ill people aren't all mass-murders in waiting or inches away from suicide. Plenty of people could benefit from professional help, but aren't a threat to themselves or others. Stripping civil rights from people who voluntarily seek treatment is incredibly counterproductive.
Nor should it be for some random person to decide. The current system is in place to respect due process, so that someone can have their day in court before getting their rights taken away from them. That is how it should be, that's how potentially losing any right should be. No one should lose their rights by voluntarily seeking help, that should always be something decided in a court of law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.