Seeing someone for mental health issues does not make you a prohibited person... ... so even if the fact you are seeing someone for mental health issues shows up in a background check, it will not generate a STOP. A doctor deciding you are unfit to own a gun does not, and can not make you a prohibited person... ....because your rights cannot be taken away w/o due process -- which involves a court of law. The anti-gun left wants "screenings" as a way to avoid the 2nd Amendment, and do not care about the 5th amendment.
Reboot? No. I can clear a stove pipe or a ftf/fte far faster than any OS can reboot. Once the Presidential guards switch to them, then I may consider it
Guns will be old hat, it'll be laser guns in the future. Then they'll have to amend the 2nd Amendment to, "I have the Right To Keep And Bear Light"
Which is important living in America with constantly using ya gun as defence against all the criminals, well, maybe once a week, or month...ok, every year, or decade.....or, maybe in ya lifetime. You know, that self defence fallacy. Plenty of time to re-boot a biofire when shooting tin cans off fence posts.
Let's remember this individual who committed that crime would most likely have seen a trans-affirming psychiatrist, who would have certified them as "not insane", despite possible clear signs to the contrary. Surgically transforming your body to try to be another gender, and hatred of Christians, is normal in those circles.
I don't know of any pshycological testcthat would be effective.. It's just anti gun types coming upnwth a supposed logical proposition, that will provide the means to deny a CCW Licence, similar to the practice of requiring someone to show a need. Besides, does anyone think thatmsuchnamevaluation won't bebreduced to series of questions on a form? Anything to impede individual gun ownersip... That is the Left's one sentence playbook.
Sorry for the necropost, but this topic is one of serious interest to me, as I've never seen any in-depth discussion on the topic. In addition to the points already made (what level of mental health professional is necessary for a diagnosis, how many are there, how much available time do they have and how many simply won't participate in helping people get more guns), I'd like to discuss more on the liability issue. Should the mental health screener pass someone who later commits a mass shooting would they be criminally or civilly liable for their mistake? If not, would they be protected from frivolous lawsuits? Given the FOIA would their name be made public even without any liability with the subsequent pillory in the court of public opinion? Who would risk career, reputation or possibly physical danger by even participating in the process? If a potential purchaser were to fail a screening, could they seek a second opinion that would overule the first one?
If a bad guy with a gun kills 3, 10, or 20 people, and then a good guy with a gun takes him out... that's not a win.
I think we both know the real reason for the suggestion-it's a way of banning or seriously delaying lawful gun purchases
it sure beats a situation where no one shoots the active killer and he racks up a dozen more murders-especially if cowardly police are afraid to act-as they were in Texas
Sure, i'd rather focus on making sure the bad guy doesn't get a gun, i know you guys have given up on that. That is why your opinions do not matter.
You forgot to address how much this may cause shrink prices to increase. This will cause prices to go up because what doctor really will put their practice on the line? They will be sued if someone they cleared commits murder of any kind. Again though… the second amendment is a right and not a *******n privilege. Rightscan not be restricted to the people just cause some scared little turd lives in fear of freedom. What good is the constitution for anymore anyway. It means nothing to anyone who would entertain this idea.
