-12 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
I think you would find people deeply supportive of addressing mental health.
50% of the suicide issue is tied to the former military, 80% of the issue is men.
the mental health screening point is a tough one.
we already have the ability to remove peoples rights with due process, finding someone mentally incapacitated is a specific court ruling by which peoples rights are limited.
however, mental health screening? who decides, what health issue is considered qualifying and what due process is there?
so, do i want someones medical records to be used by a gun dealer and have them be the arbiter? no
what agency would be the arbiter?
what medical condition would be disqualifying?
how does one get their rights back?
if we exhaust putting a focus on male and military mental health and still have a drastic problem that only taking someones rights away without due process can fix, then i suppose we can face that then, but I dont see any reason we should start there.
​
Comment by [deleted] at 10/10/2018 at 18:22 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
who decides
Mental health professionals, who can diagnosis people.
so, do i want someones medical records to be used by a gun dealer
No. But there could be some data base that looks you up by ICD10 codes. And if you have one say of schizophrenia, then you'd be denied a gun.
And personally I've never looked at a gun as being some God given right. You don't **need** a gun to survive. So I don't feel like we're taking peoples rights away that might have severe depression/schizophrenia just because we won't give them an AR15.