Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manta49
Quote:
|
I think your intent is to ask me whether I would be happy to have a person access arms and live beside my family, even though there is a risk he may harm himself or others. If I have misstated your question, let me know.
|
I am asking if you would be happy if someone who was known to have mental health problems. That made him a risk to himself and the public should be able to buy firearms without any checks. And would you be happy for the person to be living beside you and your family.
|
I believe you intend that text above to be a single question, correct?
Depends what the mental health problem is. Most of us carry around our own little batch of "crazy", and have the sense to refrain from inflicting it on others. If he is driven to check his stove a dozen times before he leaves the house, then I continue to prefer that he retain the right to be armed. People with "mental problems" are generally not especially dangerous.
Everyone is a risk to himself and the public, but few are a real danger. If a person is really a danger to himself and others, then involuntary commitment is called for, and there are due process requirements to continue that beyond a short period.
Depending on the mental problem, I might not be about the person living next door, but that wouldn't be because he had a weapon. Dangerous people don't need guns to hurt others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
Referral from mental health professional.
Referral from from family member.
These trigger a simple response, a minimum of two psychologists(three might be better), examine the subject and determine if the are a danger to society.
If the answer is yes from only one, another Mental Health professional is involved.
Two yes's get you locked up until it can be determined more conclusively whether you are a danger.
Is this perfect? No.
Is it better? YES!
|
Is it a civil liberties catastrophy? Yes.