Interesting and long article in the NYTimes about mental health and gun rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us...ef=todayspaper
The core is that:
1. After VT and Cho, restricting guns to the truly dangerous was imperative. Cho was not correctly reported
2. So reporting was enhanced.
3. However, many states still don't report as might be necessary.
4. The NRA got in the legislation a required mechanism to appeal, esp. as it applied to Vets and VA evaluatoins.
5. Some folks who appealed to get gun rights restored subsequently did bad things to others or themselves. The article indicates in some of these cases the restoration review was inadequate.
6. Mention was made that predicting violence is very difficult.
The overall piece was a touch biased against gun ownership by such folks but did have a reasonable analysis of the problem.
Again, it is a balance of risks and benefits. For example, thousands of vets get rights back but of course a few do evil.
I think this is a fascinating topic but please spare us the cliches and rants.