I’ve been thinking about the problem of mentally ill people with guns.
Maybe a small ankle bracelet that works in conjunction with a sensor near the cash register in gun shops. Something very short range (6 to 10 feet maybe) Just to alert the cashier.
Obviously it wouldn’t solve the whole problem since many mentally ill people kill with means other than guns or they don’t always buy from gun stores.
As far as felons are concerned, Keep truly dangerous felons locked up.
Branding "mentally ill" people like cattle with ankle bracelets is not going to solve anything. If anything, it will stigmatize mental illnesses even more than they already are. The solution is not to stigmatize mental illnesses; that will only make people less inclined to seek treatment.
If I were suffering from depression, I would be inclined to see a psychiatrist for help. However, considering that doctors are being told to ask their patients whether they own firearms, I would be a bit less inclined, just in case I accidentally let something slip and the cops come to break down my door and take away my guns for no other reason than because I told the psychiatrist I was depressed. Now you're suggesting that even if I don't say anything about owning guns, the psychiatrist should be required to pin me down and force me to wear an ankle bracelet declaring that I'm a "crazy"? Sure it's "Just to alert the cashier," but then you can't wear shorts again or it will be "just alerting everyone who happens to glance down at your ankle." And that's not just for those who are gun owners or want to be gun owners; it would have to affect every single person in the country who ever sees a psychiatrist for any reason. And if that were the case, then there's no way I--or anyone else for that matter--would ever even consider going to a psychiatrist.
And that's without even considering the fact that someone without the "scarlet letter" could just as easily walk into the store and buy a firearm for someone who has been unjustly labeled and stripped of their Second Amendment rights. Say that my wife were forced to wear that stupid ankle bracelet because she takes psychiatric medication. Say that I think it's stupid for her to be barred from having a gun for her own protection (I'll just come out and say it: I think it would be stupid for her to not be allowed to have a gun for her own protection, considering that she is NOT a danger to herself or others.). Now say that I go into a gun store and purchase a handgun. It is legally my gun since I'm the one who filled out the paperwork, but considering that we're married, we own everything in common, so it's just as much her gun as mine. And she's the one who carries it. The ankle bracelet didn't work. So now would you say that I should have to wear an ankle bracelet to let the cashier know that I live with someone who has a mental illness? Because if we're going to start playing that game, every single person in the country will be wearing an ankle bracelet within a year. To repeat: EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. IN. THE. COUNTRY!
Your father went to a treatment facility for alcoholism back before you were born? Sucks to be you. He now has a "mental illness" (alcoholism), and is barred from owning firearms. And since you might want to take him shooting with your guns one of these days, I guess you can't own any guns, either.
Your brother saw a psychiatrist three years ago? Too bad for you; he might come over to your house and find your gun.
Your grandmother has geriatric depression? No guns for you.
Your cousin was diagnosed with postpartum depression? Sorry, you can't have guns either, because you might give one to her.
Your daughter is seeing a counselor for help with depression resulting from bullying at school? She is too dangerous to be in the same zip code as a firearm, so you certainly can't own one!
Now, not only have you stigmatized mental illness to the point where no one will ever seek help again, you've given the government all the ammunition it needs to effectively eliminate a Constitutional right. Oh, and you personally have given up that right, too, because I bet you have at least 1 friend or relative who has seen a therapist, counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist, etc., at least once in their lifetime.
And which agency of the government do you think should be given the great responsibility and authority of deciding who is "truly dangerous?"
More or less by definition, to prevent such attacks by loons, we would have to permanently lock up 10x or 100x or possibly 1000x that number of people who, left alone to mutter to themselves, would never have done such a thing. And then we will in all likelihood miss one of them and a mass murder occurs anyway.
Some the rhetoric used on FR would lead many people, especially liberals, to think the writers were dangerous and should be locked up.
Was looking at some statistics from Oz recently, where they haven't had a mass shooting since they put in drastic new gun control laws after the Hobart atrocity. The article was about mass murder in Oz, and it seemed to me that they'd had a lot of mass murder by arson since the new laws made guns largely unavailable.
Tried to find some way to compare mass murder by arson during this period between Oz and US, but was unsuccessful. If mass murder by arson went up in Oz while staying the same in US, all all Oz may have done is shift the methods, without saving actual lives.
Oz is much smaller than US, so one would expect fewer mass murders, by any means. Something that is often forgotten when discussing the number of mass murder incidents between the US and say, the Netherlands.
“I’ve been thinking about the problem of mentally ill people with guns.”
Me, too. There are far too many questions unanswered.
The biggest problem I see with this is WHO is going to define “mental illness”?
According to libs every gun-owner is mentally ill.