Turns out that the Louisville Bank shooter was a gun control advocate

I seem to recall more than one study showing that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violent crime.

It makes sense if you think about it, if you ever hung out and talked with somebody who is having a psychotic episode you will see that they are confused, confusing to others, and sometimes impulsive. None of these behaviors constitute violence, however normal people can be confused and become hostile. Not at all unlike how different cultures conflict.

So, to deny the right to self defense to those suffering mental illnesses is to deny a potential victim their natural right. As far as prohibiting anyone, it should be done only with due process and only after a crime is committed. This is in keeping with our American standard of the presumption of innocence. It is a serious business dening a person's rights.

The person denied has a right to defend themselves using equal force.

 

most issues involving the mentally ill, requires a balancing act. For example, if someone is adjudicated mentally incompetent, those proceedings determination are public records and are required to be supplied to the national data bank for background checks. Likewise, if a patient makes a credible threat of harm to his doctor, the doctor has an affirmative legal duty to report that threat to law enforcement. On the other hand, we have the privacy act and doctor patient (or priest penitent for that matter) privilege. And many of those who want to wipe that away, in the name of "public safety" ignore the incredibly deleterious consequences of doing that

 

Because, under federal law, she could legally own a gun.

The law was enacted in 1968, by Democrats.
Blame them.

 

No need to wipe it away. If you request a clearance from your doctor, you can ask for it, and the doctor is not in violation of anything when they provide it. I had eye surgery at a private clinic (lens replacement) and had to get clearance from my doctor, and he provided it without violating any rules or regulations

 

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the American legal system.

Mental health checks require the assumption of guilt.

 

No, they do not. Doctors do they all the time.

 

That's a bit disingenuous because you are making waving of the privilege a requirement for buying a gun.

 

the entire purpose of this charade is to impose unreasonable delays upon the acquisition of firearms by people who have no 18 USC 922 disqualifying information in their NCIS record

 

Do what all the time?

 

can you explain to us who actually understand what firearms are normally used for-at what point does a firearm become a "mass killing machine". Since most sources call four or more victims in a shooting, a "mass shooting" that suggests every normal revolver would meet the rather hysterical term "mass killing machine". BTW many good revolver shooters can shoot one about as fast as your average semi autos (which tend to shoot about the same speed)

 

You said it would wipe away privacy act, and I explained why that is a bogus claim, That's all. There is nothing disingenuous about it.

Mental health assessments.

 

Okay, they do mental evaluations frequently.

But they don't force people to get them and if a patient gets referred to law enforcement you can assume the physician has legitimate concern and not an agenda, in part because the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, and in part because the patient is a client.

 

This claim is simply wrong. Even the full auto M-16 wasn't designed to kill many people in seconds.

 

not fair-you actually understand firearms and their uses.

 

Hey Rucker!!! Shouldn't you be "NOVOSEL61" now? Ft Rucker's name has been changed!

 

Different origin.