View Single Post
  #14  
Old 02-17-2019, 01:47 PM
JamesB JamesB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage Bacon View Post
The shootings in the US would drop if a mental health check was performed when purchasing firearms. A guy can attempt suicide several times, mutilate all of his neighbors dogs, talk about blowing up a school or a mall. And all this be documented and still be allowed to purchase semi automatic firearms or hand guns. But a guy getting caught with a doobie and getting charged is banned for life from owning any firearm.

Mental health obviously (to me anyway?) Plays a major role in these shootings and behaviours. So why aren't these people being restricted from purchasing firearms? The public should be made aware that these people are the majority in these horrible scenarios and not the person that likes to go plinking and skeet shooting.

I'm not sure if Canada does a mental health check but from the info I hear from lots of the shootings is that there were plenty of warning signs before they happen. Now I know this isn't always the case but it does seem to be repetitive.
I am not sure about your argument or examples. A "mental health check", is a pretty nebulous concept, and opens up the process to abuse. Certainly if a person poses a risk to themselves or others, there should be a means to either notify law enforcement, or incarcerate the individual. Other than that, "mental health checks" could open up privacy issues, and provide a means to abuse the process of firearms licensing.
However, most of the examples you listed should generate criminal charges, and those charges (which result in a conviction) should prohibit the individual from purchasing firearms legally. Quite a few of the latest mass shootings in the US demonstrate that agencies make mistakes, ignore threats, fail to lay charges where they are appropriate (due to PC pressure), and fail to pass on information (even when they are required to). If the existing processes are followed correctly, there really should be no requirement to add any other new processes to the mix. In most cases holding public agencies accountable for their errors and omissions would resolve a lot of problems.
Reply With Quote