Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
What? I'm just asking your opinion. You are the one that stated, "One of the huge problems since nics has been, doctors dont want to forward mental health problems to the State and the State doesn't want to forward information to nics for starters. Hence those with problems arnt prohibited and cruise through state and federal checks. How many shooters in the last 20 years have bought from ffl's and with years of mental issues passed a nics check or checks."For Christ Sake Man, give it a rest.
WTF
Along with quoting an article talking about how a good bit of mass shooters have mental illnesses. And I have another question regarding that article, of the 28 that were diagnosed with mental illness how many were diagnosed prior to the shootings? From this article it sounds like none of them were, if that is the case shouldn't all private ownership be prohibited in case the person has an diagnosed mental disorder?
Study suggests unmedicated, untreated brain illness is likely in mass shooters
The first analysis of medical evidence on domestic mass shooters in the US finds that a large majority of perpetrators have psychiatric disorders for which they have received no medication or other treatment, reports a study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. The journal is published...
www.eurekalert.org
Short answer, Yes.While I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, what do you say about the violent-weapons felon who's served his time? Technically he's free. Should he be able to carry? Just trying to clarify your thoughts on this, because I'm not sure myself what the right answer is.
.
Longer answer, If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed to legally own firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. If they are allowed to roam free, they should have all the rights of a free man.