Ok. Here are a few for you Whitman (speculated as medically caused), Williams/Mohammed, Watson, Ferguson, Roberts, Kinkel, Carneal, Johnson, and Golden.
The point is that murder is a crime, all these people (and the ones you listed) knew that it was at the time they committed the murders. So the question is what is the difference other than the mental health part? Absolutely zero, so then it comes down to if we ban menally ill from possessing, does it stop murders? No.
We don’t need to ban mentally ill from possessing firearms, if a person is a threat to themselves or others they don’t belong in public. Once they are deemed safe to rejoin the public, they should be just as safe as you to possess firearms.
I don't think it's unreasonable or intrusive to have a higher standard to imprison someone than to halt a gun purchase. There are other instances where practical exigencies require some restrictions of liberty before a full adjudication: the rights of speech and assembly are limited by temporary restraining orders, speech limited by gag orders, and folks can be and often are jailed without a conviction if the court determines that they are a high risk to commit more crimes or skip bail.
I think your position is reasonable, but I don't share it, so this is a question of degrees where we apparently will just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Ok. Here are a few for you Whitman (speculated as medically caused), Williams/Mohammed, Watson, Ferguson, Roberts, Kinkel, Carneal, Johnson, and Golden.
There's no consensus on whether Whitman's spree was caused by his tumor. It was in an area on the part of his brain that could inhibit impulse control. There aren't enough case histories to establish whether that is sufficient to explain his crimes or whether he was criminally responsible. He had a history of domestic violence, but it was never reported, and in the '60s it wouldn't have stopped him from buying anyway.
Not to mention that there were no background checks in place when he got his weapons. The fact that someone crazy bought guns in the absence of screening and without a record doesn't have any bearing on the effectiveness of screening based on accurate, up-to-date records. Ferguson was bats---t, but I don't know how hw obtined hes weapons.
Of the DC snipers, Mohammed was clearly crazy -- but there was never a court finding of same. Malvo was a minor who couldn't buy a gun, so screening is moot in his case, as well as those of the school shooters.
Watson, johnson and Golden aren't names that ping with me. And they[re common enough names that I can't look them up without more of a lead.
The point is that murder is a crime, all these people (and the ones you listed) knew that it was at the time they committed the murders. So the question is what is the difference other than the mental health part? Absolutely zero, so then it comes down to if we ban menally ill from possessing, does it stop murders? No.
Lot of assumptions there. A determined criminal will find a way to get an illegal gun. A crazy might not know how or be able to figure out how. And a red-flagged attempt to buy could be the red flag that leads to jail or an involuntary committal. By definition, what might have happened isn't measurable.
If Cho Seung-Hui had been unable to buy guns legally, I doubt he would have been able to find a contact to buy one on the street. If he tried to ask around, that would be likely to attract attention. Would he have still gone postal? Likely. But if he did it with a bat or a knife, someone would have stopped him sooner and there would be fewer bodies.
We're not talking about a wall to gun ownership. We're talking about a speed bump. I find it reasonable. You do not. Again, I understand your position, and I find it reasonable and logical, and I'm not going to spit invective. You're not a "gun nut" and I'm not a "gun-grabber."