1. There is rarely forced commitment any more, because it is very difficult.
2. Because forced commitment is rare, there is no mechanism to force dangerous people to take their medicines.
3.There is no fail-safe on releasing dangerous people.
I am not advocating making gun laws more strict. I am advocating better supervision of the mentally ill.
I would prefer to see us revamp the commitment Laws. I agree, there are problems there. Our Governments, Fed and State, would have that many more resources to do so if they got rid of their War on Guns. One, that by our Constitution, they have no power to be waging.
Don't forget the HIPPA regulations that outlaw revealing someone's medical files.
You're right at the core of the issue here.
Leftists would rather restrict the rights of ALL of us, than keep the mentally ill locked up. That's socialism - you just hammer everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Since we just "Can't" keep dangerous criminals and the mentally ill locked up permanently, because it wouldn't be "Fair" to them, we would rather, in the interest of "Fairness", just assume everyone is a criminal or a nut when they want to purchase a firearm, and then subject them to an "Insatant Check" (or whatever) to make them prove that they're NOT a criminal or a nutcase!! (That's more "Fair", in the mind (?) of a leftist Demonrat socialist subhuman insect microbe ground-zero NUKE target.) (Is my attitude showing, or anything?)
Meanwhile, note that(1) the aforementioned "Insatant Check" can ONLY detect those who have ALREADY BEEN DEEMED BY THE GOVERNMENT (all bow) to be untrustworthy - it can't POSSIBLY detect anyone who doesn't already HAVE a record - and (2) the SELFSAME GOVERNMENT (on your knees, scum!) which let the aforementioned unworthies OUT in the first place, is now demanding that we ordinary, non-criminal, non-nutcase citizens prove that we are not somebody the Government (On your FACE, worm!!) doesn't trust!!!
Makes perfect sense to ME... (at least, when viewed through a telescopic sight).