Guns are not the only effective means of suicide but I’ve not yet heard of anyone going on a murder then suicide spree using prescription pills.
If you think that an individual’s 2A rights are so absolute that nothing barring a conviction and incarceration is grounds for disarming, then just say so.
I’ve seen many threads where freepers will concede that mentally defective people should not have firearms, yet is seems on this thread that everyone believes that even mentally defective persons should be armed as they please.
Is there a balance? If so, where is it?
How about when there is sufficient evidence to justify detaining the person; in some cases, people might in some circumstances be allowed conditional release (e.g. contingent upon their continuing to take their medicine), but even such people would be clearly recognized as wards of the state.
In short: free people have the right to keep and bear arms. If there is just cause to deny someone's freedom, then and only then may that person be disarmed.
Okay, so the largest non-government mass murder was committed with a gun. Uh, no. Depending upon how you count, the top several were committed with box cutters and airplanes.
How about the next largest after those? Nope. ANFO bomb (Murrah building).
Next largest? Gasoline (Happyland Social Club).
The most effective way of stopping people who would use a gun to commit mass murder is for the intended victims to be armed. Politicians who are given power to disarm people arbitrarily and capriciously are just as likely to cause an unchecked mass murder (by disarming a victim who could otherwise have stopped it) than to prevent one.
An individual’s 2A rights are so absolute that nothing barring a conviction and incarceration is grounds for disarming.
There ya go.