dinger wrote: Felon/not felon is an easy line to draw, mentally healthy/not healthy is not so much. Slippery slope and all of that.
It's called "due process". If someone is adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, we can consider what rights to remove. But that means basically a hearing or trial, witnesses for both sides, multiple "experts", and representation for the allegedly incompetent person.
slantvaliant wrote:dinger wrote: Felon/not felon is an easy line to draw, mentally healthy/not healthy is not so much. Slippery slope and all of that.It's called "due process". If someone is adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, we can consider what rights to remove. But that means basically a hearing or trial, witnesses for both sides, multiple "experts", and representation for the allegedly incompetent person.
But that is NOT what they're doing in this case.
In reply to Bobzilla:
If the guns were a problem, I'd have expected more people to have died from all this.
Bobzilla wrote:slantvaliant wrote:But that is NOT what they're doing in this case.dinger wrote: Felon/not felon is an easy line to draw, mentally healthy/not healthy is not so much. Slippery slope and all of that.It's called "due process". If someone is adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, we can consider what rights to remove. But that means basically a hearing or trial, witnesses for both sides, multiple "experts", and representation for the allegedly incompetent person.
That's my problem with the entire situation. Laws like the Baker act can get you into a lot of trouble because some random anonymous person with an axe to grind can get you involuntarily committed and remove your right to own guns. There's no due process involved in the mental health clauses you simply have your second amendment right revoked with no recourse.
I'm trying to look at it like it's the shark attack craze all over again. The statistic that CNN was throwing around the other night was that its 10.2 deaths per 100,000 are caused by guns, that includes suicides which make up 6.3 per 100,000 which translates into 0.0039% of a chance that I'll be the unintentional victim of a person with a gun.
I'm pretty willing to live with those odds especially since cars are 12.3 per 100,000 and I'm sure the suicide by car number is much much lower meaning someone is more likely to kill me with a car intentionally or unintentionally.
Yamaha: Special love note: I'm sorry to sound combative on the last couple posts looking back at it. I didn't mean it that way but the Brady bill really gets my goat.
Edit sorry sources since that comes into question around here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
You'll need to log in to post.
