Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Background checks are vastly overrated as a deterrent IMO. I agree that they should be a requirement but unless there is a obvious smoking gun they are pretty much not dq'ing many other than the obvious.
I'm not a lawyer and didnt stay in a Holiday Inn express last night but I think a few of your suggestions like the Doctors and databases open to gun dealers may be illegal. Who would Doctors report the dangerous patients to? How would you be able to determine what is crazy and what is dengerous crazy?
The felon restrictions are nice for the media and for politicians looking to make points but felons are probably the group most able to acquire firearms by non-legal means.
The number of people who attempt to illegally acquire guns through legal means has to be a small number right?
I get where you are going with this but there are millions of guns out there already and like illicit drugs it just isnt that hard to get your hands on them if you have the desire and cash.
|
I think she should have said mental health professionals instead of doctors. Actually, the Brady Law already provides for "Court ordered dangerously mentally ill persons" to be added to the background check database. Not sure how that works, but I think that most states, if not all require that a person have a court hearing before commitment to a State Hospital and I think that they must be found to be a danger to themselves or others for the commitment to occur. I am guessing that the court then has them added to the database. Having said this though, this does not seem to cover the persons that a therapist might just think are dangerous like the Aurora, Colorado shooter. I think these persons should be in my opinion added to the database.