Every time someone brings up that health background checks, including mental health assessments, should be part of the ownership process of guns, they're met with cries of "do you have any idea how expensive and pointless that would be"?

 

A depressed person is likely to commit suicide. If they own a gun, that suicide would likely be committed with it, adding to gun violence statistics. Thing is, 42 million Americans are currently or have been in the past diagnosed with depression. If I were to come forward and say that those 42 million people should not be allowed to have a gun, the same people currently pinning mental illness as the problem would be lined up to claw down my throat before I could even finish clicking "Post".

 

It's not just guns and it's not just mental illness. It's a combination of both, and even then, would Dylann Roof have been flagged by a mental health screening? What about killers who steal guns from someone else, what good would a mental health screening that disallowed gun ownership on their parts have accomplished? Should people wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights be forced to surrender privacy to the government in an area that is arguably the most private part of someone's life? Should a diagnosis of depression end up in a government database for the rest of your life, inevitably to be used against you at some point in the future?

 

The mental health system in this country needs to be overhauled, no doubt, but to me that is an issue independent of gun violence. The way to limit gun violence is to limit guns. Not eliminate guns--the Second Amendment still applies, and I'm actually considering purchasing a gun myself after moving out of my peaceful country home and into Dallas--but to place strict limits on the type of guns, number of guns that can be owned, amount of magazines and ammunition that can be owned, etc. It won't stop gun violence, but it would make it harder for someone to walk in with 70 rounds of ammo and reload seven times before being stopped. You can't eliminate gun violence without eliminating guns, and even then, it would take generations to clean them all out of the system. If it can be mitigated by simply saying, "You're not allowed to own six assault rifles, four shotguns, two hunting rifles and eight pistols, and 2,000 rounds of ammo and 15 magazines for each," isn't that common sense regulation worth pursuing?

 

"Only outlaws will have guns blah blah blah," go away. Your argument is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the world has changed without anyone doing anything by the time you pull up.

---