This and @anon61221983’s points are what I’m trying to say - using “mental health” as the description means that you’re (A) making it really easy to remove rights from people on EXCEPTIONALLY arbitrary levels; and (B) enshrining the idea that “violent ideation/action” = “mentally ill”. The first - well, as Mindysan33 notes, DO YOU WANT EUGENICS? BECAUSE THAT’S HOW YOU GET EUGENICS. AGAIN. And the second … well, that there’s an interesting catch-22, at the very least. If you’re trying to obtain weapons, that would indicate violent ideation, which, uhhhhhh. (Not to mention the blatant violent ideation implied in “joining the police or military (but I repeat myself)” as a bright red flag as well under that painting.) And that also elides the UTTER inaccuracy of “the mentally ill are violent/immediate threats”.
(I WILL say that anyone who has assault/battery/abuse convictions OR accusations should, at the least, have restrictions on access to firearms; and that includes the almost CERTAINLY under-estimated forty percent of police who are domestic abusers for a bare minimum.)
Know what? I’m just gonna say “get rid of the goddamn guns, follow Australia’s model at a minimum” as a starting point.
