Quoted:
Forget the "mental health" issue.  The minute it becomes law that certain diagnoses can be sent to court for adjudication of the loss of 2nd amendment rights, this scenario WILL play out:

Another tragedy occurs.
It is discovered that the person saw a psychiatrist who did not diagnose at the time because while certain DSM items did match, the frequency or degree was not judged to be there.
Other psychiatrists smell fame and fortune and book deals, they get on msnbc and claim he made a mistake, people would be alive if he had given the diagnosis and sent the criminal to court for loss of rights.
Pharmaceutical companies, who love diagnoses that end in prescriptions, support a legal effort to remove the original pscyh's license, and perhaps even sue him for some liability.
Other psychs see this and tell themselves "there is no way I am going to let someone walk out of here without a diagnosis, I'm not getting tanked like that dude, and look at the book deals those other psychs got!"
Now anybody who sees them gets a diagnosis.  Unfortunately, some people out there refuse to ever take their children in to get diagnosed or refuse to see someone themselves.  Queue the school system and workplaces, who start referring people to mandatory evaluations (the options are being remanded to LD classes or being fired).

Now you are in a system where it is more convenient to pawn you off on a diagnosis than deal with coaching, performance, discipline, etc...  especially since teachers and workplaces might be liable for handling such things incorrectly.

There are already massive criticisms of the DSM and over-diagnosis, documented instances of psychiatric professionals agreeing to push the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies, etc.

The mental health solution is MORE dangerous than an AWB or a handgun ban or a mag capacity limit to our 2nd amendment rights.  It empowers the state to remove ALL rights to ANY firearms without any choice of the individual.  You can not win against a government that wants to take your rights away if they have the legal path to the result, all intervening steps are mere interpretations that can be financially and politically bullied.  These experts that would make these diagnoses are not elected, are not even appointed by elected officials, and as a community they determine their own requirements with no real outside review.  They are not judges, and even if a judge was inserted into the process, what judge would want to be liable for disagreeing with the diagnosis of the "expert?"

In this society of litigation and multiple steps of punishment, leaving gun rights in the hands of any person or expert will default to removing gun rights.

Quoted:

<snip>

None of these incidents is particularly new to humans.  It crosses time and cultures.    

Quoted:


Define crazy....thats the issue with any mental health approach to prohibiting gun ownership.

We won't get into the fact that the guns here were stolen and any new law wouldn't have applied, because that logical