[Platapus]

Well that is a tricky question.

My opinion?

I am all in favour of helping the mentally ill and making sure that they are not inappropriately discriminated against. BUT

There has to be a point when society (medical field and LE) should be able to state that this one specific person has such a mental illness/disability/what ever PC term you want that they can not be allowed to do XXX (drive a car, purchase a weapon. etc.)

This is what seems to be missing in our society. We seem reluctant to make that final but, in my opinion, responsible step.

"Mr. Cho as of this date you are not permitted to purchase a handgun and all handguns you currently have will be confiscated until competent authority states that your mental state has improved to the point where you can be trusted with weapons.

You have the right to appeal this decision under the following procedures....."

And then this decision is transmitted to all appropriate databases. Everyone has a right to privacy, but when they voluntarily choose to, say, buy a handgun, some aspects of their privacy must be waived (criminal background check, mental health database....)

To me, there comes a point when a person's mental state (illness, disease, disability, ...) may reach a point where society has the right and responsibility to prevent specific activities for the best interests of society.

This decision should not be made arbitrarily but in some cases it must be made.

How many stories do we see in the news about people getting killed, children being killed and the story describes the perp as having mental health issues.

If the mental issues were sufficient to indicate a potential threat to society, then why should not society take the appropriate but humane steps to protect itself????

The kicker is, of course, at what point in the mental health spectrum does a person pass "the point"? Unfortunately the mental health profession is still struggling with that question.