Again, 'Murrica. How Many More

[Neo-Scholastic]

Suppose you deny gun ownership because they are receiving treatment, either because they have sought counselling for depression or are taking medication. How many people would be discouraged from seeking treatment if they thought it would put them under state scrutiny? Especially people prone to paranoid delusions? We need to be aware of unintended consequences.

I really, really hope I'm missing your point.  Are you seriously contending that denying gun ownership to people prone to paranoid delusions is a bad idea?

If emotionally disturbed or mentally unstable conditions are not reported to gun licensing agencies, then you're widening the set of people with guns who should not have guns.  If these people and conditions are not included in some sort of database, what is to prevent the bloke who tells his counselor, 'I have dreams about shooting school children in the face' from buying a weapon and fulfilling his fantasies?

Boru

I'm saying that it is easier to say "some people shouldn't be allowed to have guns" than it is to actually define and identify who to disqualify and implement policies that actually work. In Illinois, people under certain forms of psychiatric care, like outpatient day programs, are required to surrender their firearm permits. That seems reasonable to most people, like a personal friend of mine, who entered such a program because she recognized that in her conditions she could be a threat to herself and others. The example you gave, of a person currently in therapy, is also already covered by law. Certain mental health professionals are obligated to notify law enforcement of confessions and statements suggesting that the patient is an imminent risk. The kinds of generally accepted provisions and safe-guards I just mentioned are much different than trying to predetermine who is not capable of responsible gun ownership by using mandatory mental health evaluations or subjective blacklists.