It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.
Actually, US citizens only vote directly for one branch out of the three (theoretically) equal branches of the federal government. The President is elected by the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court is appointed. Even members of Congress can, in special circumstances, gain office without being elected.
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two links that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
I suspect you're correct on that. Given the dilemma of safety versus freedom on this issue, I'd prefer freedom. Evidently, you would prefer safety.
You let your idealism get in the way of rationality. I wouldn't let them drive either. Not a question of freedom, just logic.
Good. It's logical to ignore the rights of the minority in favor of the preferences of the majority. In this case, though, I think I have proven my rationality. I have backed myself up with logic and evidence.
Driving is a privilege; owning a gun is a right.
I would not limit myself to one plan, either, but issuing a blanket ban on the legally blind owning guns is not one of the plans that I'd agree with.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
I'd suspect otherwise; how else would they fix their guns? 
How is it irrational to see a gun as a tool? It's used by people to get what they want, whether that's enjoyment from target shooting, food from hunting or safety from self-defense. Yes, it can be used for evil, but that depends on the user.
A gun was not designed for enjoyment. It may be used for it now, but it wasn't designed for it. I realise the argument is necessary to defend your notion of freedom ("guns don't kill" etc) but don't kid yourself.
A screwdriver, on the other hand, is pretty specific. It is actually a tool, and it's all it is. Try to take out an opponent with it.
Actually, the argument works better when guns are used for what they're designed for. Then, instead of being a theoretical exercise, this becomes a practical argument with real consequences. Why shouldn't the blind be entitled to the same rights as the sighted?
In the interest of backing myself up, I've included
two links to cases in the UK where screwdrivers were used as murder weapons.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
Of course they're approximations. Everyone is different in what they experience. As for what the tool is used for, that is always in the hands of the user. Like sighted people, legally blind people must be sure to use their guns responsibly, and only in ways that they are capable of doing safely.
Sorry but I find this bizarre and can't be bothered to repeat my stance again.
Your stance so far has been a collection of stereotypes and bare assertions. How is it bizarre to hold that people are responsible for themselves?
