Perhaps some people will indeed go without treatment if the law is enforced. And perhaps some people will be unfairly deprived of firearms when they are actually harmless. But those criticisms prove only that no policy is perfect. Some minor side effects are a small price to pay for reducing the threat posed by the likes of Cho Seung-Hui.
The obvious alternative to upgrading enforcement of the existing law is to repeal it and let people known to suffer from dangerous mental illnesses enjoy free access to firearms. And that, pardon the expression, would be lunacy.
Yeah, Steve, if someone besides you gets killed because they've been rendered defenseless, it's a "small price" and a minor side effect." It must be small, because you're not the one paying it.
How about--falling back on your original premise--if somebody is psychotic and a danger to himself and others, and this has been adjudicated with full legal representation--that he be removed from society? it seems anything else, again using your words, would be lunacy.
But then again, maybe I should watch what I wish for. I suppose for taking a public stand on this issue like I do on a daily basis, I might be considered a danger to myself--or at least inviting danger form those who demand obedience and compliance. And I pray to God when the day comes where I may need to physically defend my rights that I will prove to be a danger to others.
Nuts, huh?