So people suspected of violence due to mental instability, or prior acts of agression or threats towards others --- a developed pattern of this type of behavior--- are not part of you concern?
My first question would be, why does owning a gun inherently mean a person will use it improperly? All acts of aggression are not the same. Rape is a form of violence, and rape is committed without weapons all the time. Virtually every crime out there is successfully completed without weapons regularly. They are also completed WITH weapons regularly. So it isn't the owning of the weapon that causes a crime. It is the mindset of wanting to commit a crime.
Additionally, why do you believe some people should not have a right to self defense because of their previous decisions which they have paid their societal dues for? That is unfair to the people who agreed to the social contract, served their time, and are now released. Should only certain people be given the right to life (essentially, because if you determine who is and is not allowed to defend themselves then you determine who is and is not allowed to be alive) based on previous actions? What if the assault charge was unfounded and the person was framed? Should that person be barred from a gun for the rest of their lives? What about if the developed pattern was 20 years ago and the person has not committed an aggressive act ever since? Or what if they renounced their prior life and joined the foreign legion? Should they own a gun then? What if they became a soldier? Should they have access to a gun then?
Also, who is to say the government will properly use the mental illness category? It is already apparent they have abused drug laws, background checks, search warrants, and other such laws put in place "for people's safety." Who is to say that Conservatism or Liberalism will not be classified a mental disorder and therefore a reason not to own a gun? We already have seen published journal articles and serious works by psychologists making arguments that both conservatism and liberalism are mental disorders for reasons described in those papers. [1] [2] What if the government latches onto this and says "All Conservatives (or Liberals) are mentally unfit for gun ownership?"
Now, in cases where a person makes documented threats? Nah fam. Threats are actual evidence of probable harm to someone. If a person threatens violence onto someone else, that is a violation of the voluntaryist code, that all civic life is free of coercion. It also violates the social contract as laid out in 1776, that a person is free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Threats are obviously a hindrance to this social contract.
on their premise, and pointed at their neighbor
Once again, it is the "pointed at their neighbor" part that makes this an illegal act. Pointing a weapon at someone is a threat of violence. However, mere ownership of the weapon is not. If a person owns a tank but does not point it facing anyone, then where is the threat to violence? Why do we suddenly assume a person who owns a weapon will go on a killing spree? The ownership of the weapon does not change the person's intentions. Now, if they begin pointing their weapons at people and being dicks with their weapons, then that is threatening people and therefore a justifiable reason for their weapons to be taken away, because they have initiated threats against people or at minimum displayed gross negligence with their weapons that could involuntarily harm someone else.
SOURCES:
