" wrote in news:068519b7-d365-4a93-
:


Following your argument, then insanity would be an immediate and
airtight defense in any trial for a mass murderer.

Yes, and it probably should be, too -- at least in jurisdictions such as Indiana, in which "not
guilty by reason of insanity" hasn't been an option since about 1975 (Google "Tony Kiritsis"
to find out why; the law here was modified in the wake of that case). Now, if the accused's
sanity is questionable, an Indiana jury can return a verdict of "guilty but insane", and the
person is sent to a mental hospital for the same length of time he would spend in prison if he
were sane; if he is later found to be sane, he spends the remainder of the time in prison.

They, by definition,
would be insane and could not be found guilty. Clearly that is not
the way the legal system works because the world doesn't use
your definition.

It works that way in some (but IMHO not nearly enough) parts of the world; see above re
Indiana.

And I'm sure if you look at the long'
list of defendants that have faced trial for mass murder, you will
find plenty that were judged sane and then tried and found guilty.

And plenty that were judged insane, too.

But all that is beside the point. You're missing the subtext here, trader. There's a hidden
agenda behind the declaration that mass murder is a "rational" act: if it's rational, then
*anyone* is a potential mass murderer. In this scenario, then, since potential mass
murderers cannot be trusted with firearms, and all of us are potential mass murderers, then
confiscating firearms is justifiable.