I'm not either. Too easy to be abused, by anti-gun activists or a government body with a disarmament agenda, or both. "Oh, it'll only be used when a person is truly mentally ill" you say, and I'm sure you mean it, but who defines mentally ill? What happens when the extreme religious right seizes power and defines homosexuality as a mental illness again? What happens when a fascist party is in control and defines anyone from the opposing party as insane? These are not extreme examples. These things have happened in history, and they will happen again. Things like red flag laws put in place by well meaning voters enabled those abuses, and a democratic voting body and a free press did not prevent them. And won't prevent them next time.
I haven't been following this thread so maybe this has been said already, but here's the deal with gun laws - every single one of them is an infringement on a Constitutional right that is intended in part as a check against an authoritarian/fascist government, a right that I'm increasingly worried we're going to need in my lifetime. Courts have ruled that no right is absolute and they are correct, of course there have to be limits, but anything more than the absolute minimum is too much. If gun laws that restricted access to weapons and made it easier to disarm a potential killer were the ONLY way to prevent a massive epidemic of killings then I might be on board. I'm not, because a) it's not happening. Violent crime is down across the board over the past few decades and still dropping. b) I don't think they would work, there's far too many undocumented firearms in circulation for any sort of meaningful gun control to work at reducing gun violence. c) even if there WERE a massive violence epidemic and we COULD realistically disarm everyone, guns aren't the problem. Firearm ownership levels have been pretty steady over the entire history of the US, so even IF violent firearm-related crime was rising, clearly it isn't the guns causing it. d) even if guns WERE the actual cause of a wave of violence that could be prevented by simply taking the guns, I don't care. I think there's bigger fish to fry.
This is the part of the conversation where nearly every gun control advocate I've had it with gets mad. They say "well what are you going to do then, nothing?" Exactly right. Nothing. The 2A is too important to be fiddled with like this. IF there is a problem, it's literally a mental health problem brought on by stress. The amount of firearms floating around hasn't changed, but you know what has? Wealth and power disparity. We live in a society that is increasingly and deliberately divided into the haves and have-nots, and the haves are very very good and getting better at making sure that the have-nots are too busy fighting each other for scraps to do anything about it. The people that snap and shoot up a church or a mall or their workplace are the extreme, but they're literally just doing what their sick head tells them they have to do to fight for scraps. You want to reduce gun violence? You can do it by taking away the stressors that are driving it, and in the process do a LOT of other good besides. But taking the guns, while it might might make some people feel better, won't actually accomplish anything except make it easier for a bad-actor government to disarm us. And while we're looking down the barrel at a narcissistic fascist who's building a private army of brownshirts and LITERALLY trying to overthrow the federal government, I'm not willing to make it easier for the federal government to disarm me. And I think anybody who IS willing to make it easier is showing a terrible lack of foresight.