Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.
NYC has about 8.3 million inhabitants, WY has about 576K, or NYC has 14 times as many residents as WY. It has 40 times as many murders.
Really. So if someone has mental problems, he or she doesn't have rights?
Assuming this response was aimed at my reply up thread, I would say this:
If someone has mental health issues of such severity that they are having police contact and being referred into the court system because of them, then they should be evaluated to determine if their rights should be limited because their particular issues do or do not pose a risk to themselves or others.
It's a pretty big straw man to get from that line of thinking to claiming mental problems = suspension of rights.
The same could be said for people who drink alcohol. Some of them get violent and are more likely to commit a gun homicide, so by your logic anyone know to drink should be denied his 2nd amendment rights.
In many jurisdictions, it is a crime to be intoxicated in possession of a firearm, or to carry a firearm in places which serve alcoholic beverages, or similar.
What other right is denied before someone commits a crime?
Drivers licenses are revoked or suspended with pretty boring regularity when persons demonstrate that their driving poses a risk to themselves or others based on patterns of behavior and minor infractions.
You need to first commit an act of aggression that is defined as a crime or demonstrate yourself to be a danger before your rights can be restricted through due process.
Adjudicated mentally defective = due process.
The previously referenced Cho, for instance, had a lawyer present and representing him at the competency hearing that determined he was subject to court ordered outpatient treatment.
How is taking your 2nd amendment right away due process if you have committed no crime and haven't been determined in court to be a danger to yourself or others because of your behavior.
See above. A magistrate and a special justice, in two separate hearings, both determined that based on the totality of the circumstances in front of them that Cho should be involuntarily subject to mental health treatment.