I am not sure in what way greater access to mental health care and treatment would help with these sorts of mass shooter situations that are driving the debate right now. The vegas shooter, for example, could likely afford mental health care had he wanted it. For the sake of argument lets assume he had antisocial personality disorder. People in this group do not tend to seek mental health care, and if they do it is for anxiety and not the personality disorder. I am just not sure in what way specifically we could apply the greater mental health care argument in this example.

That said, I do believe it is a great goal. Better access to mental health treatment could help a lot of people who cannot afford treatment and would benefit from it. But it seems to me that that should be the goal of the greater access arguments, to help people who need access and would benefit, but cannot currently afford or obtain access.

Tying the goal of greater access (helping people who would benefit from access) to mass shooting situations seems to subvert a dialogue that might actually benefit (gun restrictions maybe) and ties innocuous people who simply need mental health care with a pretty horrible group of people unnecessarily.