I'd say the bills that result from it and the difficulty of finding a practitioner (especially one on your insurance if you don't have the $$$ for out of pocket/out of network) that's taking new patients are far larger obstacles for most.

Being involuntarily committed is/should be basically for if you're actively suicidal (or homicidal, I suppose). There's certainly cases where I can imagine it's a significant deterrent, but I also can't see a system where that isn't an available tool as reasonable either.

> As many people know, if you're involuntarily committed you lose your right to legally own a firearm,

I would generally suggest changing this to "with some kind of determination of illness by the institution" to at least reduce the chance that your rights are limited by just the opinions of one practitioner. If you got put on a 72hr hold and their opinion at the end of it is...."you're fine", that obviously shouldn't disqualify you.

I'd also prefer to see that have some kind of time-related sunset. If you were involuntarily committed once 20 years ago and have had no further interactions with the wrong side of the law/mental health interventions - I don't think that says much about your mental state now.

If you were involuntarily committed 6 months ago....you probably shouldn't be owning a firearm right now.

Where I do think gun control makes for a significant deterrent to accessing mental healthcare is in places that potentially put receiving any mental healthcare as a potential disqualifier for firearms ownership. NYC for example - requires disclosure of all mental healthcare received and medications, and is likely to try to refuse to issue a permit for any history.