I’ve noticed the number of “mental health experts” that have been on the air lately, trying to separate “DIAGNOSED mental health” issues from people who are plain-old-nuts.
“This isn’t a mental health issue…”
Both shooters last weekend were not DIAGNOSED mental health patients, but clearly both has screws loose.
I said this in another thread. Red flag laws as they are currently proposed (and as they are implemented in some states already) violate the concept of due process. Just being accused by … anybody (as it is implemented in Colorado, for instance) gets the accused gun owner wrapped up in an expensive legal mess. It’s ripe for revenge reporting. It’s ripe for abuse.
But at the same time there needs to be a mechanism for proper reporting of problems. The El Paso shooter’s mother earlier reported her son. She knew trouble was afoot.
There are times when people in the know (family, friends, co-workers) absolutely DO have a reasonable concern. Somehow we need to find a way to tap into that knowledge – properly and constitutionally – and act on it (again, properly and constitutionally.)
Trigger-reporting needs to be weeded out. Revenge reporting. Swatting. Anyone can propose that so-and-so has a mental problem now.
Today’s armchair retrospective-reporting is fueling unwarranted concerns. “Looking back … he wrote something …” “Looking back … he had a picture on his wall…” “Looking back … this or that …” He had a mental health issue.
There are a million people with pictures on their walls. With a confederate flag on their internet avatar. Who have “written something” … (and even people on this board have “written something” that (if they were to shoot up a 7-11 ) we could look back and say, “Well, he wrote x-y-z…”
Do all of them have mental health issues?
Should every such statement trigger a red flag? Should every confederate license plate holder trigger a red flag? Should every post wishing ill upon Trump donors trigger a red flag?
Right now the “red flag” laws would allow for that. Do we really want to go there?