How do you identify those people is the real issue with it.
I'm all for any fucking solution at this point. But....
With identifying potential shooters, that comes with a whole lot of baggage.
Do you increase surveillance and run algorithms to analyze what their IP address posts to social media and what they browse?
If not, then you can only hope they seek or are forced into treatment of some sort, in which a professional can recognize something. Or hope a friend, family member or co worker will notify authorities.
Quite frankly, for a "potential" threat. I dont like any one of those options on a privacy concern.
How do you identify those people is the real issue with it.
There is a thing in professional circles as well as political where you separate the policy from the implementation. That is to say that you define the solution without defining how it is done.
That said, it is absolutely not possible for me to care less how it is done as long as the policy is made. Implementation comes later. Since there's not even a policy, discussing implementation mires the process and is a complete and utter waste of time.
I don't think the issue is in treating the people who'd likely be the ones to commit these crimes. That's not what the author is stating, nor is it the most frequently-used argument against such laws.
No fuck that. There's a serious stigma about mental health that our society needs to address.
If it wasn't such a taboo amongst the average person to seek any sort of treatment, then some of these delusional twats might just get the hell they desperately need.
Agreed. My point was that we need to be treating the underlying causes instead of allowing the Feds to run yet another program to control who can do what and when.
Why is it that everyone wants to scream about guns and get all offended when it's suggested that the first best solution is to treat the people who might be unstable enough to go around shooting people? I mean, seriously, it's not freaking rocket surgery, FFS.