Here we have a shooter, young with known mental health issues, whose threatening you tube post was reported to the FBI, who was expelled for reasons I am sure will become known, who was known as threatening by classmates, who was old enough to purchase an assault rifle but not a handgun in Florida.
Not going political here because the issue is too complex, ideological and one that has so many facets from mental health confidentiality, to law enforcement on the ground, to our lawmakers fielding the interpretation of the constitution.
But something is terribly wrong when the very tools that could have prevented this tragedy are revoked. One can say it might not have prevented this tragedy and that is also true but this problem will not be addressed by one solution. And something's missing when when the channels among all the groups who need to work together are stifled.
There are so many with mental illness who would never hurt anyone. Are they targeted as a threat to society? Is every shooter mentally ill? How do we, how can we possibly track it?
I've heard a lot about small increments and agree that's a start. And maybe part of that starts with the ability to red flag what is known--should someone with known mental illness, be allowed to freely purchase assault weapons?
We are asked here to keep the focus on mental illness and I agree because no mass shooter is sane in my opinion and our resolution is, in the words of one very wise 14 year old I saw interviewed yesterday, a matter of 'coming together as a society'.
Not only are we not protecting our children but we are also not protecting those with mental illness.
I would like an answer as to why a bill tightening checks on those with mental illness was revoked?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221
