Thanks for covering this issue. This whole mental health - gun control correlation is a red herring.

Let’s not stigmatize individuals that seek mental health treatment any further (you have addressed this in a previous video). Only a minute percentage of mental health patients is homicidal and a genuine danger to society. I haven’t been able to find statistics on mental health and homicidality or on homicidal ideation vs. completed homidice with a firearm, but my hunch is that the occurrence has much lower odds than you or I being struck by lightning (and I realize that this is a thoroughly unscientific statement).

From a practical standpoint, how are we going to to background checks? Are they going to include systematic access to the confidential medical data of patients stored on the Medical Information Bureau? I don’t know how far the MIB (which stores the diagnostic codes submitted by medical providers to insurance companies in exchange for reimbursement) is subject to HIPAA regulation, but that would further violate the privacy of the US population under the guise of the security, safety and protection unicorn.

By the way, since the “Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California” case adjudicated in the Supreme Court, there is already a provision in place: mental health providers have a “duty to warn”.

If ethically it makes sense, it is a totally different animal when it is a legal requirement. It is highly problematic inasmuch as there is a fine line between homicidal ideation, homicidal fantasies and thought crimes for which one could be prosecuted.

As stated above, the whole mental health - gun control issue is a red herring. It is meant to distract from a truly important (if not necessarily the only one) issue of the NRA lobby. By extension, we should focus on the power of lobbies in electing our government. They are the single most powerful force behind who ends up in Washington, and campaign contributions are but glorified and legalized bribery. It makes a sham of democracy, since our democratically elected representatives are more accurately the representatives of those who buy them off than our representatives.

There are many bandwagons we can jump on and many cases we can espouse. Many are valid, right and just. However, our allocation of limited militant resources is not wise. In my humble opinion we would have more leverage by focusing on a true reform of the electoral system, outlawing lobbies and including campaign financing in the yearly US budget (we are already so far down in the hole that I don’t think it’s going to make much difference, but it will be money-we-don’t have well spent). The other aspect is tightening up anti-trust laws and breaking up industry cartels behind the lobbies.

I am all for taking to the streets to make a point, but when the house is crumbling, it is much more effective to identify the leverage points, shore up the foundation and address weaknesses where the structure is buckling than making haphazard patches a leaky roof. Optimally, we would address the dangers our society faces (including the gun issue) from both ends, but I don’t think there is enough manpower or time, so we have to think about the most effective use of resources.

One thing is sure though: harassing someone with a generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD or ADHD ain’t it, folks!