Understood. I could have worded that differently. I knew what I wanted to say, but the internet sucks for getting that point out sometimes. Thank you.
It is tough to prioritize the defenses these days since the attack is so broad and from so many directions.
As I said shortly after the school shooting, you can tell that they have no intention of making anyone safer, but rather pushing their long standing anti-gun agenda, because their proposals have so little to do with the tragedy they are citing.
Regarding the Mental Health issue, there really is little they can do with young people who are transitioning from non-violent to violent behavior without profound violation of all of our due process rights. We are asking them to create a "pre-Crime" division and predict which people are going to become violent and which are not.
The brutal reality here is that only those closest to the ill person can do anything to stop these tragedies within the confines of a free society. The ability and DUTY of friends and family is critical to balancing freedom and the realities of mental illness. They can be given tools in the healthcare arena, and frankly, I think the need for "consequence free" commitment is MUCH more important than better reporting and tracking of "potential" threats.
These actions taken in this bill are moving in the exact wrong direction as they are creating disincentive for the family and friends of the mentally ill to "help" them get treatment. The idea that you are potentially putting a scarlet "N" (for nut) on your loved one has to scare anyone from aggressively persuading or forcing a loved one to get help.
If all these progressives really wanted to help people, they would be pushing for iron clad privacy, not disclosure and networking.
Sadly though, we know they don't want to help anyone but themselves and in their short-sighted ways, they will help the rest of us on trains to camps if they think that makes them safer.