Nonsense. All they could have done was question him. If he acted weird enough possibly commit him for a limited time for observation.
Then he's back out and really ticked off.
How exactly is this an improvement?
All of these "prevent mass shootings by locking up the nuts" ideas would probably require warehousing thousands or tens of thousands of odd people who have committed no crimes in order to catch the one mass killer.
They're the pro-gun side equivalent of gun control. A theoretically simple solution to a complex problem that just will not work.
I don't know, maybe a bit of an overstatement? Modern medicine / psychiatry is pretty good at distinguishing between the odd and the dangerous. The problem is taking the dangerous off the streets before they act. Don't know that society would require the odd to be locked up, too -- we're all odd in our own way(s). Might not be many folks at liberty if we did that! 8~)
I maintain the only answer to all this is to ban guns from being owned by liberals.
Everyone wins. They don’t want them. We don’t have to have any conservatives murdered in cold blood by mass-murdering homicidal liberals.
Seems simple enough to me.
The police were alerted by a health care professional that the kid was dangerous. Yes, all they could have done was to question him, it reflects the tendency of cops not to intervene until a crime actually happens. That’s because their bosses put little stress on prevention.