If only it were that simple. I know a lady with a 23-yr-old son who is schizophrenic. I have never met him, but she tells me that when he's taking his meds, he is one of the sweetest people anyone could ever know. If he fails to take his meds, though, he hears voices that tell him all kinds of bizarre stuff. Before he was medicated, she had purchased 6 cars for him over a period of about 3 years. He would hear voices telling him that there was a bomb in his car or that his car was going to attack him. So he attacked his car, ripping out the dashboards and the interiors and ripping out wires in the engine compartment. One time when she got gas, she went inside the station to buy them some snacks and drinks while he waited in the car. When she came back out, he had ripped out every wire in the engine compartment. If those voices told him to obtain a gun and shoot everybody he could, I imagine he would feel compelled to comply. Scarey! Especially so since he is only one of many thousands who suffer from similar illnesses. I don't have a clue as to what the right answer is. He has never harmed anyone or shown any aggression toward anyone, but still .... His doctor did tell her that his name was placed on the watch list so that he can't purchase a gun. But that's hardly adequate. Should people like him be institutionalized against their will?

Since it has been brought up, there is an interesting difference in the oaths that enlisted people make vis-a-vis the oaths that officers make. Among other things, enlisteds swear to obey the president, whereas officers do not swear the same oath to the president.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

I didn't find anything objectionable about his remarks, and he focused more on the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill than out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. I agree with that. I don't know how we do that, though, without infringing on people's rights to privacy about their mental health. To what degree, and by whom, must someone's mental condition be observed to warrant restricting their access to weapons?

I disagree strongly with bans on most weapons and magazines and such, but we really do need to do something to try to stop the trend of mass murders we see lately. I just don't know what.