of people/agencies who did not do their job.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/19/nik...shows.html

Quote:Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz was investigated by social services and mental health professionals in 2016 after his disturbing Snapchat videos were uncovered — but the teen avoided hospitalization and was deemed not to be a threat to himself or others.

Quote:The Florida Department of Children and Families was alerted in September 2016 about Cruz’s Snapchat videos, which showed him cutting both his arms. Investigators questioned Cruz and his adoptive mother, who said her son’s behavior was due to a breakup with a girlfriend who cheated on him, according to the 2016 report, which was obtained by Fox News.

Less than two years before he gunned down 17 people at his former high school, Cruz was found to be low risk by the agency. Investigators felt he was unlikely to hurt himself or others because he had “services already in place,” including receiving counseling from Henderson Behavioral Health. The investigator found the then 18-year-old’s behavior was a risk to himself, but he had a “support” system in place.

Quote:The mental health clinician at Henderson Behavioral Health also visited Cruz’s home and found Cruz wasn’t enough of a threat to be hospitalized under Florida’s Baker Act — a law that allows the state to admit people to the hospital for several days if they are found to be a threat. The clinician had Cruz sign a safety contract.

If Cruz was involuntarily admitted into a hospital, Florida state law would have barred him from buying a gun, the New York Times reported. And despite the clinician’s low-risk evaluation, a school counselor was still concerned about Cruz, his depression and desire to purchase a firearm.

“She stated that the concern she and other [school] staff had was to ensure that the assessment of Henderson was not premature,” according to the report.

More big government failure.

This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

It doesn't appear that DCF did anything wrong. They saw the kid in 2016. He was the alleged victim or vulnerable adult. He was getting mental health services and didn't meet the criteria for involuntary commitment. DCF doesn't have to power to arrest people or take their guns. Not sure what anyone is expecting them to have done.

I'd have to see the notes from the field officer and evidence. I certainly did dumb stuff when 1 or 2 girls broke up with me. Is this "cutting" normal now? I see it so often in the media.

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.

Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.

Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

I can agree with that.

(02-20-2018 09:46 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.

Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

I can agree with that.

I agree as well, but there are many on this board who would likely not support the idea of a person losing their right to legally buy a gun for what was known at that time in 2016.

(02-20-2018 09:53 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:46 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.

Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

I can agree with that.

I agree as well, but there are many on this board who would likely not support the idea of a person losing their right to legally buy a gun for what was known at that time in 2016.

When you read this:

Quote:The investigator found the then 18-year-old’s behavior was a risk to himself,

I find it hard to believe you'll find very many people in this country, much less this board, who would disagree that he shouldn't have had access to firearms.

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

Let me tell you, with first hand knowledge-

Some of the most bat-schit crazy, unstable, manic people in this country are “mental health professionals”.

They are a lot like a professor, attorney, judge whomever.

If you want to seek out a certain outcome/ opinion, you’ll pretty much find whatever you’re looking for.

To paraphrase the late, great William F. - I’d sooner trust the first 10O names listed in the phone book, than...

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

Well, yea.

But at the same time he well could have been mostly/completely clinically “sane” a year prior too.

This guy is right at the age that some of these things, schizophrenia etc., tend to present and flare up.

Who knows, I haven’t heard any defense of him/ from him claiming mental illness. Counseling doesn’t necessarily =/= illness.

But if I had to guess...

Check the meds.

(02-20-2018 10:40 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This is such a fine line, because you can easily see the reaction to this being to start involuntarily committing anyone with any mental issues and that’s heavy handed and scary.

Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

Let me tell you, with first hand knowledge-
Some of the most bat-schit crazy, unstable, manic people in this country are “mental health professionals”.
They are a lot like a professor, attorney, judge whomever.
If you want to seek out a certain outcome/ opinion, you’ll pretty much find whatever you’re looking for.
To paraphrase the late, great William F. - I’d sooner trust the first 10O names listed in the phone book, than...

But that's the problem. They ARE the people we are trusting with this, and they have pretty much totally screwed the pooch. I think it is entirely possible to write a standard that says that somebody as crazy as Nikolas Cruz, and known to be that crazy by almost all of his associates, can't buy a cap pistol, but a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago can get a shotgun.

Again, how many AR-15s or other "assault rifles" are there in Florida? Let's say 10,000 is a reasonable guess. The other 9,999 are no problem. The only one that is a problem is the one that ended up in the possession of one Nikolas Cruz. And there was plenty of information for any reasonable person to conclude that he shouldn't come anywhere close to a cap pistol, much less a real gun.

Keep that gun away from Nikolas Cruz and the other 9,999 "assault rifles" in Florida don't matter. Get rid of "assault weapons" but don't address Nikolas Cruz, and he buys 2 or 3 pistols and does the same thing.

Just some interesting stats.

In the 50's the number of persons in psychiatric hospitals peaked at over 500k.

Today, the number is around 10% of that number (50k or so).

Today, the number of persons diagnosed mentally ill in prisons is between 300-400k (keep in mind they had to DO something first, to make it to prison).

Given population growth (about doubled since the 1950's), that leaves close to 1M people running around that would probably be diagnosed.

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Agreed. But to me, the breakdown occurs when such info is not transferred to those who will eventually be responsible for a background check on a potential buyer of a weapon.
Committing someone with mental health issues is scary if there's not been a thorough examination by trained professionals. Willingly handing over weapons to that person is even more scary. I understand there are still fine lines in there, but with all the evidence that has been exposed about this kid's mental problems, it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing he needed to be allowed to buy weapons.

Let's say there are 10,000 "assault rifles" in Florida. 9,999 of them were no problem. The only problem is that one of them got into the hands of Nikolas Cruz. Keep that one gun away from him and nobody dies. And it is difficult to understand how anyone with knowledge of the facts that were clearly known in this case well in advance would have allowed him 1) to possess any firearm, or 2) to go anywhere near that school. Let's focus on the real problems, not dream up fake ones. The focus should be on keeping guns away from nutcases. In just about every one of these mass shootings, a look back reveals that we knew beforehand that this person had no business with a gun. We don't have to keep a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from buying a shotgun in order to be able to keep truly dangerous nutcases away from weapons that can kill people.

I agree, but who are we comfortable saying is the arbitor or deciding who is too crazy to have a gun? I’m just being devils advocate on this as I’m perfectly fine with a mental health evaluation to be mandatory to purchase a gun, but I know that’s not a position everyone would agree with. So who and how should it be determined when someone is too crazy?

I believe the system currently in place where a mental health professional makes their case in front of a judge is sufficient, especially because there is an appeals process for the person being denied of their rights to seek redress.

And I'll agree with a mental health evaluation prior to purchasing a gun as soon as one is required for voting and expressing one's opinion.

That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

(02-20-2018 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Sure, so you make the close judgement calls in favor of the citizen. But Nikolas Cruz was nowhere near a close judgement call. Is there anybody on this board who would have said it is okay to let him have a cap pistol, much less a real gun, knowing what was freely known about him before this incident?

Nikolas Cruz was not a judgement call. Neither have been virtually all of the others. The system is screwing up and needs fixing. HIPAA doesn't help.

(02-20-2018 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 10:48 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  That’s fine, but mental health is not an exact science. The crisis he was facing in 2016 very well could have been a very temporary thing that with treatment could have been fine within a few days of weeks. Hindsight is 20/20. I’d always be fine with erring on the side of not allowing the person to have a gun if there’s a mental health concern.

I'm the opposite in regards to any of our rights. Blackstone's formulation applies:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Sure, so you make the close judgement calls in favor of the citizen. But Nikolas Cruz was nowhere near a close judgement call. Is there anybody on this board who would have said it is okay to let him have a cap pistol, much less a real gun, knowing what was freely known about him before this incident?

Nikolas Cruz was not a judgement call. Neither have been virtually all of the others. The system is screwing up and needs fixing. HIPAA doesn't help.

Oh I agree on Cruz. This is a massive, multi-faceted failure shared by multiple agencies and individuals. While I wish for some sort of official punishment or sanction I know it's going to happen so I pray that these people think about what their failure allowed to happen for the rest of their days.