It is time to add social media to background checks for gun purchases. nt

[melm00se]

52. you (probably inadvertently) pointed out the issue

with using things like social media to qualify (or disqualify) someone:

"Are you a threat?"

You need to clearly define "threat". 2 people can come up with 2 different definitions of a "threat".

"interpreted as a threat of violence?"

who does the interpretation? Is there a purely objective measurement?
Current factors used to determine are clear yes/no answers. For example:

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? either you are or you are not.

This is the same issue about requiring a "mental health" exam (as one DU member posts as his "stock" response) to own a firearm. Look at the claim of "not guilty by reason of mental instability or defect" in a criminal trial, both sides can and do parade multiple experts who say that the patient is, or is not, mentally ill. It is not like there is a simple blood test that provides a positive or negative result.