OK, so my last idea was not well received

[dumbcat]

63. That other post was a proposition

After the post title, which was purposely worded to garner attention, you will note that the rest of the post was proposed as a potential (absurd) solution. I never really meant to advocate it, but wanted to gauge reaction to the proposition. I actually expected a lot more support for it, and I was pleasantly surprised at the pretty much unanimous rejection. The group vehemently rejects profiling, even if it is to identify gun nuts and potential mass murderers. The group is very sensitive to, and protective of, mental illness (and I use that in a broad sense) even when the consequences of misdiagnosis are severe. The group seems to realize that it is pretty much impossible to identify potential future mass killers based on past indicators, but we really seem to have a hard time coming out and actually saying that.

I'll readily admit that what got me started on this track was hearing President Obama essentially saying that we must identify such future dangerous persons and prevent them from legally buying weapons (by getting that determination in the database used by the background checks), without somehow violating other citizen's rights that both he and the party support. I sat there and wondered for hours, "How can you do that?"

And no, I would never trust teenagers to do any such thing. When my son was a teenager I wanted to put him in a box with some air holes and not let him out until he was 25. Thankfully, at 35 he has turned into a pretty nice person and my best friend.