So another school shooting in Georgia. Tragically, the FBI actually had this boy on their radar, interviewed him and everything. Yet he still managed to go on his rampage. However, unlike other school shootings, the authorities were on the right track before the massacre and might have prevented it which makes this one worth more than the usual shrug of the shoulders and sigh of deep regret.

It is pointless to bring up new Gun Laws because it just isn’t going to happen. Hearing people saying this wouldn’t happen if only we had right Gun Laws. Right. Keep talking but the right people aren’t listening. It is doubtful that they ever will. Easy access to guns, even for adolescents and mentally ill people, is something that a significant portion of the American Electorate is willing to live with coupled with some ambiguous language in the Constitution makes new gun laws difficult to implement.

I do like the approach of holding parents responsible for the actions of their children. Michigan recently punished the parents of the Oxford High shooter and the father of the Apalachee High School has been arrested on charges too. Parents are, at least in theory, the adults with the most contact with their child. If a parent is worried that their child is dangerous and has access to guns, they have the responsibility to stop that child from using those weapons. This allows the parents to still own guns but puts them on notice that they will be held liable if their child uses those guns illegally. It is a very small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, it is a reactive measure. The damage has already been done. Is there a way to stop the child from acting and this is where this incident gets interesting. The FBI questioned both the boy and his father about the boy’s intentions. Reading the transcript of the FBI’s interview is heartbreaking because the father claims to have talked to his child about school shootings and was convinced that he understood it was wrong. This is where it stopped though. The father reassuring the cops that nothing would happen.

I would be curious to know if any mental health examination of the child occurred. Nothing, so far, would indicate that one happened but diagnosing mental health issues might be a way to prevent some of these massacres from happening. It would be difficult to argue that someone suffering from schizophrenia has a right to bear arms. If someone is hearing the voice of God and brandishing weapons, I think most reasonable people would say the government has a right to intervene.

It also might encourage a more robust mental health care system. The present mental health system is based on family or self-diagnosis before the person breaks. The mentally ill child might not be the best person to measure his own sanity and parent’s might succumb to wishful thinking about their child. Since most mental illness begins to appear during adolescence and children are required to go to school until 16, a massive program of mental health diagnosis for middle and high school students offers a rare opportunity to comprehensively complete this task with some possibility of success.

This could address an array of mental health issues that the country is facing besides school shootings — homelessness, drug addiction, and alcoholism all have a mental health component and could be addressed. Presently, some school districts require medical examinations and immunizations. Adding a mental health aspect makes sense because children are moving into the adult world, knowing the mental health of a child would give both parents and the schools an opportunity to address any potential issues before they get too far out of hand.

Is this a perfect solution? No. Will it be cheap. No to that. There is no perfect solution and I think it is long past due that we expect policy to be perfect. If that is your criteria, then it will never be met and nothing will ever get done. It will be a first attempt to detect mental health issues in children and to make addressing these mental health issues a public responsibility. A good citizen has an obligation to address mental health issues in themselves and in their families before they become a public danger.