Again, the argument goes like this: if people, not guns, kill people, then it only makes sense to limit gun access
among the most dangerous people. Swanson's research suggests it's time to move the conversation past the
low-hanging fruit of serious mental illness, and start asking which other types of behavior might reasonably
disqualify a person from owning a gun.
This is the entire premise of the article. If we can't effectively identify and disarm the mentally ill (partially because the Liberals push quite hard to protect the rights of the mentally ill, which resulted in many of them now living on the streets), then the gun haters will start looking for the next pigeonhole they can shove us into.
The biggest problem with classifying people's behavior is there is no definitive way to PREDICT behavior in the future. Some people have remarkable self-control, but are absolutely the angriest people on the planet. There are others who show no animosity ever, but are psychopaths. They have no conscience, no empathy (how does what I do make my victim feel?), or no self-control.
Before we start labeling people who don't hide their feelings well as dangerous, let's start looking at the actual demographics of past violent gun situations. Psychotropic medications seem to be a common denominator in many of the events, however the topic is not discussed often in public forums. Why not? I can think of many reason$, but one in particular is, we are reluctant to blame the very remedy that is supposed to cure these people. That would imply (1) they can't be cured, and (2) the people prescribing and producing the remedy are potentially liable to some extent in the violent outcome which opens then up to criminal or civil actions.
You can't predict human behavior any more than you can legislate it. You are therefore treading on thin ice when you attempt to preemptively punish someone by labeling them as "risky" in order to violate their Constitutional rights.