Recently, it has been proposed that legislators enact red flag laws to help prevent shootings by people with mental illness. But, what is it about mental illness that leads to mass shootings? The NIH reports that nearly 1/5 of the US population has some form of mental illness [Image https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml]. Though, we don't see 1/5 of the US population going on rampages. So, what sort of mental illness causes someone to go on a rampage? The Citizens Commision for Human Rights, in Florida, has an Article with the following quote: [image of https://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressants-are-a-prescription-for-mass-shootings/] """ In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. .... Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. """ From the study mentioned, we have that the [Image results from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337] """ Primary suspect drugs included ... 11 antidepressants, 6 sedative/hypnotics and 3 drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder """ [Image figure 1 from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337] And, if we look at a report that came out in 2012 looking at the prevalence of pharmaceutical drugs in mass shootings, it is astounding what we find. [Image scroll of https://hangthebankers.com/list-of-school-shootings-on-antidepressants/] In an article on WND [image of https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/] British psychiatrist Dr. David Healy mentions some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs. And that's just counting SSRIs, not other pharmaceuticals. Clearly, pharmaceuticals have a major role in mass shootings. But, let's consider the intent of red flag laws. The intent is not to seize guns from those who have prescription drugs, it is to seize guns from people who appear to be a threat. And, if we look at the Parkland shooting, Cruz, the shooter, was already known to be a threat. [from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Warnings_to_law_enforcement] """ at least 45 calls to the sheriff were made in reference to Cruz, his brother, or the family home. The calls included an anonymous tip on February 5, 2016, that Cruz had threatened to shoot up the school, and a tip on November 30, 2017, that he might be a "school shooter in the making" and that he collected knives and guns """ Despite these many indicators, law enforcement did nothing. And, this happened in Florida, where individuals can be committed to a mental institution for the safety of themselves or others. So, if law enforcement already had the power to prevent this shooting, what would a red flag law do to prevent it? Consider the timing of this recent red flag push. Much of the push for red flag bills has be consequent to the El Paso Walmart shooting. But, nothing has been released indicating the shooter had a mental illness. Instead, only a manifesto that may be linked to the shooter indicates that the shooter was racist. So, should we ban racists from owning guns? Since, under a red flag law, anyone can petition a judge to have someone's guns seized, can we expect democrats to mass report republicans because they don't like their politics? And, then, must we rely on the propriety of judges to not abuse their power and sieze weapons from those they don't like? This gets to the core problem with restricting the right to own guns. Government, having a monopoly on force, does not want any safeguards against its use of force. You must assume wherever government has the capacity to infringe upon the right to bear arms, government will infringe upon the right. This is why we have due process and jury trials. It is to prevent arbitrary oppression by government. By having a jury, it is expected that the citizens in the jury would not side with a government that is trampling on the rights of the defendant. But, with red flag laws, it is only a judge who decides. And, judges are part of government. Consequently, due process is eliminated with red flag laws. Licensed gun dealers already are required to run background checks for gun purchasers. If government cared about protecting citizens from mass shootings, they would halt the use of the many pharmaceuticals linked to mass shootings. They would stop threatening parents with child protective services when the parents don't want to use ADHD medications - the same medications implicated in mass shootings. But, government doesn't care, they just want more power, and they want to strip you of your ability to keep them in check.