The issue of mental illness in the ongoing discussion of gun violence is a very touchy one, to be sure. That being said, it isn't one that should be side tracked or distracted from, IMHO.
But for opponents of stronger gun laws, blaming these horrifying episodes squarely on the unpredictable actions of the severely mentally ill can also serve a strategic purpose, by sidetracking — or entirely sidelining — any push for policy solutions. Though the federal background check system’s (NICS) second largest body of records on people barred from buying guns is comprised of the mentally ill, none of this summer’s headline-making shooters met its standards for being judged mentally unfit for gun ownership — not even Houser, despite being well known to various local jurisdictions for his unsettling behavior. That’s not because they weren’t dangerous, as is now brutally clear. It’s because no judge or legal body adjudicated any of them mentally ill, the only way NICS blocks a potential purchaser on psychiatric grounds. To include people like Flanagan, Houser, Abdulazeez, or Roof in the database would require a substantial expansion of the criteria for qualifying as mentally unfit (emphasis mine).
