The problem is you can't easily predict which people who struggle with mental health issues are going to be violent and which aren't, and you can't place strict conditions on everyone. Something like 20% of police interactions are with someone with a mental health disorder, which represents over 1 million Canadians each year.
And obviously, as long as people want low taxes, robust mental health care in a town of 2,000 that's hours away from any population center of note is basically impossible. Unless this person could have been committed against their will long-term (which seems unlikely given that they seemingly didn't actually commit any crimes prior to the murders), what's the answer? I'd be all for increasing spending on mental health, but good luck getting elected if you say you're going to raise taxes to pay for it.
In light of that, public safety relies mostly on individual responsibility and on minimizing these peoples' ability to do harm when they choose to do so, which was severely lacking in this case. The killer was a teen with mental health issues who didn't attend school after the age of 14, who had unrestricted access to the internet where they repeatedly interacted with violent and radicalizing content (including reposting videos from another mass shooter), and who had easy access to firearms in their house. That last point is key; if they didn't have easy access to guns, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Sure, they may have killed someone with a knife, but no reasonable person can credibly believe that the public risk isn't massively higher with guns than with knives.
|