- Alerting the police.
- Having them “check whether the person has a permit for a weapon.”
- Informing adult protective services about the situation,
“More than 20 states have red-flag laws that allow a judge to suspend someone’s access to guns when there is sufficient evidence that they pose a risk to themselves or to others,” The Ethicist adds. True, except that none of the factors in the letter could be constitutionally included in those laws. The son hasn’t made threats or engaged in violence, isn’t abusing drugs, and hasn’t been convicted of a felony. Thus The Ethicist says that he “wouldn’t be surprised if there was nothing that law enforcement could do.” That’s because the facts of the case don’t include anything that is any of law enforcement’s business, and therefore informing the police of hearsay and “concerns” is unethical. Prof. Appiah adds, “That doesn’t make you wrong to have made the call.” Yes, Professor, it does. There are no criminal acts here to report, but you and “”Name Withheld” believe it is intrinsically suspicious for someone to own a gun, which is a civil right.
I know so many people who suffer from this phobia that it is part of a profile. Most are women, almost all of the male sufferers are knee-jerk Democrats, and almost none of them can tell a Colt .45 from a potato gun. Guns are icky, guns kill people, anyone who owns a gun is a potential murderer or suicide. This mental delusion should not be encouraged or spread by the media, but, as we all know, it is.
Ethics Alarms 
Those poor parents. Ugh.
Alright, pretend there is no gun. Are there any red flags in this picture? Any indications that this person might respond to a difficult change with violence towards himself or others? If you learned that he did do something violent, and someone said they didn’t see any warning signs, would you mock them?
Without making any statements yet about the best way to approach the situation or to help those involved, what would you consider to be a warning sign that someone is likely to do something violent, in a situation like this?
That he has engaged in violence before. From this position, whatever happens is moral luck, and second guessing is hindsight.
Jack Marshall wrote, “That he has engaged in violence before…”
Or actually threatened violence, all threats of violence should be taken seriously.
True threats.
I think we can assume that their kitchen is also equipped with a variety of sharp pointy knives, which would be deadly weapons if so applied. I think that it’s worth a gentle inquiry, though, as to why the son owns a gun. Does he enjoy recreational shooting? Does he hunt with it? Does he feel that it’s needed for self defense? Has he done these things for many years, and keep the gun as a keepsake? These are questions for the family and their friends, not for the police. Is the gun stored in accordance with safety rules: trigger-locked, unloaded? Gun safety should be a category of shared knowledge within the household, so they can recognize if unsafe practices are being allowed. Like the North Wind blowing at the travelers cloak, the threat to remove a gun due to amateur diagonsis of mental health issues is likely to make the owner even less likely to investigate mental health care options.
This is a big issue. Illinois denies concealed carry licenses to people who have been to therapists or psychiatrists even once, for life. See a therapist for depression while in college, see your civil rights restricted for the rest of your life. Brought to you by the ‘compassionate’ people. That is why Chicago is so safe.