• 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.