Summary: President Trump's proposal to "red flag" potential mass...

Summary: President Trump's proposal to "red flag" potential mass shooters is well-intentioned. If we could prevent one mass killing by identifying a potential perpetrator beforehand, it would be worthwhile. But do we have the tools to do it, and at what cost to our constitutional rights?  Research shows that any group of people identified as future violent criminals will contain many more who won't be violent (false positives) than who will (true positives). We don't yet have the predictive tools necessary to raise the number of true positives while at the same time reducing false positives. We may someday, but how many false positives are we willing to tolerate? Put another way: How many law-abiding people are we prepared to deprive of guns to prevent even one mass shooting?

4. The concept of "false positives" is interesting in the context of Rawl's Principle of Justice and utilitarian philosophy. In what ways would utilitarianism be utilized as an argument for "red-flag" laws? In what ways could Rawl's Principle of Justice be utilized as an argument against "red-flag" laws?