Our Passive Approach to Mental Instability

This is my response to a local blog about the idea of having more people packing weapons to protect themselves from those like Cho. Here's the link: To Shoot or Not to Shoot http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=2021

I don't know, but I'm not comforted by the thought of our young adults packing weapons; isn't that what we're trying to avoid with all of our metal detectors in schools and government buildings? For violence to beget violence, is based on choice. There are many other countries, societies, and cultures who do not need overabundant weaponry to maintain order.
Maybe one of the reasons is that we need to be more pro-active about intervening when someone is imbalanced. His lack of directly threatening others should not have discounted that he was a danger to himself by mentioning suicide. Sometimes people like to have company when they throw their proverbial 'life switch'.
Intervention can be implemented if one is a threat to THEMSELVES and/or others. When a person passes the threshold of sanity, we cannot accurately predict what their behavior will entail. Suicide nor mass murder is a reasonable option. Cho obviously exhibited anti-social behavior that others felt threatened, as indicated in MSNBC article: "Cho’s words, actions fit school shooting patternBehavior typically raises concerns long before the shooting starts" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18175525/).
This is about mental health and our lack of intervening. We can no longer remain passive about helping each other out in accordance to our health, both physical and psychological.
We, as a society, need to rethink the ACLU's victory in 1968 when it was determined to be a violation of a mental patient's rights under the argument of 'false imprisonment'. A 72 hour hold doesn't even begin to detox someone let alone quality rehabilitation for the multitude of mental derailments our society manifests.