Oh he was not the first, such sterilisation was practised in the US since before the turn of the last century<quoted text>
I suppose there was no end to his insanity.
There's a difference in screening to help a person and screening to eliminate them. But I much thought it was Aryan features he screened for in creating the Hitler youth program. His attempt was to create the blue eyed blond race. I guess if you had brown eyes you were faulty. But most of this was done by a guy under Hitler I think? Kurt Gruber And Mengle probably others.
After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_...
Also there was a considerable eugenics movement here too :-
When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favour of the confinement, segregation, and sterilisation of a class of persons contemporarily described as the "feeble minded." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-c...
Here we see the bad side of Darwins work that is swept under the carpet.
Where do you draw the line, Just like screening for mental abnormality, mass screening without 100% consent on the off chance that the person may purchase a gun at some time in the future is unethical. As is storing data obtained from such screening where it is accessible, consider that any gun salesman needs access to it (and by definition anyone else with a motive to obtain such information).
Perhaps the solution is a national licensing scheme where the prospective gun owner (only the prospective gun owner) is assessed (he wants the gun therefore he must agree to the assessment or do without a gun) and if successful is issued a licence. He can then obtain a gun and/or ammunition by producing the licence along with the payment. This has the advantage of cost benefits, only those who it effects are screened, not everyone, there is not doubts that it is ethical and any stigma of a refusal is kept private. The public has the advantage of knowing that the gun owner was assessed when (probably just before) he obtained the gun and not many years previously when he was a child.
The type of system employed by most European countries comes to mind. It may not be perfect but it is tested and known to work reasonably well. True that those with nefarious use in mind are going to bypass the system but that will happen under any circumstances.