I think the article stated that in CT there were about 200 cases which is about 20 per year, each case was (supposedly) investigated, a warrant issued, then the case received further judicial review so it doesn't appear that these actions were arbitrary or random or done without oversight.
I personally know of someone who is ok while on his meds (paranoid schizophrenic) but gets very whacked out when not. Even mentioning his meds provokes paranoia. Thank God he doesn't have any guns that I know of as I do not know what he might to if he quit his meds and I may not be in a situation to intervene personally.
There are many others like him or in similar situations who may legally own fire arms but may have episodic behavioral malfunctions.
So far the *best* advice seems to be to wait for them to do something illegal THEN call the police and it isn't sitting well with me.
If it becomes accepted that the government has a duty to disarm people who seem likely to wreak havoc, then every rampage committed by someone whom the government didn't disarm will be used as an excuse to broaden the standards used to disarm people. Since government personnel seeking to expand their power will benefit from rampages, they would have an incentive to ignore menaces to society while using their power on the innocent (bearing in mind that the innocent may be dangerous to corrupt politicians or their allies).
Does that really sound like a good plan to you?