This is less a police problem and more a lack-of-regulation problem. 93% of mass-shooters would be considered legally sane *before* they carry out an attack. It is only *after* they carry out an attack that they get declared legally insane. This is why the cops/feds, NICS, and red flag laws will do little because while a lot of mass shoo…
This is less a police problem and more a lack-of-regulation problem. 93% of mass-shooters would be considered legally sane *before* they carry out an attack. It is only *after* they carry out an attack that they get declared legally insane. This is why the cops/feds, NICS, and red flag laws will do little because while a lot of mass shooters show signs of psychological instability before they commit murder, those signs are not enough to declare someone legally insane and get them banned from owning guns.
What this country needs to understand is that every one of these mass-shooters--with the exception of those who steal firearms to commit murders--are simply "law-abiding gun owners" right up until the day they snap and commit murder. If there is no enhanced psychological screening that is required of shooters prior to purchases, then we're selling guns as time-bombs to people who will one day snap but aren't showing all the signs necessary to diagnose them as legally insane. Until that systems comes into place then we'll keep selling guns to future murderers. Of course, if you talk about making psych screenings mandatory for high-capacity semi-auto purchases then people like Boebert come out and say that it's a backdoor avenue for liberals to do gun grabs against conservatives and she'll campaign off of it and raise money, because that's how things work here, apparently.
I don't understand. Red flag laws, as I understand them, don't require the individual to be declared legally sane. Just a danger. And states vary in who can go to court and present their case to a judge. In some, family members can, in others they can't.
I'm always amazed that the old "The Gub'mint is gonna take away your guns!" argument even works. Has the government ever done that? Ever? Whose guns have they taken away? How many? Why?
They didn't take the guns after the Kennedys. They didn’t take them after Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or Pulse, or Vegas. They're never going to take away your guns.
What about DV as a flag? Beau of the Fifth Column is big on that angle. Says 68% of mass shootings are connected in some way to DV (either prior, or current). Obviously you can only focus on the prior, but that might still be a decent net to cut down on this. No firearms for 5 years after a DV conviction (and while awaiting trial, if out on bail). Just a starting point suggestion.
Part 11i on the standard ATF Form 4473 clearly asks the purchaser: "Have you ever been CONVICTED in court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"
If 68% of mass-shooters have prior/current DV *connections*, does this mean *convictions*? Because if not, they're probably getting sold the gun.
I'd have to find it, but there was some research suggesting that looser involuntary commitment laws (ie the ability of an ER doc to send you to an inpatient psych facility against your will) decreases shootings. I can tell you from experience that NY made this the easiest of three states I've practiced in (and had the lowest number of mass shootings). It was really easy to do a 48 hour hold, and then get a hearing where we could advocate for a longer hold., This tracks with your observation that people are sane until the aren't. (Usually the patient chose to represent themself at the hearing. This almost always resulted in the judge letting the medical team determine length of stay).
I think a lot of states really need to re-visit their involuntary commitment laws in light of both mass shootings and the drug crises. It's a tough convo. I mean, you're giving the medical establishment the leeway to override a human's most fundamental right. On the other hand, how much agency does someone addicted to fentanyl and P2P meth really have over their life? How much risk should society bear given that the mentally unhinged have such easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. There is not going to be an easy answer.
This is a well-thought out argument and it does pose really difficult questions. NYC has the advantage of nobody owning handguns to begin with unless you're a cop, so when the guys in the white coats show up to put you in the van, they're not normally confronted with gunfire. That may be a different case in other states. There have been strings of "I ain't going to prison" shootings against law enforcement when they are taking suspects in on warrants, for example: https://www.kktv.com/2022/09/09/sheriff-2-deputies-killed-while-serving-warrant-georgia/
For what it's worth, I lived upstate and the handgun ban did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for hunting or recreation shooting. I knew a gang who frequently went skeet shooting, and the farmers around me got so many deer tags that they would give them away to people who trusted and let them hunt on their land.
So I don't buy into this idea that reasonable gun laws are going to be an anchor around the neck of responsible gun hobbyists. It was easy enough to shoot clay pigeons and deer if that was your jam. But it was harder to shoot people.
Modern "gun hobbyists" do stuff like 3-gun competitions where they swap from pistol to shotgun to assault rifle in the same match. They'll say that ditching high-capacity semi-auto is going to kill their little "hobby." Because we really needed to invent a "sport" like 3-gun. Wanna talk about "grooming"? There are parents teaching kids as old as 8 to do 3-gun matches in TrumpLand. The hobbies have changed over the years, especially in Trumpy states.
A former navy seal taught me to skeet shoot, I went to a high school with a rifle team, and have gone target shooting at gun range (well over a decade ago). I never saw myself getting real into it, but I see the appeal.
The change in gun culture is just unthinkable to me. I don't understand it at all. I wouldn't let an eight year old play with a BB gun.
The big problem with guns by the numbers is as you say, domestic violence homicides (and suicides) that involve handguns mostly. But what I'm talking about is hate-inspired stochastic terrorism using firearms.
Some of those shootings do involve handguns, but since 2004 the vast majority have involved assault rifles. You simply cannot do a Mandalay Bay 2018 with a Glock 19. You're going to have a very difficult time doing a Pulse 2016 with a handgun as well. The difference between what a rifle round does to the body with respect to kinetic energy and temporary stretch cavities makes handguns look weak by comparison.
The conversation about guns around the Colorado Springs shooting is about anti-minority stochastic terrorism and assault rifles. And while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower than the stochastic terrorism. You're not going to die randomly in a night club or movie theater because somebody killed themselves or their ex with a handgun ya know?
Well said: "while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower".
Yup, but suicide and domestic violence don't affect greater society psychologically the way that stochastic terrorism does. I'm not going to die at a country music concert or place of worship randomly because someone killed themselves or their ex with a handgun. That's why the small numbers hit society to a larger degree than the big numbers do. It's the qualitative difference.
This is less a police problem and more a lack-of-regulation problem. 93% of mass-shooters would be considered legally sane *before* they carry out an attack. It is only *after* they carry out an attack that they get declared legally insane. This is why the cops/feds, NICS, and red flag laws will do little because while a lot of mass shooters show signs of psychological instability before they commit murder, those signs are not enough to declare someone legally insane and get them banned from owning guns.
What this country needs to understand is that every one of these mass-shooters--with the exception of those who steal firearms to commit murders--are simply "law-abiding gun owners" right up until the day they snap and commit murder. If there is no enhanced psychological screening that is required of shooters prior to purchases, then we're selling guns as time-bombs to people who will one day snap but aren't showing all the signs necessary to diagnose them as legally insane. Until that systems comes into place then we'll keep selling guns to future murderers. Of course, if you talk about making psych screenings mandatory for high-capacity semi-auto purchases then people like Boebert come out and say that it's a backdoor avenue for liberals to do gun grabs against conservatives and she'll campaign off of it and raise money, because that's how things work here, apparently.
I don't understand. Red flag laws, as I understand them, don't require the individual to be declared legally sane. Just a danger. And states vary in who can go to court and present their case to a judge. In some, family members can, in others they can't.
The case I'm most familiar with is the shooter in Highland Park, IL on the 4th of July. Illinois has the law and he wasn't stopped. "While the authorities who crossed paths with (the shooter) contend their hands were tied by the law, several people familiar with Illinois’ statutes told The Associated Press there were more than enough ways to block him from getting guns" (https://www.wbez.org/stories/should-illinois-red-flag-law-have-stopped-the-highland-park-parade-shooting/7f7327be-9b13-4feb-af22-61a1d5c3f5d4). It's law enforcement who failed in this case.
I'm always amazed that the old "The Gub'mint is gonna take away your guns!" argument even works. Has the government ever done that? Ever? Whose guns have they taken away? How many? Why?
They didn't take the guns after the Kennedys. They didn’t take them after Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or Pulse, or Vegas. They're never going to take away your guns.
BUT MAYBE THEY SHOULD.
Really well said. I've asked the same thing myself.
What about DV as a flag? Beau of the Fifth Column is big on that angle. Says 68% of mass shootings are connected in some way to DV (either prior, or current). Obviously you can only focus on the prior, but that might still be a decent net to cut down on this. No firearms for 5 years after a DV conviction (and while awaiting trial, if out on bail). Just a starting point suggestion.
Part 11i on the standard ATF Form 4473 clearly asks the purchaser: "Have you ever been CONVICTED in court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"
If 68% of mass-shooters have prior/current DV *connections*, does this mean *convictions*? Because if not, they're probably getting sold the gun.
I don't know. It probably isn't convictions.
I'd have to find it, but there was some research suggesting that looser involuntary commitment laws (ie the ability of an ER doc to send you to an inpatient psych facility against your will) decreases shootings. I can tell you from experience that NY made this the easiest of three states I've practiced in (and had the lowest number of mass shootings). It was really easy to do a 48 hour hold, and then get a hearing where we could advocate for a longer hold., This tracks with your observation that people are sane until the aren't. (Usually the patient chose to represent themself at the hearing. This almost always resulted in the judge letting the medical team determine length of stay).
I think a lot of states really need to re-visit their involuntary commitment laws in light of both mass shootings and the drug crises. It's a tough convo. I mean, you're giving the medical establishment the leeway to override a human's most fundamental right. On the other hand, how much agency does someone addicted to fentanyl and P2P meth really have over their life? How much risk should society bear given that the mentally unhinged have such easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. There is not going to be an easy answer.
Well said.
This is a well-thought out argument and it does pose really difficult questions. NYC has the advantage of nobody owning handguns to begin with unless you're a cop, so when the guys in the white coats show up to put you in the van, they're not normally confronted with gunfire. That may be a different case in other states. There have been strings of "I ain't going to prison" shootings against law enforcement when they are taking suspects in on warrants, for example: https://www.kktv.com/2022/09/09/sheriff-2-deputies-killed-while-serving-warrant-georgia/
For what it's worth, I lived upstate and the handgun ban did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for hunting or recreation shooting. I knew a gang who frequently went skeet shooting, and the farmers around me got so many deer tags that they would give them away to people who trusted and let them hunt on their land.
So I don't buy into this idea that reasonable gun laws are going to be an anchor around the neck of responsible gun hobbyists. It was easy enough to shoot clay pigeons and deer if that was your jam. But it was harder to shoot people.
Modern "gun hobbyists" do stuff like 3-gun competitions where they swap from pistol to shotgun to assault rifle in the same match. They'll say that ditching high-capacity semi-auto is going to kill their little "hobby." Because we really needed to invent a "sport" like 3-gun. Wanna talk about "grooming"? There are parents teaching kids as old as 8 to do 3-gun matches in TrumpLand. The hobbies have changed over the years, especially in Trumpy states.
A former navy seal taught me to skeet shoot, I went to a high school with a rifle team, and have gone target shooting at gun range (well over a decade ago). I never saw myself getting real into it, but I see the appeal.
The change in gun culture is just unthinkable to me. I don't understand it at all. I wouldn't let an eight year old play with a BB gun.
The big problem with guns by the numbers is as you say, domestic violence homicides (and suicides) that involve handguns mostly. But what I'm talking about is hate-inspired stochastic terrorism using firearms.
Some of those shootings do involve handguns, but since 2004 the vast majority have involved assault rifles. You simply cannot do a Mandalay Bay 2018 with a Glock 19. You're going to have a very difficult time doing a Pulse 2016 with a handgun as well. The difference between what a rifle round does to the body with respect to kinetic energy and temporary stretch cavities makes handguns look weak by comparison.
The conversation about guns around the Colorado Springs shooting is about anti-minority stochastic terrorism and assault rifles. And while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower than the stochastic terrorism. You're not going to die randomly in a night club or movie theater because somebody killed themselves or their ex with a handgun ya know?
Well said: "while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower".
The largest number of gun deaths is, IIRC by suicide. This is rarely mentioned or addressed when talking about gun legislation.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000510/gun-suicide-homicide-comparison
Yup, but suicide and domestic violence don't affect greater society psychologically the way that stochastic terrorism does. I'm not going to die at a country music concert or place of worship randomly because someone killed themselves or their ex with a handgun. That's why the small numbers hit society to a larger degree than the big numbers do. It's the qualitative difference.
Oh, certainly. As always it is the edge cases that garner attention and create confusion, fear, and uncertainty.