Why Red Flag Laws Are Not A Good Solution To Mass Shootings
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The people who report your Twitter account and your Facebook pages because they dislike your opinion want you to trust a government-run system where people can, without serious penalty of law, report you and have your property confiscated before you’re allowed to defend yourself in court weeks, even months, later.
Politicians refer to law-abiding, gun-owning Americans as “ domestic security threats ,” yet want you to trust them with implementing such a system. I’m talking about red flag laws and the risk they pose to due process—you know, those other rights after the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), have passed through a number of state legislatures across the country; Sen. Marco Rubio has a somewhat new legislative proposal titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act . Sen. Lindsay Graham joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal to co-sponsor red flag legislation ; even Rep. Dan Crenshaw has mentioned ERPOs for potential consideration.
There is nuance to be had here, for sure, but realize that it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of “innocent until proven guilty” to “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.” The question isn’t whether these laws do this, the question is whether you feel comfortable giving up a cornerstone of our republic for a safety dependent upon enforcement by a government that has failed at this before.
The murderers in Parkland, Florida and Dayton, Ohio, are two recent examples. These two monsters were walking red flags with access to firearms and yet, with all of the laws available to adjudicate them ineligible to carry or purchase guns, they continued unabated until the unthinkable. They weren’t stopped.
In fact, the Parkland murderer was coddled by a school district that pretended a refusal to report crime (thereby suppressing their criminal statistics) was the same thing as reducing crime, and they received federal dollars for it. That murderer’s violent behavior (beating his adoptive mother, sending death threats to fellow students, and putting a gun to another person’s head, to list a few offenses) was so well known, teachers had a backup plan in case he decided to become threatening, and he was searched every morning after arriving at school.
We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes. According to numerous local reports , had the previous Broward County sheriff performed his duties, case number 18-1958 would not have been able to legally purchase the rifle he used to carry out his evil. From everything reported on the Dayton murderer, it seems barring him from legal purchase or possession of firearms by adjudicating him mentally unfit was entirely possible.
None of this is to say that nothing can be done. To the contrary: I and others have spoken for some time about the need to ensure that the systems upon which we rely to stop heinous would-be criminals at the point of sale needs to be up-to-date with timely reporting of ineligible, violent cases. This problem was pushed into the national spotlight after the horrific murders at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where an evil prohibited possessor took the lives of 26 innocents and injured 20 others.
That murderer was convicted of domestic assault during a court-martial and thus ineligible to legally purchase or carry a gun before his spree. Yet because his record was not submitted to the federal database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is referenced during a background check at the point of sale when purchasing a firearm, he was able to legally purchase firearms.
The Air Force took responsibility and vowed a lengthy review and to never repeat the error. The Chicago Tribune examined other cases of oversight wherein states and even government agencies failed to forward similar cases to the NCIC.
We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes. According to numerous local reports , had the previous Broward County sheriff performed his duties, case number 18-1958 would not have been able to legally purchase the rifle he used to carry out his evil. From everything reported on the Dayton murderer, it seems barring him from legal purchase or possession of firearms by adjudicating him mentally unfit was entirely possible.
None of this is to say that nothing can be done. To the contrary: I and others have spoken for some time about the need to ensure that the systems upon which we rely to stop heinous would-be criminals at the point of sale needs to be up-to-date with timely reporting of ineligible, violent cases. This problem was pushed into the national spotlight after the horrific murders at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where an evil prohibited possessor took the lives of 26 innocents and injured 20 others.
That murderer was convicted of domestic assault during a court-martial and thus ineligible to legally purchase or carry a gun before his spree. Yet because his record was not submitted to the federal database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is referenced during a background check at the point of sale when purchasing a firearm, he was able to legally purchase firearms.
The Air Force took responsibility and vowed a lengthy review and to never repeat the error. The Chicago Tribune examined other cases of oversight wherein states and even government agencies failed to forward similar cases to the NCIC.
For the system to properly work requires information. For us to properly address why these awful tragedies keep occurring, we need to ask why and give that every effort instead of only ever focusing on the how, with no considerations for anything else.
We have a society that champions disrespect for life, abandons responsibility for one’s actions, a society that redefines criminal activity by calling it a “loophole” instead of what it is, a criminal act; a culture that is slowly accepting violence as a legitimate form of disagreement, a society where male role models are hard to find and there is a crisis among young men that isn’t attributable to video games (are Republicans seriously entertaining the idea of exchanging gun control for game control?). We need to fix these problems for our society to work properly.
I hope that those promoting red flag laws address these concerns and answer questions like: What do red flag orders offer that our current legal options (civil commitments, TROs, et. al) do not? Why a long 14-day waiting period (Rubio’s bill) to defend oneself in court? Where are confiscated firearms to be kept — and if the answer is with local law enforcement, how are local enforcement agencies empowered to both store confiscated firearms and assume liability for that storage?
For friends of mine who have proposed Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO), how soon are respondents able to defend themselves against claims, particularly ex parte orders? And with either ERPOs or GVROs, will any considerations be given to women defending themselves against domestic abusers who might misuse the system to render their victims defenseless?
How will GVROs be lifted — and doesn’t that still require the respondent to prove his or her innocence? Is anyone concerned that both of these proposals still invert the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
We all want to save lives and prevent terrorists, dangerously mentally unstable, or just plain evil people from carrying out horrific intentions. If preserving innocent people’s right to defend themselves with force equal to that of their potential attacker is off the table, then how?
Dana Loesch is a nationally syndicated talk radio host of “The Dana Show” with Radio America and a best-selling author.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
36 visitors
Getting the mentally ill off the streets should be priority one. After that it's the old question of how much rights do we trade for the promise of safety, which was once a given?
Exactly. No one wants crackpots owning guns. No one .... but the devil is truly in the details.
The hypocrisy of this is how very easy it is for the people who aren't gun owners (and never plan on being gun owners) to agree with any gun controls whatsoever. Regardless of the liberties they are taking away from legal gun owners. It has the potential to be one hell of a slippery slope. My confidence is not high that this will not be an overreach by the government so be very careful what you wish for people. This has the potential to have "Big Brother" written all over it and if that happens, he won't be looking at only gun ownership and someone else's opinion of your mental health.
My main question here is how they plan on squaring this with current HIPAA laws. Because these proposed "Red Flag" laws have the potential to shit all over those.
Supposedly the could consult your doctor or shrink.
And there is the problem. It would take revamping the entire healthcare system to modify HIPPA. I worked in healthcare for years and HIPPA is not going to change or go away any faster than any constitutional amendment.
No, they can't. As sparty pointed out, HIPPA laws. Your average joe blow cop cannot access patient information. It's simply not going to happen. Even via a court order, (which would take weeks), only the judge would be able to view the information. On top of that? The only information that would be released would be very limited in its scope.
If a doctor or any other licensed healthcare professional violated HIPPA laws, the would likely lose their license to work in healthcare.
Yeah i worked in healthcare before HIPAA rules were enacted. What became HIPAA was always unwritten. Even back then but HIPAA simply made them law. And people who break them do get shit canned or worse.
And like many things in our country HIPAA laws are a bad thing ..... and a good thing .... depending on your perspective and specific experience.
There are no "pat" answers but I tend to error on the side of privacy and liberty. It's really easy for a person to be for or against something if it doesn't affect them directly by taking that stance. It's much tougher if it does.
Bingo...
Any family member or an ex with an axe to grind can pull this confiscation enabler action upon you. All the have to do is convince one single judge, or even a cop, that you are a threat. No hearing, no due process involved.
But the anti-gunners will say...'If it saves only one life, won't it be worth it?'
I have a little more faith in cops than you do, apparently, and would hope that they would use their judgement to make that call, not some family members hysterical ramblings. Judges have to act based on the law, not hearsay.
his talking points are parroting the local rightwing talk radio hysteria here over a red flag gun law we passed. his 5000watt oracle is a loud and proud birther with a 4 decade history of on air substance abuse that's been fired by more am radio stations than are active in this market.
You do realize that I am agreeing that red flag laws are not only stupid, but a bad idea....right? No matter what, they would be far too subjective.
Yet every time any gun regulation is proposed, the first thing said is that it won't stop them from getting a gun if they want one. So the talking points insist that what the Broward County Sheriff or the Dayton authorities did or didn't do is irrelevant.
Only the "Law Abiding" folks suffer !
It's the Liberal way.
It's also nonsensical to make the kneejerk leap from gun control the outlawing guns.
What lead you to that conclusion? Judges all over the country make calls on similar evidence every day.
I understand now why some would be concerned with a type of sanity test in order to keep their guns. people that may have been birthers in the past, may have been members of the tea party and/or other extremist conspiracy groups, got caught up in the muslim takeover/sharia law hysteria, or even attend services at some fringe religious cult that thinks their warped religious beliefs supersedes the US Constitution.
Obviously with those previously mentioned issues in their past or present, they would deserve intensive vetting in order to possess a firearm. but a red flag benefit would be less gun involved suicides among these already mentally troubled demographics. fortunately for me, as an old white guy that could blend in at a trump rally on the non-ponyhub wannabe side, I'm less likely to be targeted by some white supremacist(s).
Or they may be someone who writes incoherently on forums and tends to ramble on like a blithering idiot about conspiracy theories involving Russia and Trump.
And if you or some like minded person had the power, you/they would confiscate all the guns from those you disagree with. That was the point of the article - the politicizing of government. We have three ongoing investigations concerning that very problem. The IRS penalized Americans they disagreed with. To think that you dare mention the Constitution is truly astounding!
I'm less likely to be targeted by some white supremacist(s).
If I was you, I'd keep the screen name, keep your identity protected.
no, just from the types of fucking morons I listed mostly. I certainly won't be giving up any of my firearms while such highly probable mental defectives are allowed to possess firearms in this country.
from those that can't think for themselves, are shackled by religion, and telegraph their next move while attempting to have the last word? bwah ha ha. no worries on this end.
That was Ms Loesch point about giving government that kind of power. It's almost as if she knew you'd show up.
Glad to hear it. I think we can take that chance.
I'm not one who needs a gun, but there is that issue with 2nd Amendment rights. There is room in it for restrictions. You are right on the point that they want to control guns badly. It's one issue they haven't had much success on. Every time there is a tragedy (and one is too many) they look for legislation. This time even the President wants something done, so I think we are close to seeing background checks and possible restrictions.
Control the guns, control the people.
"Fundamentally changing America!"
You may be right on that. They told us that didn't they ? "they cling to guns or religion". That was how one leader felt about Americans whom he thought weren't so happy with his kind of change!
There are valid reasons for people to have guns. Some are mentioned in the article.
please send teabags, thumpers, or any others that think their agenda trumps the US Constitution to collect them. I'll hand them right over. oops, careful, the ends could be very hot.
The Tea Party is gone - destroyed by the IRS on the eve of the 2012 election.
... by a bush appointee that recognized where political money laundering was most likely to occur.
As I read it, the point of the article was to misrepresent the content of the proposed legislation. The author counts on the fact that few if any of her readers will actually read the legislation for themselves.
Her questions either prove that she didn't understand the legislation or that she intentionally misrepresented it to fit her agenda.
it's on the b side of that proof of god single.
Sounds like it's time to get rid of Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Richard Blumenthal, and even Dan Crenshaw. Red flag laws? Puhleeeze.
"We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes."
EXACTLY !
Anyone can tell anyone about someone …… No LAW required !
But that would "Violate" something in Liberal Land. Liberals need MORE "Laws" to tell them what's right and wrong ! They are really incapable of thinking for themselves.
If it is BEFORE they commit a crime, how would you get these good guys with guns off the street without violating their Constitutional rights?
"Good Guys" don't do what has been done in El Paso and Dayton.
Do you know what a "Good Guy" actually is ?
They were good guys with guns until they used them to kill people...that's the point you are missing.
and the point you're ignoring is that if they were planning these actions (driving 600 miles to commit murder seems to me like quite a bit of pre-planning) then they were not good guys in the first place.
I wish this entire "good guy with a gun" crap had never been started but you can't rewind time. but if we can be honest, these shooters were never good guys to begin with.
Is that what the parents and the neighbors have been saying ?
What you're missing is that until they have broken a law, they are still considered "good guys with guns", otherwise you are violating due process and punishing someone who hasn't done anything wrong at that point.
Should McConnell be arrested for posting a picture of a graveyard and tombstones with his political opponent's name on it? Sure sounds like he is planning a crime, just like people posting on Facebook, Instagram, etc, even though he hasn't done anything....yet.
Nope, afraid you are just wrong. "good guy" is not a legal term, it's an emotional term. How many times have we heard friends and parents come out after some tragedy talking about how their son / friend was such a good guy and they couldn't understand how he could have done such a thing.
As for McConnell, do you consider him a good guy? Going by your argument in the first paragraph you must consider him a good guy because he hasn't broken the law.
Like I said in another post, I wish that line about a good guy with a gun had never been uttered. But it was and we have to live with it. But we don't need to carry it to a ridiculous dramatic extreme to try to make points.
Never claimed it was a legal term, are you trying to deflect? Good guy with a gun, in this context, was created by WAYNE LAPIERRE. Stop trying to claim it was anything else.
In this context, yes he would be considered a "good guy". But in any case that you expect action to be taken against someone, before a crime is committed, action would also have to be taken against McConnell.
We agree, but the right wing has latched onto the quote and use it whenever they try to make the claim that more guns will stop gun violence.
You want to stop hearing it? Tell the right wing politicians to stop creating policies with it as their basis.
Nope, not deflecting at all. Was replying directly to your comment in 2.1.6 where you stated with a direct tie in to the law :
And I responded that they were never good guys to begin with. A "good guy" would not think and plan out mass murder. That's a very basic opinion of mine. I also stated that I wish that crap line from Lapierre had never been uttered because it is used to deflect the conversation away.
Now this quote, I almost think you are trying to tie in the Red Flag laws to my comments in this direct thread. I did state that I am basically in favor of the red flag laws, but the details most definitely need to be worked out as there are legal and constitutional issues that must be resolved before any such laws can be used. I am in favor of starting the discussion, without drama and without conflation. And without abridging someone of their constitutional rights.
And to the ending, both sides have latched on to the line and both sides use it as a foil. Taken in it's basic form, it is a true statement. In all 4 mass shootings in the past week the good guys with guns (you know them, the Cops) all ended the shooting. In the case of El Paso the death count is so high because it took a few minutes for the police to show up and start the process. It is also a true statement that it is possible that someone armed already in the Walmart could have ended this. Please note I said could have. There are no absolutes in this world. The advantage in a situation like this always goes to the attacker, never the defender. Really how I took the statement, all Lapierre was trying to say is that if there is an armed defender already in place there is a better chance of reducing the victim count. You cannot totally eliminate it and it's not a guarantee, but at least it's a chance that might make the final outcome a little better.
You are really Really REALLY stretching it to find me even implying it is a legal term.
Then please explain to me how to tell the difference. How do you tell if someone is a "bad guy with a gun" before they do anything illegal? Since you are expecting action against this person, please make sure your reasoning is lawful and Constitutional.
So a "good guy" would only commit mass murder on a whim? Plenty of those. Plus, is the planning illegal if no actual steps are taken to commit it? i.e. high schoolers blowing off steam.
Again I agree, but also, again it is used constantly to try and justify more guns as a method to stop gun violence.
Red flag laws are designed to take away someone's right to bear arms, before they have legally committed a crime. So specifically your argument may differ from these laws, but generally it is still punishing someone before they have committed a crime.
Personally I have mixed feelings about red flag laws.
Good:
Bad:
So... Marco Rubio and Lindsay Graham are living in Liberal Land now?
Yep !
Red flag laws aren't about guilt or innocence. Red flag laws are about competency.
A red flag indicates an individual is incompetent to engage in lawful activities without endangering others. A ready example are DUI laws; an impaired individual is not competent to operate a vehicle without endangering others.
DUI laws are a good example. They are applied objectively based on one's driving record. A red flag is much more subjective and based frequently on somebody coming forward. The strong woman who wrote this article has asked all the pertinent questions. How come nobody came forward in two glaring examples? Furthermore, there is the question of what is the threshold for gun confiscation/denial? And then there is that nasty matter of ideology creeping in. (Her first sentence!)
A computer hacker can be prohibited from having access to computers. An embezzler can be prohibited from having control over people's money. A pedophile can be prohibited from being in the presence of children. A doctor deemed incompetent is prohibited from practicing medicine. An attorney deemed incompetent will be disbarred and prohibited from practicing law. People who cannot demonstrate competency are not allowed to work in certain professions, engage in certain activities, or even be allowed to live independently.
There are all sorts of red flag laws already on the books. Competency plays a large role in our society; we do not allow individuals that exhibit red flags to engage in certain activities.
Application of red flags depends upon objective measures. What are the objective measures that demonstrate incompetence for access to firearms? Have we identified the red flags? As an example, we know that someone exhibiting suicidal thoughts and behaviors is a red flag. And that red flag is justification for depriving the individual access to items they can use to kill themselves.
Red flags are not subjective in the law. Red flag laws are based upon observable traits, behaviors, actions, and conditions. The public reports red flags they know. A driver weaving in traffic is an understood red flag that people report to authorities. Does the public know the red flags that indicate incompetency to access firearms? If the public is to report red flags then the public needs to understand and recognize those red flags. And typically the red flag laws are what defines the observable traits, behaviors, actions, and conditions that are the red flags that the public needs to report.
I thought with the Parkland shooting that someone had reported him to the county police, they even visited his "parents" but nothing was done.
I agree that there are serious legal and constitutional issues that must be worked out and for each case a judge has to sign off on it. I had responded in another thread that is now gone that I actually think these red flag laws might be a good step as they directly impact the individual rather than impacting a group and if they can get the constitutional issues handled it could move forward. There's definitely the potential for abuse in this so the details will be very important. But I think it's a conversation worth having and exploring.
True, but the list is long and often minor issues. One of 2 adopted kids in a house that ended up fatherless. Locals even tipped the FBI multiple times.
That is the example I was looking for. It is easy when you have a history of convictions, not so easy when the government gets the power to act preemptively. Let's take "road rage". Is that a red flag? Should the cab driver who loses his temper by the end of his shift be denied a gun? How about those who lose their tempers in general? Where is the line on that?
Agreed, I'm with Ms Loesch on that.
The red flag calls for immediate intervention followed by a competency evaluation. An emergency restraining order is an immediate intervention. A permanent restraining order requires more scrutiny and justification.
Road rage is a red flag that can be reported and authorities can intervene to prevent harm to others. And, depending upon circumstances, the individual can be detained and the vehicle impounded.
Cursing and fist waving? Does that gets a response?
There is no comparison to DUI laws. These laws are about by the imagined possible intent by the gun owner or possessor, as deemed by an individual, LEO's, or a judge....without any competency hearing. It's about an illegal seizure when no crime has been committed.
The red flags for the possible intent by an individual to commit suicide are fairly well recognized. And the red flags for suicide justify immediate removal of means to commit suicide and initiates a competency evaluation (or hearing). Mass shooters exhibit many of the same red flags as suicidal individuals but the possible intent is to harm others rather than themselves.
32 people dead, Greg..
If this were only about 32 dead people then it's much ado about nothing.
It's about the next 32. And the next. And the next. And the next. And the next. And the next.
Standing on the graves to make speeches and score political points is far more callous.
1) Something tells me the families of those victims don't agree.
2) "If this were only about 32 dead people..." 250 mass shootings so far this year, it's a LOT more than 32 victims.
When it comes to wealthy nations, (not small 3rd world countries), we have the highest murder rate, (with a gun), in the world at 4.43 per 100,000 people.
We have a higher murder rate than Afghanistan. Think about that, you have a better chance of not being murdered in Afghanistan than in the US.
So then you agree that the 9 Benghazi investigations by the right wing was all political.
Mostly, yes. So?
Nothing was gained by those investigations, either. The status quo remained intact. Speeches on graves don't accomplish much. Grandstanding over the misfortune of others rarely does accomplish anything.
Okay, we are supposed to hate Republicans. Seems there was a mass shooting of Republicans, too. Should there be another? And another? And another?
How much hate will satisfy Democrats?
Considering that the one murderer had a rape/kill list long before this occurred, it should have been a really big red flag.
People keep all kinds of vile and hateful lists and other writings. It's not enough for them to be locked up, or even be prevented from purchasing a gun legally. They need to be adjudicated by a judge based on professional testimony. The red flag laws wander into some very controversial territory.
And then....not being able to legally purchase at gun shows, gun shops, or pawn shops, their next stop will be in the parking lot of such places, or their living rooms, or in driveways, or in backyards, or in alleys, or on the black market, or from a criminal. That's why 'universal" background checks won't work either.
I'm not saying lock them up. People like him need help and he didn't get that despite the warning signs that were out there. Absolutely the decision should be left to professional mental health experts, their findings presented to a judge for final disposition. The "See something, say something." mantra should apply and not just in the case of possible terrorists, but in cases like this. People saw, but said nothing.
Yep !
But seems it was better to ignore ! Folks just don't want to make waves these days ! They may be chastised for "Doing the Right Thing" (Against Illegals) !
People (cops) get shot and killed for doing that "Thing" too !
And art work...a lot of violence depicted in art.
Hate has been going on for a long time, how soon we forget...
lots of left wing art work here.
I don't know about in art, but I do know first hand the violence art can create. I once criticized a painting my sister did. She took it down and hit me with it.
I believe this paragraph needs to be highlighted. Our society has certainly changed in the last couple of decades...and it isn't for the 'better'.
Is a 'new gun law' really the answer? Does blaming the President give any of these families their loved ones back?
I would really like to see existing gun laws enforced before they start to just shotgun out new laws that also won't be enforced. Most states and agencies are very lax in reporting information to NICS, so background checks fail. Without accurate data how can anybody expect a background check to provide sufficient protections? Just adding a "universal background check" won't change much of anything for that other than increased revenue from the fee's collected for the additional checks.
I agree, the current laws aren't enforced very well...adding a new one won't make much of a difference. I reminds me of when I didn't want to eat something on my plate...my grandmother threatened to put MORE on my plate. That never made sense to me...I wasn't going to eat it anyway.
Adding new laws is a knee jerk reaction...they are hoping that people will believe that a 'new law' can end these horrific events.
Won't hurt. What we are doing now ain't working.
If we stop blaming the dog for that lunchtime bean burrito then maybe we can begin working toward real solutions. IMO what we need to do is get rid of the dog.
ok, so using your analogy we need to get rid of the guns. Well it takes a while to get thru that process so you better get started.
No we need to get rid of all the political dogs that are being blamed for mass shootings.
The police responded and killed the Dayton shooter in 30 seconds. The good guys are being overwhelmed. More good with guns is not the answer. That political dog won't hunt any longer.
Whatever excuse being used to avoid addressing the real problem (the shooter) needs to be eliminated before the real problem gets any attention. Getting rid of the guns won't do anything to address the people who become mass shooters. That just sweeps the problem under the rug.
We can completely eliminate auto accidents by banning automobiles. We can completely eliminate stock market crashes by banning stocks. We can completely eliminate medical misdiagnosis by banning doctors. That's the lazy, stupid approach.
Thanks for explaining, the analogy wasn't clear to me which is why I responded as I did.
Maybe so. But all that really says is that there is no effective way to keep evil people from doing evil. Evil will find a way.
Eliminating guns is just as stupid a solution as would be eliminating computers to prevent data breaches. I don't use smart phones so, for me, banning smart phones would work well to prevent accidents caused by texting; I wouldn't lose anything so it's all good. Since I don't use smart phones why should I care if you can't?
People expect me to respect their right to use a smart phone even though I don't use one and I could be killed by someone texting while driving. It's not unreasonable for gun users to expect those who don't use guns to respect their rights, too.
Actually, the good guys with guns framework is very functional. The police (good guys with guns) were there and killed the shooter within 30 seconds, after he had killed 7 and wounded about 20 more. How many more would have died within the next five minutes if they hadn't been there? The purpose of good guys with guns is not to stop all the deaths in such a situation. That is impossible. In an ambush situation, SOME people are going to die and nothing can stop it. The purpose of the good guys (whether police or civilians) is to minimize the number of deaths.
27 casualties is unacceptable. The good guys are being overwhelmed. And the shooters are not being deterred by armed police presence.
Sure it could have been worse. But it's really difficult to see how it could have been better. We need fewer than 27 casualties as a best case good guy response.
Maybe we could put more good guys with guns on the street. And excise taxes on firearms and ammunition would be a reasonable way to pay for that. If we need more good guys because of ready access to firearms then firearms need to provide the revenue to pay for those good guys. There isn't a free lunch.
It may be unacceptable but it's pretty much what we've got. The shooters are not being deterred by armed police officers because they are so easy to spot. Then they can either be avoided for a few seconds or be the first casualties.
This could be a good idea:
I would suggest, though, that, whether police officers or volunteers, the extra armed security should not be in uniform and should not be carrying openly. That way, they could not be avoided nor could they be shot first.
Protective gear would be a give away. The shooters still have the advantage of surprise and random targeting. The shooters also have the advantage of time; they can reconnoiter before attacking. Defenders are always at a disadvantage.
If a protective force worked as a defensive strategy then the US Marines and special forces would be a pointless waste of money. The good guys with guns idea has never been strategically sound.
Just what do you think a defensive perimeter is? Sometimes the attacking force wins and sometimes they die. In no case is a lone wolf shooter the kind of attacking force encountered by the military. Surprise is on the side of the defensive force as long as their cover isn't broken. The shooter would not be expecting resistance.
Undercover officers don't wear it. Sometimes even uniformed officers don't wear it if they they want to be able to move quickly. I went twelve years without any more armor than a heavily starched shirt.
The real problem is having the personnel in the right place. About the only way to make that happen is to have someone in the most likely targets at all times.
Strategically it is a method of deploying expendable assets to identify the location of threats.
Surprise is always to the advantage of an attacker; the attacker tries to maintain that advantage. Red flags would make maintaining the advantage of surprise more difficult for an attacker.
Hence, red flag laws.
my question is , what safeguards are or will be in place to insure the laws would not be abused by others?
I have a partial solution.
Anyone who has not served honorably in the military, and therefore likely not been trained in the proper use of an AR platform weapon, can not own one. That excludes what, over 90% of Americans?
Fixed ..... and then shotgun Joe doesn't need to take them all away.
UnConstitutional
Lol yes, we agree on that.
One of Texas bitterest moments was at the hands of Charles Whitman on Aug 1 1966 ( the 53rd anniversary just passed)
when he killed his wife and mother with hunting knives, then climbed the UTA tower 28 floors
and killed 17 with a Remington 700 6mm rifle. He had a total of seven guns with him atop the tower none of them automatics. He previously sought medical help but no one followed up because you cannot force an adult to seek medical attention. His autopsy revealed a brain tumor with necrosis, but nothing can be proven as to the relationship between the tumor and the voices he heard and the violent impulses he felt.
Go back a few more years and you'll find another, more famous one for posterity.
If you are looking for a perfect bubble of safety you are going to continue being disappointed.
That said i made my comment largely tongue in cheek and yet you still had to go back 50+ years to find one ....
To me that was really the first of these. I'm sure somebody will dig up things that happened before that, but in modern times they would be outliers. This stuff, along with serial killings really took off after that incident.
Let's change that to honorably served in the military and fired a weapon in an actual combat situation.
That would be about 1% of 1%. Works for me.
and my point to Sparty was that Whitman (and Lee Ozwald ) didn't need an AR-15 anything.
They were both USMC trained marksmen using ordinary hunting rifles that required training and skill, lot's of skill.
They were both mentally unstable.
Any dickhead, sane or otherwise, with a rudimentary knowledge of the AR-15 can go out and do a hell of a lot of damage
without any skill or respect for the weapon.
Or life.
Thus, you want certain weapons prohibited?
Some should be, yes, as they serve no purpose to the general public.
I understood your comment, SP.
None of my firearms are there to serve the general public , so their only purpose is to serve me if they should be needed.
This may be the time.
No problem, that would exclude me and I would have no problem with that in concept. I don’t need the evil black gun for anything but fun shooting.
So to be clear the only people to have them by your comment would be combat vets and people who already own them illegally and/or will own them illegally in the future. Non combat vets that will own them only legally and responsibly no longer will.
Does that work for you?
Keep throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean what the hell, as long as it’s not your baby who gives a shit right?
One persons non purpose can be another persons liberty/enjoyment.
Right?
doubt it.
that's why when I built my AR platform ( yes I have a "ghost gun") I also acquired a conversion kit to shoot .22LR , its cheaper than shooting the 5.56 NATO I ordered the barrel chambered in.
Though I do have another legally defensable reason for having one that is rather long and drawn out .
Yes, let's be clear. You brought up the partial solution that only vets should have a weapon. I only expanded on that thought.
Under your partial solution, people that own them illegally or will own them illegally in the future would still have them. Seems that under your solution the bad guys will still have them.
And as I clearly stated, my comment was largely tongue in cheek. So answer my question please.
Do you feel it’s okay that non combat vets, who would only own that platform legally and responsibly, should be excluded from owning them?
This mere non combat vet would like to know what you think about that.
I don't see anywhere in your comment that said it was tongue in cheek.
LOL you do know that particular rifle has been on the list to be banned in replacement legislation after the 94 AWB sunsetted right? not because of the gun itself but because of how it can be "accessorized".
You would love my pair of Remington nylon 66s then made pre 70. only real problem with those was you either got one that was a tack driver , or you got one that couldn't hit a pile of shit in a bucket standing over it .
Should a weapon that can take a 100 round drum magazine be available to the general public? I would think not.
I was told when I was a kid, "there is a big difference between "need" and "want".
Have we crossed that line where we are sacrificing fellow Americans lives, just because people, "want" a weapon that is designed for the most carnage in the least amount of time?
Don't get me wrong, I love my guns, I am a collector. I just wonder if these assault style weapons have any purpose past killing fellow humans. I mean, if they are hunting with them I would have to doubt their ability to hunt at all. As to the caliber, ar-15 is a .223/5.56mm. Ak-47 is 7.62mm. Rifles in these caliber's are a dime a dozen.
Anyway... Do people NEED a weapon that can hold 100 rounds? Do they NEED an assault weapon? Or do they WANT them?
You do remember why the military doesn't use those right? even with the advancments in materials made with , they are heavy unwieldy and more importantly unreliable and unbalance the weapon, in a shooting situation.
hell I could do more damage and carnage using a 12 ga 5 shot shotgun using the appropriate rounds , difference is , I was taught and trained by those trained in combat shotgunning. thankfully these young idiots today haven't thought to look into that sort of thing , and they do not desire to take the time to train for shotgun combat reloading or shooting , nor explore exactly what can be done with a shotgun vs a rifle.
My personal preference is the Stevens 520/30 Trench Gun.
Hello kavika , long time not talk to friend. lot of folks tend to forget history , the germans in both WW1 and 2 thought the shotgun should be outlawed for use in combat and threatened during both wars to execute anyone caught on the battlefield carrying a combat shotgun. certain treaties , allow them but only for specific uses , such as guarding of prisoners . that and they tend to forget its real easy to modify or make up your own inards for a shotshell. 14 dimes fit real nice in a shotshell , as does broken automobile side window glass, or even carpet tacks or finishing nails , or any combination of whatever they can think of . but I know you know this as well.
my personal pref for my door gun is a high standard riot 12 , old cruiser gun with an 18 3/4 inch barrel, now I do use my own reloads , think anyone wants to attempt a forceful or unwanted entry?
Hello Mark, yup everything seems to be centered on the AR platform. Shotguns were used extensively in Vietnam. The Stevens was an excellent weapon. Ithaca, Browning and a few others also had shotguns used in Vietnam.
I imagine that not many on NT know what combat loading of a shotgun consists of.
No one in their right mind.
I have a Remington made md 11 on the old Browing A-5 patents from WW2 sweet little number that is , sounds like a singer sewing machine in the dark when you rack the bolt to battery.
nice thing about my door gun it was made for slugs and buckshot , no fancy sight , just a bead , but throws a 7/8th oz slug into a 9 inch plate at 100 yards very efficiently.
knew I was gonna age myself when I said combat loading , and your right , I doubt many outside the military or LEO understand the difference.
youtube has a video of reeves practicing at a range for his john Wick movies , I saw one where he was using a shotgun like I was trained shooting and reloading . for an actor he impressed me .
To me the AR platform fell victim to what has happened to just about every rifle that was adopted by the military , because it was adopted , and because so many people went through their basic marksmanship training with it its something many became comfortable with and once civilians they went with what they knew and were trained with.
I have a 1896 Springfield from the Spanish American war, uncut , an 03 from WW1 and rebarreled in NY in 1944, an m-1 carbine , I haven't bothered with a garand because I like the 03 better , and the m-14 or m-16 has civilian available counterparts im not really interested in , even though I do have the AR , but for reasons different than most if you remember us talking about it.
You have some nice weapons, Mark.
I have a .32 Savage. Most people when I say Savage .32 they don't know that for a short period Savage made a pistol, they only think of rifles by Savage.
They were made by Savage from 1928 to 1933 or so (could be off by a couple of years)...The one that I have is from 1929 and has a history that makes it quite valuable. It is in excellent working order.
Yes, I do remember that conversation.
I remember you talking about that .32 , use to belong to a mobster.
Yes, Kid Cann