Posted 12/5/18

RED FLAG AT HALF MAST (PART II)

Preventing more than suicide may carry serious risks

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel.  State and Federal laws generally prohibit gun possession by the adjudicated  mentally ill and by subjects of a domestic violence restraining order. According to a nationally-representative survey of 5,653 persons 18 and older, about 10 percent of the adult population self-reports substantial “anger traits” and keeps guns at home, while about 1.6 percent self-reports such traits and carries a gun (those required to do so by their job were excluded.) However, only a very small slice of this problematic group – 13.2 percent of the angry, gun-at-home cohort and only 16.3 percent of the angry gun-packers – has been hospitalized for a mental health problem, thus automatically denying them the right to have guns. It’s their far greater number of non-adjudicated, gun-possessing peers that “Red Flag” laws are meant to address.

     Unlike Red Flag laws that simply command alleged possessors to give up their guns (if needed, search warrants must be separately obtained), Connecticut’s statute, which was first out of the gate in 1999, directs officers to conduct a search and seize the guns they find. It was at first applied sparsely, generating about 20 seizure orders a year. But its use jumped after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, with 100 warrants in 2011, 139 in 2012, 183 for the full year 2013, and 150 or more during each subsequent year through 2017.

     A study published in Law and Contemporary Problems examined the statute’s effects between its enactment and June, 2013. During this period judges issued 762 Red Flag warrants. Twenty-one of the named defendants subsequently committed suicide, six by gun and fifteen by other means (e.g., pills).

     What did the law accomplish? Persons served with warrants who thereafter committed suicide were less likely to do so with guns (6/21, 29 percent) than adults of the same gender in the general population (35 percent), and far less often than gun owners (65 percent.) Applying what’s known about the efficacy of suicide methods, researchers estimated that Red Flaggers attempted suicide 142 times post-seizure, seven times with a gun and 135 times by other means. After an elaborate process, the authors concluded that one life was saved for every ten to twenty seizures. Computations that led to the less effective estimate (1/20) were based on the suicidal inclinations of Connecticut gun owners at large, while the other extreme (1/10) reflected the fact that Red Flaggers were at special risk, with a suicide rate forty times that of the general population.

     RedFlagCT1Guns are a particularly effective means of killing oneself, so the law’s deterrent effect on gun slinging seems a good thing. Just how good was it? Had members of the group not been “flagged,” retaining their access to firearms and lethal inclinations, they might have turned to guns in, say, seventy percent of suicide attempts. If so, there would have been eighty-two additional gun deaths and ten fewer by other means, yielding a total of ninety-three fatalities instead of twenty-one.

     Psychiatric Services (abstract online) recently published a study that analyzed the effectiveness of Red Flag laws in Connecticut and Indiana. Using a quasi-experimental approach, it compared their post-enactment suicides to control groups of non-Red Flag law states whose pre-law characteristics were weighted to provide a close initial match.

     RedFlagCTAs we mentioned in Part I, Connecticut’s unique Red Flag law authorizes search and seizure. Its effect on suicide was separately computed for two periods: enactment to 2007 and 2007 to 2015, when enforcement sharply increased because of the Virginia Tech massacre. For the first period, the authors reported 1.6 percent fewer firearm suicides than the control group but 5.7 percent more suicides by other means. For the second period the corresponding figures were a 13.7 decrease (matched by few control states) and a 6.5 percent increase (common among the control states). Compared to the controls, the authors estimated that during 2007-2015, when Connecticut suffered 3086 suicides, 933 by gun and 2153 by other means, its Red Flag law prevented 128 of the former but caused 140 of the latter, increasing the overall toll by twelve, or about .4 percent (3086-12/12 x 100).

     RedFlagINIndiana’s Red Flag approach (also reported in Part I) is more conventional. Its gun to non-gun displacement effect also seemed far milder than Connecticut’s. During a ten-year post-law period (2005-2015) the state suffered 9533 suicides, 5105 by gun and 4428 by other means. Compared to the control group, its Red Flag law reportedly prevented 383 gun suicides while causing 44 non-gun suicides, yielding a net decrease of 339 suicides, or about 3.4 percent (9533+339/339 x 100).

     In all, the study praised the tendency of Red Flag laws to reduce gun suicides but warned of increases in non-gun suicides, which seemed particularly pronounced in Connecticut.

     Alas, what Red Flag laws can’t seem to extinguish is the urge to kill oneself. When deeply troubled persons want to commit suicide, discouraging their access to firearms is not an effective long-term solution. In any event, suicide isn’t what these laws were originally intended to prevent. From the very beginning their avowed purpose has been to stamp out the scourge of mass killings that have shaken America to the core.

Click here for the complete collection of gun control essays

     Yet Red Flaggers aren’t your archetypical criminal. Convicted felons and some categories of violent misdemeanants, including those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a domestic violence protective order, are already prohibited from having guns by state and/or Federal laws. Same goes for persons who have been formally adjudicated as mentally defective (click here for a Federal gun law summary then scroll down for the state law chart.) Red Flaggers, on the other hand, are neither fully “criminal” nor fully “crazy.” Indeed, their marginal status is precisely why gun seizure laws have come to be. And while the process is conceptually simpler than civil commitment, what’s required to use these “obscure” laws may be is far from trivial:

    Do I think [the law] when it was written, when it was drafted, and how it had been utilized pre-Sandy Hook—was effective? No, I don’t believe it was effective. Why? It was an obscure statute. It was something that was labor-intensive. It was something that required an affiant, a co-affiant, supervisor’s review, State’s attorney’s office review, and approval and a judge’s signature and then, of course, execution on that warrant….(p. 196)

     That sentiment, expressed by a former cop, was ridiculed by a police “administrator” who insisted what the entire Red Flag process could be easily accomplished “within a few hours’ time”:

    I mean, most of it is a [three to five] line narrative. You know, “We got a report of a guy wanted to commit suicide. I showed up, he was sitting in the corner with a loaded .357. He said to me, he wanted to commit suicide. I talked to him and he put it down….” The judge’s phone rings at two o’clock in the morning, it’s us, and one of us drives over there with a warrant. He reviews it, signs off on the bottom of it, we go back and we take all the guns. In the meantime, officers are sitting at the location where all the guns are, and securing it…We get the warrant signed, we go back to the house and we collect everything related to the gun….

     These words perplexed your blogger, who spent more than a few hours on the street (albeit, in pre-Red Flag days.) Tying up a beat for hours may be theoretically possible in some places, on a very slow day. One can’t imagine trying to do it in smaller cities, where an entire “shift” might mean three cops, or in larger jurisdictions when there’s been a shooting or other violent crime and calls are coming in.

     There’s an even more vexing issue, which neither journal article probed. Prompted by the June 28 murder of five employees at an Annapolis newspaper, Maryland enacted a Red Flag law, which took effect on October 1. As we mentioned in Part I, on November 5, in the same Maryland county, an officer shot and killed the subject of a seizure order who got into a wrestling match with the cop’s partner over a gun.

     Stirring up potentially dangerous people is, well, potentially dangerous. Yet Red Flag laws may never meet their goal of preventing a mass shooting unless their use is vastly expanded. But doing it legally and safely calls for robust levels of police staffing, with tactical units readily available to lend a practiced hand. Even then, the environment in which cops work is notoriously chaotic. No matter the precautions, crank things up and someone will get hurt, or worse, and sooner rather than later. Red Flag laws may be “obscure” for a very good reason.

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     


RELATED POSTS

Red Flag I     Ban the Damned Things!     Again, Kids Die     Preventing Mass Murder

Routinely Chaotic     Massacre Control     A Stitch in Time     Coming Clean in Santa Barbara

The Elephant in the Room     Say Something     Disturbed person         



Posted 11/21/18, edited 11/29/18

RED FLAG AT HALF MAST (PART I)

California’s Guv nixes expanded authority to seize guns from their owners

Red flag

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. How can guns be taken away from reportedly unstable, possibly dangerous owners? A dozen-plus states have passed laws that authorize judges to issue so-called “Red Flag” orders (more formally, “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” and “Extreme Risk Protection Orders.”) California’s version, in effect since January 2016, comes in three flavors. Two are ex-parte, requiring pleadings by one side only. Both last 21 days: an emergency order, based on a police request, and a non-emergency ban based on testimony and evidence presented by police and/or close family members. Should petitioners wish to renew either order or secure a year-long ban, a hearing must be called so that both sides can be heard.

     As things stand in the Golden State, only law enforcement officers or immediate family members (that apparently includes roommates) can apply for an order of whatever kind. Feeling that to be too limiting, the Legislature recently sent the Governor a bill that would have expanded the roster of authorized petitioners to include “an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months.” But on September 26 Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the proposal:

    All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today under existing law by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.

     Then, a mere six weeks after the Guv said “no,” disaster struck. On November 7, 2018, Ian David Long, 28, walked into an L.A.-area bar packed with college students, pulled a .45 caliber pistol and opened fire. By the time the Marine Corps combat vet pulled the trigger on himself twelve innocent souls were dead, among them Ventura Co. Sheriff’s Sergeant Ron Elus, the first officer on scene.

     Sadly, while his horrifying act was unanticipated, the protagonist’s identity didn’t come as a complete surprise. Long’s tantrums had spurred repeated visits by deputies to the residence where the unemployed, deeply troubled young man and his mother lived.  Last year, an officer summoned to the home observed that Long was “somewhat irate and acting irrationally.” But a mental health team decided there was insufficient reason to detain him. More recently, neighbors reported that Long went on a rampage that “sounded like he was tearing down the walls of the house.” Taken as a whole, the circumstances – repeated instances of crazy behavior, calls to police, no decisive action or inquiry about guns – seem remarkably similar to the precursors of the bloodbath in Santa Barbara. Yet by the time of Long’s murderous acting out, California’s Red Flag law, which was intended to prevent such things, had been in effect for nearly three years.

     Well, mom must have known that her son was armed and dangerous. Why hadn’t she petitioned the court? Likely for that very reason. California’s official courts website cautions against turning in one’s kin and strongly advises family members to let the police do the deed:

    You can ask for a firearms restraining order against a close family member if you are afraid they may hurt themselves, or another person, with a gun. If you are in this situation, it is best to ask the police or other law enforcement to ask for the firearms restraining order…The officer will take the person’s firearms and ammunition while giving them a copy of the order.  You should only ask for an order yourself if the police (or other law enforcement agency) will not do it and you are very concerned.

     According to The Trace thirteen states have Red Flag laws authorizing judges to order allegedly dangerous persons to give up their guns: California, Oregon and Washington in the West; Illinois and Indiana in the Midwest; Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in the East; and Florida in the South.

     What’s driven these laws? Waves of senseless killings. Connecticut was first out of the gate with a statute drafted in response to the March 6, 1998 murder of four co-workers by a mentally troubled employee of the state lottery. While the bill wound its way through the legislature, two heavily-armed teens killed thirteen and wounded twenty-one at Colorado’s Columbine High School, a tragedy that resounded throughout the nation. That reportedly settled things, and Connecticut’s governor signed the measure on June 29, 1999.

Click here for the complete collection of gun control essays

     Five more states joined the parade this year: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. Florida’s statute was propelled by the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjorie Stoneman High School, in a Miami suburb. NRA A-rated Republican legislators quickly drafted a Red Flag measure, which the state’s Republican governor signed into law on March 9. Most recently, Maryland’s law (it took effect this October) came on the heels of a series of killings: a school shooting in March that left two students dead, an armed attack on a newspaper office in June with five casualties, and the killing of three fellow employees by a mentally ill woman who then committed suicide.

     State gun violence orders carry a variety of legal and evidentiary requirements. (For a precise state-by-state rundown, click here.) California’s provisions take a middle ground, facilitating an urgent response but imposing safeguards when deciding for the longer term. For example, its emergency ex-parte (one-sided) 21-day order requires police to offer “reasonable cause” that the respondent “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another.” Like most such laws, it also stipulates that “less restrictive alternatives” must have been considered and ruled out. Non-emergency orders (these are also 21 days and ex-parte but can be initiated by immediate family members) carry a burden of “substantial likelihood.” Imposing a full one-year ban requires a full hearing as well as “clear and convincing evidence” of dangerousness. (For a rank-ordered analysis of legal standards click here.)

     Indiana is somewhat of an exception. Its Red Flag law authorizes officers who believe that an individual presents “an imminent risk” to pre-emptively seize firearms (but not conduct a search) without a warrant. They must then promptly obtain a judicial endorsement and proceed in the normal fashion.

     Of course, ordering someone to give up their guns doesn’t assure compliance. In twelve Red Flag states police who encounter uncooperative subjects must obtain a search warrant to look for guns, an additional process that carries its own burden of probable cause. In contrast, orders obtained in Connecticut are effectively search warrants:

    Upon complaint…to any judge of the Superior Court, that [there is] probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms.

Judges are directed to refer candidates to mental health proceedings when appropriate.

     Connecticut leaves the entire process to the police. Otherwise who can petition for an order varies. According to the Giffords Law Center Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont limit applicants to police. Eight states (California, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington) allow, or will soon allow, immediate family members to file petitions as well. Maryland’s taken a step beyond, letting mental health workers kick things off as well. But no one goes any further.

     Had California expanded its list of authorized petitioners to include co-workers and school employees it would have been treading new ground. But some claim that the state fails to use the authority it currently has. A week before Governor Brown issued his veto, an expansive review by the Los Angeles Times revealed that California judges issued “fewer than 200” gun violence restraining orders during 2016-17, the law’s first two years (no distinction was made as to type of order.) As one might expect, Los Angeles County, by far the state’s most heavily populated at ten-million plus, claimed the largest share: 32, or about one per month. Second place went to Santa Barbara County. Notably, with a population less than 1/20th. L.A.’s, it issued twenty-one notices. Given that the county was the setting for the 2014 Isla Vista massacre, which led to the law’s enactment, its enthusiastic use of the statute is unsurprising. Clearly, context matters. More recently, amidst a wave of mass shootings, Maryland judges fielded 114 applications for gun violence orders during October, the law’s first month of operation. Seventy respondents were ordered to surrender their guns, and thirty-six ultimately lost their rights for up to one year.

     Still, as Maryland quickly discovered, vigorously enforcing Red Flag laws itself carries some risk. On November 5th. Anne Arundel (MD) police served an order filed by a woman against her 60-year old brother. He answered the door while armed, “became irate” and wrestled with a cop for the gun, which discharged during their struggle. The other officer then shot him dead.

     One assumes this won’t be the last incident of its kind. So are Red Flag laws worth it? For a review of studies about their effectiveness, and our take on their conclusions, be sure to come back for Part II!

UPDATE (12/8/18): Ventura deputy Sgt. Ron Helus, one of the twelve persons killed during a December 7 mass shooting at an L.A.-area bar, sustained a lethal wound from a rifle round fired by a CHP officer as they exchanged fire with the gunman. Ventura Sheriff Bill Ayub said the tragedy may not have been preventable: “In my view, it was unavoidable. It was just a horrific scene that the two men encountered inside the bar.”

UPDATE (11/21/18): Click here for a brand-new L.A. Times interview with the legislators who drafted California’s original Red Flag bill.

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     


RELATED POSTS

Ban the Damned Things!     Again, Kids Die     Preventing Mass Murder     Massacre Control

A Stitch in Time     Coming Clean in Santa Barbara     Say Something     Disturbed person 



Posted 6/24/18

NO ONE WANTS EX-CONS TO HAVE GUNS

The New York Times affirms its liberal cred’s. And falls into a rabbit hole.

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. First, an admission. A copy of the New York Times print edition lands on your blogger’s family driveway – or often, the front lawn – seven days a week. After all, before ideology hopelessly corrupted the news biz, the Times was America’s daily of record. Still, what it deems “fit to print” matters. And when its talented scribes tackle a topic close to your writer’s heart – bad guys (and girls) with guns – it really matters.

     On May 7 the Times published an article that describes how the policies of Jeff Sessions, the new A.G., expanded the enforcement of Federal gun laws. Here’s how it begins:

    Bobby Amos stood outside of an Episcopal church in Alabama last spring, begging police to kill him. He had been suicidal earlier and held a gun to his head, his wife said, and she had hidden the weapon at the church, where he had followed her to retrieve it. There was little to indicate that Mr. Amos, 39, was a danger to anyone but himself that day. He was arrested unarmed outside the church, in need of treatment and counseling, according to his lawyer, Fred Tiemann. Police recovered the pistol from the building.

     First, a bit of law. Federal law prohibits persons with a prior felony conviction, meaning a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, from possessing firearms. Ordinary offenders can draw up to ten years, while those with three or more violent felony convictions are eligible for a mandatory fifteen. States also regulate gun possession by felons. Their scope is often more narrow. For example, Alabama’s law only applies to persons previously convicted of a crime of violence, while Pennsylvania also bars gun possession by those with multiple convictions for serious property crimes.

     As your blogger (a retired ATF agent) well knows, “one man, one gun” cases have never been popular with assistant U.S. attorneys, who tend to think of them as beneath their station. But as the Times pointed out, and as Attorney General Jeff Sessions has proudly proclaimed, prosecuting gun-toting felons has become a key tool in the fight against violent crime. Since Sessions took over the Feds have been making far more use of what the Times considers the “relatively routine charge” of ex-con with a gun. One of the “beneficiaries” of the new policy was Mr. Amos:

    Federal prosecutors, citing Mr. Amos’s conviction of felony robbery as an adult at age 15, instead charged him with illegally possessing a firearm. He pleaded guilty in November and is serving a three-year sentence in federal prison.

     Steven Gray was another. On New Year’s Day 2017, officers in York, Pennsylvania reportedly caught him tossing a gun. Gray denied it was his, and his DNA apparently wasn’t on the weapon. Even so, Gray was an ex-con, so the cops promptly handed him over to the Feds. Gray was ultimately convicted of Federal gun charges. What the Times article seems to lament is that even if Gray was technically guilty – and that’s nowhere conceded – he clearly posed no great threat. So why did Session’s minions butt in? Gray’s lawyer had the answer: “Sometimes it appears they’re just looking for numbers.”

     Having worked similar cases, your blogger knows that even the most convivial Assistant U.S. Attorney wants evidence that prospective gun defendants pose a real threat. Did Gray? Apparently the Times  didn’t think so. So we looked online. Bingo! A York Dispatch article describing the circumstances of Gray’s arrest promptly popped up. According to police, Gray fired several shots (well, it was New Year’s morning), officers saw him with a gun, he had to be chased, and he ditched the weapon as cops closed in. Still, Gray was in a way truthful. The gun wasn’t his. You see, it had been stolen.

     What’s more, Gray’s criminal past is considerably more extensive than the “felony drug charge” mentioned by the Times. According to the Pennsylvania court portal his record (click here for a partial printout) dates back to a 2010 felony drug arrest. That charge was apparently settled as a misdemeanor. Two years later Gray was back in trouble, accused of felony assault and harassment. Those were also reduced to misdemeanors, and Gray drew a year in jail and two years probation. His disabling “felony drug charge” (it should have read “charges”) came in 2014. That’s when he pled guilty to two counts of felony drug sales and got concurrent prison terms of one to two years.

Gray cr record small

    
     Clearly, the man just couldn’t stay straight. He’s also no youngster, having recently turned forty-seven. Did he simply “go bad” in 2010, when he was thirty-nine? Or might he have a prior record elsewhere? Police and the Feds know. Maybe a curious reader will find out and clue us in.

Click here for the complete collection of gun control essays

     So what about Bobby Amos? Might there be something about him that the Times didn’t let on? Well, yes. To begin with, Amos was not convicted “of felony robbery.” He was convicted of four “robberies”, each of the first-degree, meaning that they were committed with a weapon or caused injury. On June 15, 1995 Amos pled guilty to two in Marshall County, Alabama, and on November 13 he pled guilty to the other two in Etowah County, Alabama. Amos got hammered, drawing consecutive terms of twenty and twenty-five years. Incidentally, that information (it’s been rearranged to fit this space) is readily available online. Just fill in his name. Even a reporter could quickly dig it up.

Amos convictions small

    
     We ordered copies of Amos’ Etowah County court records. (We didn’t bother with Marshall County.) Here is an extract from the first-degree robbery complaint, case WR 94 001874 00, issued by the court on November 30, 1994:

    Before me the undersigned judge/clerk/magistrate of the district court of Etowah county, Alabama, personally appeared James Davis who…says that he/she…does believe that Bobby Neal Amos whose name is otherwise unknown to the complainant did on or about 11/17/94 in the course of committing a theft of $2700.00 dollars of lawful U.S. currency and $406.91 dollars of assorted checks the property of James Davis, did use force…while…armed with…a gun or pistol….

Two days later, Amos struck again. Victim Robert Lee McDowell signed complaint no. WR 94 001879 00, alleging that on 11/19/94 Amos and a gun-toting companion robbed him of his revolver and $2500.

     Amos and his associates targeted victims whom they knew had large sums of cash. That they did so repeatedly, and while armed, explains the stiff sentences. And not to quibble, but court and jail records give Amos’ birthdate as July 2 or 12, 1978. He pled guilty to the Etowah charges on November 17, 1995. Those convictions came when Amos was seventeen; not, as the Times reported, fifteen.

     Most folks would probably agree that discouraging felons from having guns is logical. Yet the Times piece seems deeply skeptical, and particularly about the value of Federal involvement:

    Mr. Sessions’ approach has touched off a debate about whether he is making the country safer from violent crime, as he and President Trump have repeatedly vowed to do, or devoting resources to low-level prosecutions that could instead be put toward pursuing bigger targets like gun suppliers.

Your blogger specialized in pursuing gun traffickers (more about that here). He fully agrees that putting them out of business is worthwhile. It can also be a lot like playing whack-a-mole. Meanwhile, the thug who’ll shove a gun into your face, or mine, won’t be a trafficker: it’ll be someone like Bobby Amos. When they crafted the Gun Control Act of 1968, our nation’s leaders agreed that incapacitating (fancy word for imprisoning) armed ex-cons was everyone’s business. Victims Davis and McDowell would certainly agree.

     And except for its anti-anything-that-Sessions-favors stance, so might the Times. Alas, confirmation bias reared its ugly head. Digging beyond the flimsy excuses offered by the defendants, their wives and lawyers would have undermined the ideologically predetermined conclusion. A superficial assessment was vital.

     Of course, just because us Times aficionados trend “blue” doesn’t mean we’re all daft. Go online and click on the reader comments. Many support Federal involvement. Here’s the fourth one down:

    As a liberal Democrat with little admiration for Sessions, I find it hard to disagree with him on this. If knowing that illegal carriage of a gun will be prosecuted keeps weapons off the streets, the law is doing its job. When that person with poor impulse control, no matter what color, reaches into his pocket, let him not find a gun.

And to that what can we add but, Amen!

UPDATE (8/23/18): Federal prosecutors charged a 47-year old Las Vegas man who bought hundreds of guns and resold them using the Internet. Dozens were later recovered in crimes, most recently the murder of a Sacramento, CA sheriff’s deputy. ATF news release  US Attorney news release

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     


RELATED POSTS

Ideology Trumps Reason



Posted 3/17/18, edited 3/18/18

AGAIN, KIDS DIE. AGAIN, OUR “LEADERS” PRETEND.

Like the Dem’s, the GOP addresses gun lethality with make-believe

FedReg

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. It was January 17, 1989. President Ronald Reagan and Vice-President George H.W. Bush had three days left in office when Patrick Purdy, a deeply disturbed ex-con, used a store-bought AK-47 type rifle to kill five children and wound twenty-nine others and a teacher at a Stockton (Calif.) elementary school.

     Bush then took over (those old enough to appreciate such things might remember his eminently forgettable V.P., Dan Quayle) Five-plus years later, on September 13, 1994 Bill Clinton signed the law commonly referred to as the Assault Weapons Act into effect. As a Yale Law School grad, the prez must have known that the measure, which was prompted by a series of shootings including the Stockton massacre, had been craftily worded to create the least possible impediment to the firearms industry. Indeed, the so-called “ban” was so easy to circumvent that when it expired ten years later the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center shrugged:

    …immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons—including those banned by name in the law – and continued to manufacture and sell these ‘post-ban’ or ‘copycat’ guns.

     How toothless was the Federal law? How weak were its suggested replacements? As we’ve discussed in prior posts (click here and here), the original “ban” and subsequent schemes tinkered with ammunition capacity and external baubles such as handgrips and flash suppressors. None dared address that one aspect that makes “assault weapons” so dangerous to citizens and cops: fearsome ballistics, which defeat police body armor, pierce the front doors of homes and kill cops, and force outgunned police to deploy armored cars.

     On April 20, 1999, about half-way through the Federal ban’s ten-year run, two teens staged a massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, killing twelve fellow students and a teacher and wounding twenty-one others. One of their guns, a Hi-Point 9mm. semi-automatic carbine (it was reportedly used to discharge nearly 100 rounds) came from a friend who got it from an unlicensed seller at a gun show. Hi-Point had purposely designed and manufactured this rifle to avoid the prohibitions in the Federal assault weapons law, and it remains in production in assorted calibers and configurations (including “California Compliant”) through the present day.

     Columbine was followed by the April 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, where a senior used two pistols to kill twenty-seven fellow students and five staff members and wound seventeen others. Although a judge had once declared the shooter mentally incompetent, his status was never relayed to the Federal background check system, so he was allowed to buy the guns used in the massacre. This gap in reporting was corrected in a bill signed by President George W. Bush in January 2008, one year before he left office. (Although Congress was under Democratic control, both firearms were handguns, so the incident wasn’t useful in supporting occasional attempts to renew the assault weapons law.)

     But the Sandy Hook school massacre was different. In December 2012 a mentally-troubled (but not adjudicated) youth used his mother’s Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (an AR-15 variant) to murder twenty children and six employees. To date the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history, it took place as President Obama was finishing the third year of his first term. As one might expect, this tragic event invigorated the Democrats’ push for a renewed assault weapons ban. Of course, just like Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama, who once edited the prestigious Harvard Law Review, had to know that the purposely built-in limits of assault weapons laws make them virtually useless in the real world of gun massacres. But as a good Democrat, he pressed for the measure and attacked its GOP opponents with gusto. As one might expect, although the proposal was only slightly more restrictive than the expired law, with the GOP running the House it predictably went nowhere.

     Then came last month’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Now in control of both the presidency and Congress, the Grand Old Party faced a dilemma. Digging into its basket of excuses, it promptly redirected the conversation to the worst gun massacre in American history, last October’s killing of fifty-eight persons and wounding of four-hundred eighty-nine on the Las Vegas strip. What enabled the carnage according to the GOP? Not the killer’s arsenal of (legal) AK-47 variants but an unfortunate accessory: the “bump stock” that enabled him to mimic full-auto fire.

Click here for the complete collection of gun control essays

     Wait a moment! There was no “bump stock” at Marjory Stoneman, only a legal AR-15 rifle. No matter. Whether to draw attention away from the real problem, or simply appease a bunch of high schoolers who ditched class for a day, President Trump finally suggested a ban. On bump stocks:

    Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized…very soon.

     As luck would have it, the president’s directive ran into a slight problem. Well aware of its shaky position regardless of who’s at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, ATF, the agency charged with overseeing Federal gun control efforts (full disclosure: my one-time employer) has always been exceedingly careful to interpret firearms laws as narrowly as possible. Its desperation to “get along” was recently reflected in a January 2017 “White Paper” penned by the agency’s associate deputy director, which (of all things) favored legalizing firearms silencers and loosening regulatory oversight. (For our post on point click on “Silence,” below. For an in-depth news account click here. Incidentally, some agency wags characterized the document as a job application for the Director’s slot, which remains vacant.)

     So what does ATF think about bump stocks? It passed judgment on those a decade ago. As far as the agency’s concerned, they’ve always been legal:

    “Bump fire” stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire. Since 2008, ATF has issued a total of 10 private letters in which it classified various bump stock devices to be unregulated parts or accessories, and not machineguns or machinegun conversion devices....

These words came from ATF’s December 2017 filing in the federal Register, which invited comments to a proposed regulation that would place bump stocks within the statutory definition of a “machinegun.” Stung by the Las Vegas massacre, the NRA announced that it favored studying the measure. At the same time, it also called for a Federal law to extend right-to-carry throughout the U.S. Meanwhile our Twitterer-in-Chief came out in support of arming America’s teachers. Just imagine the commercial possibilities! New lines of guns and holsters specially designed so that instructors can place highly accurate, devastatingly lethal fire from the chalkboard!

     Sadly, when it comes to America and guns, ideology and selfishness have always ruled. Even in the most gun-hostile states, assault rifle “bans” emphasize everything except what really counts: ballistics. For an example of these laws’ ineffectiveness one need go back no further than December 2015, when a self-styled terrorist couple used state-legal AR-15 clones to murderous effect, killing fourteen and wounding twenty-two at a workplace party in San Bernardino, California.

     We usually like to close with a catchy sentence or two, but here that doesn’t seem quite as important. In any case, let’s hope that whatever happens with “bump stocks” and pretend gun “bans”, neither courageous high-schoolers nor their elders will be fooled. As long as exceedingly lethal firearms continue being manufactured and sold while our “leaders” wink and nod, kids, adults and cops will keep being slaughtered. You can count on it.

UPDATE (9/11/18): A JAMA study that compared 248 “active shooter incidents” during 2000-2017 revealed that those involving semi-automatic rifles led to significantly more persons wounded, killed, and either wounded or killed. Percentage of those shot who died did not significantly vary.

UPDATE (9/6/18): To pre-identify students who may wish to harm themselves or others, many secondary schools and universities have hired companies to monitor posts on social media. Some students have been expelled, but there is little consensus about the value of these efforts.

UPDATE (8/12/18): Schools throughout the U.S. have locked down campuses and vastly increased the use of metal detectors and full-time armed guards; Florida, for example, will deploy the latter on nearly every campus. So far, it’s the only state that will also use part-time, non-sworn “guardians.”

UPDATE (5/19/18): On May 18 Dmitrios Pagourtzis, 17, stormed into his Texas high school and opened fire with his father’s pump-action shotgun and .38 caliber revolver, killing ten, mostly students, and wounding ten others, including the school police officer. Pagourtzis also scattered pipe bombs around campus. A good, well-liked student, he had made some disturbing social media posts and his diary contained written plans for the attack and his suicide. But he surrendered to police.

UPDATE (3/21/18): Austin Wyatt Rollins, 17, brought his father’s 9mm. handgun to a Maryland high school and opened fire. A school cop fired back. By the time it was over Rollins was dead, a 16-year old girl (his supposed target) was critically hurt and a 14-year old boy was shot in the leg.

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     


RELATED POSTS

Red Flag (I) (II)     Ban the Damned Things!     Massacre Control     Bump Stocks

Silence Isn’t Always Golden     A Ban in Name Only     A Matter of Life and Death     Reviving an Illusion



Posted 2/20/18

BAN THE DAMNED THINGS!

There’s no “regulating” the threat posed by highly lethal firearms

Mass shootings

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “We could not have been more prepared for this situation, which is what makes it so frustrating.” Broward County high school teacher Melissa Falkowski’s despairing words aptly convey the consequences of allowing highly lethal firearms to proliferate in civilian hands. With seventeen presently confirmed dead, the toll of the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, exceeds that of the Columbine high school shooting, where twelve died, but is considerably fewer than the twenty-seven who fell at Sandy Hook Elementary. And if we include non-school shootings, far less than the fifty-eight recently murdered in Las Vegas.

     Skim through the “Gun Control” section of this blog. Check out some of the posts linked below. It’s not that America didn’t anticipate what would most certainly happen again, nor, however futilely, try to get ready. Falkowski said that her school trained for such an event. “Broward County Schools has prepared us for this situation and still to have so many casualties, at least for me, it’s very emotional. Because I feel today like our government, our country has failed us and failed our kids and didn’t keep us safe.” When she and her students realized that this was no drill and that an “active shooter” was really about, simply following protocol (i.e., locking the classroom door and being quiet) clearly didn’t suffice. Improvising the best they could, the teacher and her nineteen frightened students huddled in a closet and nervously awaited SWAT.

     Nikolas Cruz, the nineteen-year old shooter, had been a troubled teen. His erratic behavior led to numerous run-ins with peers, teachers and neighbors and to home visits by police. In 2016 Cruz posted online images of fresh, self-inflicted cuts on his arms and indicated that he planned to buy a gun. That led to a peremptory investigation by a Florida state agency, which ultimately accepted a mental health counselor’s conclusion that Cruz “was not at risk to harm himself or others.” But Cruz’s behavior didn’t improve and he was expelled from Stoneman Douglas. It’s now evident that he was the “Nikolas Cruz” who posted “Im going to be a professional school shooter” on a YouTube channel last fall.

     Still, Cruz’s life wasn’t completely disorganized. A family had taken him in, he was attending GED classes and worked at a dollar store. This job was the likely source of funds for the AR-15 rifle he used in the massacre, which he legally purchased in 2017 at “Sunrise Tactical Supply,” a Coral Springs gun store.  (Yes, eighteen year-olds can buy rifles. But not a handgun!)

     Federal law prohibits acquisition or possession of firearms by anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” (18 USC 922[g][4]). Florida state law is roughly equivalent, but has elaborate safeguards apparently intended to assure its provisions are narrowly construed (790.065[2][a][4] et seq.) However, Cruz had never been formally adjudicated mentally ill, so the options for dealing with him were severely limited. His online activity, while in retrospect deeply disturbing, would have been insufficient to detain Cruz; had he consented to an evaluation, it’s doubtful that a physician would have found him incompetent.

     In January the FBI got a hotline tip that Cruz had expressed a “desire to kill people” in social media posts. It was ignored. Given all the crazy, violent stuff that happens each day, being a jerk, talking about guns and posting crazy stuff online probably isn’t enough. Consider the case of another mass killer, Adam Lanza. In 2012 the unemployed, reclusive anorexic shot and killed his mother, then used her AR-15 style rifle to murder twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he had once attended. According to a detailed official account, Lanza was diagnosed with serious mental problems as a teen. Unfortunately, he went mostly untreated. After the shootings, a woman with whom he connected online said that he was obsessed with mass murderers and profoundly depressed.

     Had Lanza been brought to police attention, what could have officers done? Without his cooperation, very little. Connecticut law prohibits those with voluntary (rather than only court-compelled) admissions for a “psychiatric disability” from purchasing firearms. However, Lanza had never been hospitalized for mental treatment and there was little to suggest that he posed an imminent threat. Anyway, he didn’t need to buy guns: he used his mother’s.

     Other mass shooters were even less likely to gain official attention. Consider Stephen Paddock, the high-stakes Las Vegas gambler who committed the worst gun massacre in American history. What seems most unusual about the tragedy is Paddock’s apparent normalcy and lack of motive. Some clues about his behavior have come to light. Paddock, who reportedly wagered as much as one million dollars a night, was supposedly suffering from “bouts of depression” caused by heavy losses. An autopsy revealed the presence of components of Valium, a potentially aggression-inducing drug that Paddock had been using to fight anxiety. Voluntarily taking Valium would not have restricted his firearms rights under either Federal or Nevada state law. So buy guns he did.

     To drive the dilemma home scan the Wikipedia entries for other mass killers, say, Omar Mateen, who gunned down forty-nine persons and wounded fifty-eight at an Orlando nightclub, and Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the married couple who murdered fourteen at an employee get-together in San Bernardino, Calif. Based on what was then known, none seemed sufficiently “crazy” to gain attention, let alone involuntarily commit. It’s only when we peer through the retrospective lens that the warts come out. Bottom line: mass killers can easily blend into the background and slip through whatever filters society puts up.

     What can be done? Eight years ago, in “Say Something,” we suggested that speaking out can help prevent the slaughter of family members and co-workers by angry men:

    With more people having and carrying more guns you and I and our families are at increasing risk of being shot by someone who may suddenly go berserk.  Counting on armed citizens to come to the rescue is delusional – in fact, they’re part of the problem. So here’s an idea. Let’s use the White House as a bully pulpit for a national campaign to remind everyone – gun owners, their friends, family members and co-workers – that guns and anger are a lethal combination.  “Friends don’t let [angry] friends pack guns.”  “If your [angry] friend has a gun, say something.” Take out ads in print and on TV, put up billboards, place posters at gun stores and firing ranges. It’s something worth considering.

More recently, “A Stitch in Time” suggested that police officers are ideally placed to identify mentally ill persons who may turn violent and refer them for help, voluntary or not, before the next crisis costs someone’s life:

    First, there must be a process for filtering out persons who most need special attention….This would at a minimum include a substantial history of contacts and…input from field officers, who are in the best position to decide whether…the admittedly subjective threshold of dangerousness has been breached.

     By all means encourage citizens to “say something.” Had officers contacted and admonished Lanza, it’s possible that he would not have carried through with his plot, at least not then. Police, though, are usually busy on other things. They may also be reluctant to stir things up, particularly when their authority is limited. And as we suggested above, many mass killers seem less likely than deranged, impulsively violent persons to act in ways that draw attention.

Click here for the complete collection of gun control essays

     Moving away from the whom, let’s concentrate on the what. Each of the above-mentioned massacres was perpetrated with variants of the Colt AR-15 rifle: a Smith & Wesson M&P15 .223 caliber for Cruz; a Bushmaster XM-15 .223 caliber for Lanza; an arsenal of AR-types in .223 caliber and .308 caliber for Stephen Paddock; a SIG Sauer .223 caliber for Omar Mateen; and for Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, two .223 caliber AR-15 variants: a DPMS Panther Arms A15 .and a Smith & Wesson M&P15.

     But wait: didn’t the Federal Assault Weapons ban supposedly put highly lethal weapons out of circulation? What if it was renewed? In “A Ban in Name Only” we pointed out that the law, which limited magazine capacity to ten rounds and prohibited external baubles such as flash suppressors, ignored what really matters. What makes “assault weapons” lethal is portability, lack of recoil, accuracy at range, rapid-fire capability, and, most importantly, their fearsome ballistics. Projectiles fired by such weapons penetrate body armor and create “temporary wound cavities” more than a dozen times the bullet diameter (from Vincent Di Maio, Gunshot Wounds, click here and here).

     America’s cops face that threat each day. Ballistic vests normally worn on patrol are no match for powerful projectiles such as the .223, .308 and 7.62 (the caliber of the AK-47 variant that James T. Hodgkinson used to shoot up a Congressional baseball practice last June.) Just how deadly are these rounds? According to the FBI, 88 officers were feloniously killed with rifles between 2006-2015. The top three calibers responsible were 7.62 (27 deaths), .223 (25 deaths), and 30-06 (6 deaths.) Nineteen of these deaths were caused by rounds that penetrated body armor: three officers fell to the .223 caliber, three to .308, and six to the 7.62. It’s no surprise that American police have taken to using armored cars.

     England also has a strong gun and hunting culture. But that’s where the resemblance ends. After the 1987 Hungerford massacre, where a 27-year old man gunned down sixteen persons with a handgun and two rifles, Britain banned all semi-automatic rifles beyond .22 rimfire. A subsequent mass shooting led to a virtual handgun ban. Now mostly limited to bolt-action hunting rifles, ordinary Britons have carried on chins-up, that is to say, superbly.

     In contrast, when America felt pressed by a series of massacres, it passed a make-believe ban (enacted in 1994, it expired in 2004, and hardly anyone noticed.) Seven States and D.C. have come forward with supposedly more stringent laws. They mostly follow the California model, which prohibits specifically named semi-automatic rifles, including the original Colt AR-15 and its replacement, the “Sporter”, and requires that those with certain external features such as a handgrip have fixed magazines that can accept no more than ten rounds.

     At the risk of redundancy, we’ll point out that as far as lethality goes, these additional “restrictions” are meaningless. Farook and Malik, for example, perpetrated the San Bernardino, Calif. massacre with a pair of California-legal AR-15 clones. (News accounts, summarized in a Wikipedia entry, detail how the couple easily modified the weapons to increase their ammunition capacity and facilitate reloading.)

     In “Massacre Control” and earlier posts we suggested that a point system could be used to score lethality-related characteristics such as ammunition capacity, cyclic rate, accuracy at range, and, most importantly, ballistics. Guns whose total exceeds a certain threshold would be banned. Unfortunately, as California’s breast-thumping “tightening” of gun laws demonstrates, there is simply no appetite for seriously addressing lethality, nor its most crucial element: ballistics.

     O.K., we can’t make guns significantly less lethal. What about restricting their acquisition? On first glance, purchase laws seem like a great idea. But Sutherland Springs, Texas shooter Devin Kelley, who had a disqualifying military court-martial conviction for spousal abuse, bought the .223 rifle he would use to murder twenty-six parishioners in a store. How could that happen? Well, because of an oversight, military authorities never passed on the fact of his conviction to the FBI. In any event, most mass killers aren’t felons. Or adjudicated mental defectives. Or subject to a gun-violence restraining order, an approach that some States have adopted. Many, including Cruz, Paddock and Mateen, bought their firearms at gun stores.

     Then again, it’s hardly necessary to belly up to a counter. Farook and Malik got their .223’s from a friend who bought them at a store. Lanza used his mother’s guns. As discussed in past posts (see, for example, “Where Do They Come From?”) there are so many avenues to gun acquisition – family and friends, illegal “street” dealers, gun shows, the Internet – that getting a gun requires hardly any effort. Had the gun dealer turned Kelley away he could have easily gone to a gun show – Texas has them regularly – and picked up several rifles from a private party without as much as showing I.D.

     Bottom line: as long as lethal semi-automatic rifles continue to be produced, sold and traded, half-hearted “bans” won’t work. That’s why England took its big step, banning all beyond .22 rimfire. And why we must follow.

     Must? Did you say, must? Shouldn’t we first consider things in an objective forum? For sure. After cranking out “Massacre Control” (incidentally, his 300th. post) your blogger contacted the heads of university criminal justice programs around the country, urging them to stage a symposium that would examine the issue objectively. So far, all have passed.

     Really, in this gun-besotted land, where the forces of selfishness and “me-ism” prevail, only one thing seems likely. Another massacre. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another….

p.s. If you’ve come this far, check out the very last title in “Related Posts,” below. “Disturbed...” is our blog’s very first gun control essay. It was posted December 12, 2007.

UPDATE (12/14/18): “Slow police response and chaos” were blamed for the extent of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. A draft investigative report strongly criticized officers who failed to promptly enter the school: “The deputies’ actions appear to be a violation of accepted protocol under which [they] should have immediately moved towards the gunshots.” (p. 156)

UPDATE (12/10/18): Asked why Devin Kelley’s disqualifying conviction for spousal abuse wasn’t reported to the FBI records division as required, the Air Force agent who investigated the assault by Kelley blamed “stress and excessive workload” that “prevented agents [in his unit] from doing the basic tasks.” A superior confirmed the presence of a “high operations tempo” (p. 99). NY Times article

UPDATE (10/27/18): This morning a virulent anti-Semite armed with an “assault-style rifle” and three handguns stormed into a Pittsburgh Jewish synagogue and opened fire, killing eleven and wounding six, including four officers. The suspect, Robert Bowers, 46, was wounded and surrendered.

UPDATE (10/5/18): A 74-year old veteran and disbarred lawyer who bragged about his abilities with military-style rifles unleashed a barrage from “a high powered rifle” on officers serving a search warrant at his Florence, South Carolina residence. One officer was killed and six were wounded. Five citizens were also hurt. Police deployed an armored vehicle to extricate the injured. More

UPDATE (10/2/18): With few exceptions, such as Florida (see 3/9/18 update), States have not responded to mass shootings by tightening up gun laws.

UPDATE (9/11/18): A JAMA study that compared 248 “active shooter incidents” during 2000-2017 revealed that those involving semi-automatic rifles led to significantly more persons wounded, killed, and either wounded or killed. Percentage of those shot who died did not significantly vary.

UPDATE (8/12/18): Schools throughout the U.S. have locked down campuses and vastly increased the use of metal detectors and full-time armed guards; Florida, for example, will deploy the latter on nearly every campus. So far, it’s the only state that will also use part-time, non-sworn “guardians.”

UPDATE (8/7/18): Nikolas Cruz, the Marjorie Stoneman shooter, told police that that a “demon voice” in his head ordered him to “Burn, Kill. Destroy.” He said he had tried to commmit suicide in the past and regretted that officers did not kill him.

UPDATE (7/6/18): LAPD and ATF arrest ten L.A.-area gang members who were assembling assault-type rifles from parts and selling them to criminals. Forty-five of these untraceable, unserialized “ghost guns” were seized, along with silencers and drugs. The suspects were charged with state violations including illegally manufacturing assault rifles, possessing silencers, and conspiracy.

UPDATE (5/31/18): Videos on Nikolas Cruz’s cellphone announced that he would be the “next school shooter of 2018” and explained why: “I live a lone life. I live in seclusion and solitude. I hate everyone and everything. But the power of my AR you will all know who I am...I had enough of being told that I’m an idiot and a dumbass. You’re all stupid and brainwashed by the political and government programs.”

UPDATE (4/23/18): On April 22 a naked, delusional man armed stormed into a Nashville restaurant and opened fire with an AR-15 rifle, killing four and wounding seven. Travis Reinking, 31, was arrested the next day. He had been arrested in July 2017 for breaching the White House perimeter. Four guns including the AR-15 were taken from him and later released to his father.

UPDATE (4/6/18): On April 3 Nasim Aghdam, a woman in her 30s, opened fire with a pistol at YouTube in San Bruno, wounding three. She then shot herself dead. Aghdam, a YouTube user angry with the company’s policies, legally purchased the gun from a San Diego gun store in January.

UPDATE (3/21/18): As early as 2016 school employees and the deputy sheriff mentioned below were so concerned about spoken threats made by Nikolas Cruz that they recommended he be committed for evaluation. His deceased mother’s friend, where he was living, repeatedly called 911 and gave him an ultimatum to get rid of his gun. But police reportedly said nothing could be done.

UPDATE (3/11/18): In the New York Times and Washington Post, illustrated features about the grievous damage inflicted on the human body by ultra high-velocity projectiles such as those fired by AR-15 style rifles.

UPDATE (3/9/18): Florida’s Governor signed into law a bill that lets some school employees carry concealed handguns, bans “bump stocks” and extends the State’s 3-day waiting period for handgun purchases to long guns. It also raises the minimum age to buy a rifle to 21, a provision that the NRA is challenging in court as a violation of the Second Amendment.

UPDATE (3/9/18): The Florida deputy whom President Trump and others excoriated for not entering Marjorie Stoneman High School said that a victim found outside and other indicia led him to believe that the shooter was outside. The first local police officer on scene followed his lead and also set up outside.

UPDATE (2/28/18): Dick’s Sporting Goods, a Pennsylvania-based chain that operates nearly 700 stores across the U.S. under various brands, said it will no longer sell assault-style semiautomatic rifles at any location. Its Chief Executive, Richard Stack, supports an outright ban on such weapons.

UPDATE (2/24/18): A woman who called the FBI’s tip line about Cruz on January 5 said she was worried he might sneak into a school “and just [start] shooting the place up.” A family friend had also recently conveyed fears about Cruz and his guns to the sheriff’s office. Cruz himself called 911 and said that his mother’s death was giving him problems.

UPDATE (2/23/18): A forensic psychiatrist told the New York Times that mass shootings are unlikely to be prevented through mental commitments: “Most of these shooters are angry, antisocial individuals you cannot spot in advance, and even if you could, you don’t have the right to institutionalize them.” Another authored an op-ed to the same effect.

UPDATE (2/21/18): Copycat threats are keeping L.A.-area authorities busy. In one incident deputies arrested a 17-year old high school student who had threatened to shoot up his high school “in three weeks.” At his home deputies found two AR-15 rifles plus other weapons and ammunition. Police also arrested a 27-year old man who had threatened a college. Two loaded AR-15’s, two handguns and a large quantity of ammunition were seized at his residence.

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     


RELATED ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Hartford Courant profile of Adam Lanza     Sources of Crime Guns in Los Angeles, California

Washington Post     Boston public radio     The Militarization of the U.S. Civilian Firearms Market

RELATED POSTS

Red Flag (I) (II)     Preventing Mass Murder     Again, Kids Die     Massacre Control

Bump Stocks Aren’t the (Real) Problem     A Lost Cause     Do Gun Laws Work?

Silence Isn’t Always Golden     A Ban in Name Only     A Dead Man’s Tales

A Stitch in Time     A Matter of Life and Death     All in the Family    Cops Need More Than Body Armor

The Elephant in the Room     Say Something     Bigger Guns Aren’t Enough     Gun Crazy

Reviving an Illusion     Where do They Come From?     What About Body Armor?

Long Live Gun Control     Disturbed person+gun=killer, disturbed person+assault rifle = mass murderer

 


  Home               About               Index               Links              For educators             Contact          Novel