The Buffalo shooter should not have been able to buy the gun he used.
Somebody should have stepped in to stop him be it his parents, school administrators, or the police. The signs were there. The flags were bright red. The laws were in place.
Nobody took the steps that would have made it illegal for him to buy or own guns. And he isn’t alone. This story has been repeated over and over again.
The accused Buffalo shooter, who is 18-years-old, told a teacher he wanted to commit suicide and murder when asked what he planned to do after school ended, according to New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D.). The threat was considered serious enough that he was taken by police for a psychological evaluation.
Had he been involuntarily committed over the threats, he would have become prohibited from buying or owning guns under federal law. That didn’t happen.
Had somebody filed a red flag order, he could have been prevented from legally buying or owning guns for up to a year under current New York law. His family, police, or school officials could have done it. That didn’t happen either.
Instead, a few months after being evaluated and released he bought the New York legal AR-15 he would later use to murder ten people and shoot another three.
The Parkland shooter had a similar story. He had a long history of making violent threats, including threats of shooting up a school. He had a history of mental illness and had attempted to kill himself. He also had a history of domestic abuse towards his mother. He could have been involuntarily committed under state law or convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. But he wasn’t.
Instead, he was allowed to legally buy the gun he used to murder 17 students and faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
The same can be said for the Aurora theater shooter. After seeking out help for social anxiety, the Aurora shooter told a social worker he had homicidal thoughts. He was then seen by a University of Colorado psychiatrist where he again expressed a desire to kill people.
However, despite reaching out to the shooter’s family with concerns and reportedly receiving an offer from law enforcement to place him under a mental health hold, the psychiatrist decided there was not a specific enough threat to justify an involuntary commitment.
That doesn’t mean there are easy answers for how to prevent these kinds of attacks. Red flag laws and involuntary commitment aren’t foolproof solutions. They are deeply complex.
There are, of course, significant due process concerns. Some states require a very low level of proof for red-flag orders and seizing firearms implicates a Constitutional right. And involuntary commitment has a dark history that has necessitated restrictions on its use, making the process difficult to use.
Also, the Buffalo shooter illegally modified his AR. He did so knowing what he was doing was illegal. And, obviously, he went on to commit dozens of heinous crimes with that gun.
So, it is possible he would have found a way to illegally obtain a gun had he been prohibited or under a red flag order.
Additionally, it would be impractical and immoral to just commit or red flag everyone who has a mental health episode. Each individual situation is different and the outcome is not always easy to predict except in hindsight.
But it remains deeply concerning how often this fact pattern plays out. So many of these shootings could have and should have been prevented under current law.
5 Responses
Thank you for talking about this situation, and highlighting concerns about not only “red flag” laws but also involuntary commitment. I would love, not knowing to see an interview with a 2A mental health expert touching on these topics (e.g. Walk The Talk America, Hold My Guns, A Great Start Shooting School)
Also, is there a way to get a “free” version of stories you’ve linked to? I have an account at WaPo.com, but am planning on discontinuing the subscription in October. I’ve noticed that in my Windows Edge browser, the new tab opens up to MSN.com which has full or partial stories for “free” (a lot of ads, and sometimes my squirrel-brain does get distracted), and I make sure to turn off any ad-blockers (occasionally, I click on an interesting one because it helps them, I guess) My request is that y’all’s link goes to the “free” site with flashy ads when possible.
Thank you! We’re going to be talking about red flag laws and involuntary commitment with David French on the podcast this week. But I really like the idea of having someone from Walk the Talk or Hold My Guns on at some point as well.
I’m not sure about free versions of Wapo stories, but a lot of the details of the troubling past of these Shooters has been widely reported. So, there are likely other outlets that will have that information.
Thank you for replying! I just remembered Internet Archive as well, for really older stories. And now I just remembered, at least with the WSJ.com, that probably other paywalls subscriptions are monthly, if I can’t find the free stuff.
And yes!, I just received the newsletter, so thank you to Jake, I look forward to his analysis, and thank you for interviewing David French (and again, thank you for breaking up the interviews into more digestible pieces for when we can just take a bite when a meal at the time is not then feasible) Be well[namaste]
The economy and covid are reasons for lower revenue that are out of anyone’s control. But LaPierre is now more of a drag on the organization than an aid. I thought long and hard about sending in dues to an org. That has abused my dollars regardless of how important the lobbying work is. LaPierre & Co MUST go! Now! Also on the revenue/expense front. I get a mailing at least monthly begging for money from some unit of the NRA. It is always a “chicken little, the sky is falling” letter. I, and I’m sure many others have become numb to these letters. It is overload. I don’t even read them anymore, I just throw them out. Fewer mailings, more targeted, w/ an explanation of exactly what the need is. Speaking of which. What are the NRAs priorities?1-10. I want to know. On another topic, Stephen do you think gun activists should give in to some changes to placate the gun haters? I know the philosophy has been, give an inch, they’ll come back and take a mile. But all these recent shootings I think the country is demanding something. Raise the age to buy an AR is probably the one that would get us the most bang for the least impact, pun intended. Thoughts? I fear if we don’t do something, congress will do something more drastic.
That’s a good question. I try to stay away from sharing my own personal opinions on policy. But I think people should only support policies if they believe they will actually accomplish their goals and are willing to accept the tradeoffs that come with it. Because, as much as people want to pretend otherwise, there are always trade offs.