Will ‘more government’ help us prevent mass shootings?

The calls started almost immediately. The bodies of nineteen children and two teachers had barely cooled when politicians and activists took to social media demanding some sort of action on guns. Some called the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization, while others castigated Republicans for allegedly supporting gun rights over children. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was urged to bring a bill on background checks up for a vote so the “votes fall with the children who died.” Politics takes no break during tragedies.

The crescendo of activist furor will likely peak this weekend during the NRA Convention in Houston. Demonstrations are already planned near the George R. Brown Convention Center with political actors of all kinds expected to attend. President Biden will visit family members of those grieving in Uvalde on Sunday. Children and adults will be buried. Law enforcement will continue to investigate everything that happened Tuesday at Robb Elementary School.

Where politicians go on guns is unclear at this point. There’s talk of Republicans and Democrats working together on some sort of legislation. The president said Tuesday night that those “who obstruct or delay or block the common-sense gun laws, we need to let you know that we will not forget.” The call for action is understandable in light of a tragedy.

David French called for red flag laws in the Dispatch. His reasoning seems logical and well thought out. French wants to prevent more suicides and mass shootings. “Enormous numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens die by suicide using guns in this country,” he thoughtfully writes, observing that most pass background checks. “And forms of gun control aimed at limiting a weapon’s lethality (such as restrictions on magazine size) are irrelevant to the suicide crisis.” As for mass shooters, French makes a similar remark. “[They] are frequently law-abiding, right up until the moment when they commit mass murder. Mass shootings are often meticulously planned, which means that they can circumvent common gun control laws.”

Red flag law supporters see them as a tool to prevent mass killings. Republican Arizona governor Doug Ducey’s Red Flag Law proposal suggested it could have prevented everything from the 1999 Columbine High School shooting to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack of 2018. It theorized that the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter could have been stopped because he had a previous severe anxiety disorder diagnosis. Ducey believed at the time that temporarily removing guns from those considered dangerous would protect themselves and others.

Skepticism remains on whether red flag laws work. Firearms Policy Coalition policy director Matthew Larosiere wrote in 2019 that gun confiscation orders are issued without the owner either being present at the hearing or given the chance to defend themselves. “This type of framework, while it may enable people close to a troubled person some opportunity to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation, sets up a system of perverse incentives,” he wrote at the Hill in 2019, commenting that the system allows law enforcement to seize property based on someone’s behavior that’s typically protected by the Bill of Rights. “The term ‘red flag’ is something of a misnomer, too, as the ‘suspicious’ activity that can be the basis of a petition includes the simple act of buying a gun, or just being interested in weapons.”

People must attend the hearing. A 2015 study of Indiana’s red flag law, passed in 2005, found that 29 percent of court hearings in Marion County resulted in an order’s dismissal because the defendant showed up. Further hearings resulted in 24 percent of complaints being dismissed, again because the defendant showed up. Indiana’s red flag law passed in 2005. It’s worth noting that none of these court hearings happen before weapons are seized, meaning there is no due process. People may believe due process doesn’t matter in what could be seen as an imminent threat. However, if a third of the complaints are either false or issued by mistake, that reveals flaws in the system.

Evidence suggests that red flag laws can lead to violence between a gun owner and law enforcement. A Maryland man was killed in 2018 when Anne Arundel police arrived to take his guns. He was intoxicated during the encounter and reached for his gun when police said he couldn’t take it with him to the bathroom. More context is needed in this case because the man allegedly threatened to shoot his brother’s wife during an argument over their mother’s care. One of his nieces told the Baltimore Sun that it was “family being family” and her uncle wouldn’t hurt anyone.

Another worrisome factor in red flag legislation involves taking weapons from people on antidepressants or antianxiety medication. A 2020 study by Express Scripts said 17.3 million Americans reported major depressive disorder in 2017. How many of those Americans own firearms? It’s extremely unlikely that all, or even a large majority, are a danger to themselves or others. Do we want to classify millions of Americans as “dangerous” because they take medication?

The rush to judgment regarding the Uvalde shooting seems troubling. The timeline of what happened Tuesday is still being sorted out due to mixed messages from law enforcement. It was originally believed that a Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District resource officer engaged the gunman at Robb Elementary. he Texas Department of Public Safety suggested otherwise on Thursday, before implying seconds later that there was an unarmed resource officer. DPS now says a resource officer responded but drove past the suspect. There’s also the twelve-minute gap in radio traffic. DPS confirmed the claim by parents that Uvalde police waited up to an hour before going into the classroom where the gunman hid. It looks like law enforcement failed to protect children and teachers.

Questions also remain regarding the actions taken by Uvalde CISD and Robb Elementary staff. A district spokesperson said four minutes after the attack was believed to have started that students and staff were safe. Yet we know the gunman got inside the school through a back door that a teacher propped open. Human error seems ultimately responsible for the suspect getting inside.

The easy road would be giving all responsibility to the government. People could stop paying attention to possibly concerning behavior by neighbors, friends and loved ones because “the government has it handled.” Yet, with more government involvement comes the likelihood of tragic consequences. Individuals can still act by talking with people and expressing their concerns. They can also pick up the phone and call 911 if they are in danger.