Is taking away guns from people what you mean by prevention? Because if so I think that’s a genius idea and will probably be extremely effective.
Even just sane universal background checks and red flag laws might help!
…
Oh, it’s just predictive analytics that’ll shovel money into the pockets of palantir or someone similar? I guess that might help? Can we try my thing first?
As a firearms owner I totally agree with background checks and red flags laws. I also agree with keeping your gun unloaded and locked away.
Gun owners that are against background checks, what are you hiding? If you have nothing to hide, why worry?
If you have nothing to hide, why worry?
This is such a stupid, disingenuous argument. Look, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you should be fine with cops performing a warrantless search of your house, car, and strip searching you, right? After all, you haven’t done anything wrong, correct? If you’ve got nothing to hide, then your medical records should be public, right? Why are you keeping that bathroom door closed if you’re not hiding something, huh?
The right to keep and bear arms is a right. It’s not supposed to be a privilege dependent on the good will of the state. Same as speech/press, freedom of–and from–religion (which mean, yes, freedom from religious interference in state matters as well), and so on.
red flags laws
These have already been used to harass people that legally own firearms. Because it’s a civil process, the gun owner needs to pay for their own attorney to fight the claims. That means that you can easily end up with tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills just because you have someone decided to report you to police. It can take months or years to fight, and there’s not a clear standard since you might be a risk. I’ve personally dealt with this kind of bullshit in Illinois; I lost my FOID because I was held for observation for 72 hours while I was in the middle of an ugly divorce -and- being abused by my spouse. I would have needed to sue the state in order to get my basic rights back.
The guide specifically calls for police agencies to set up what NTAC calls behavioral threat assessment units that can assess potential dangers and then provide resources to make sure individuals get help before they resort to violence.
This is the part that everyone is intentionally missing.
Most people that commit the kinds of mass violence that make national news can be diverted without getting caught up in law enforcement. These aren’t people that are mentally ill in most cases, but they usually do need some kind of help. A heavy-handed approach that involves jailing them or taking their rights because they might be dangerous at some unspecified point in the future is not a great approach, since we don’t have a functioning Pre-Crime Bureau yet. Moreover, as the Secret Service pointed out in a prior report, people that commit mass violence have a wide number of warning signs, but no person in their study had all of the warning signs, a very few had no obvious warning signs, and most of the warning signs are common and could apply to potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
I wonder if prevention of school shootings will eventually turn into a highly profitable war-on-drugs type thing. They’re already promoting shield backpacks, what’s next? Other than the obvious answer, like limiting mag capacity
The cops and the MIC are the source of the violence. Disarm the state, liberate the people, no more shootings.