Nearly Eleven Murder-Suicides Occur Across America Each Week

I can see it from both sides. On one hand, we have to have a system that keeps the would-be-criminals on someone's radar while making sure we are not violating people's rights. The question then becomes "Where do we draw the line?" The article you posted raises a valid point in that the criteria for making a gang watch list is considerably lower than what is required to make the "red flag" list. Criminals, would-be criminals and high risk people will always find a way around any laws civilized society can put in place. As I stated earlier, there are no easy answers.

Yes. As I stated in my earlier response, people can kill themselves in a myriad of ways so a gun is not required. I think the gun just makes it easier to act spontaneously whereas other method of harm require some amount of pre-planning. With that said, it doesn't sound like the "red flag" law is comprehensive enough to address the real problems. What is the point in removing a weapon but not offering any kind of intervention that lead to a high-risk person obtaining or threatening to use it?

I believe that front line workers need more training in dealing with people with mental illnesses and we, as a whole, need to stop stigmatizing mental health problems. If we cannot freely seek help without being viewed as "crazy" or derailing our career, we are going to continue to see school shootings, murder-suicides, etc. I would rather deal with someone who admits they have a problem and want to seek help than someone who buries the issue until the day they explode. Yes, it's hard to talk about those things, but it's just as hard, if not harder to talk about the problems after scores of people are dead. We can no longer afford to just "wish it would go away".

We disagree.

 

Probably because others know they are only facing off against 1 person.

 

Sad for you, then.

 

I'll survive.

 

You are incorrect. A miserable childhood does not equal a miserable adulthood. With the exceptions of severe mental illness, most are able to recover and become happy, self confident adults. In the cases where they became violent, their mental state was known long before they harmed others.

There is a cost on both sides of the issue. One would have to ignore history to believe that society is better off unarmed.

 

The burden of proof for being subjected to so-called "red flag" laws is exceedingly low, barely amounting to even the preponderance of evidence standard. Worse than that, there are no safeguards to discourage someone from maliciously filing a false report on the basis of being upset with someone else. Adding to the matter is that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is thrown right out the window, as the accused must go to court and prove that they are not actually a danger to themselves or others, while the accusation against them is accepted as being verified evidence that they must dispute.

 

Deleted

 

Yes, I agree the costs are on both sides (for all of society).
Yes, I agree knowing history is important especially on this issue.
I have never stated that society is better off unarmed.

With that, I can understand why one would question the value of such a law.

What do you think can be done to address the immediate need to keep someone safe from themselves and/or prevent them from causing harm to another/others?

 

If someone is, in fact, an immediate threat to themselves and others, the only way to prevent them from harming themselves or others is to take them into custody.
Simply removing their firearms won't do it.

 

Thats what being stuck on the second amendment means. While you have the best of intentions, gun laws only affect those willing to follow them and only deprive good people the right to defend themselves. If we look at our most dangerous cities, we see the result of giving up freedom in exchange for safety.

 

I absolutely agree that someone who is an immediate threat (to him/herself) or another should be taken into custody for a "time out" in jail or to a psychiatric hospital depending on the situation.

My question was not well written. I am asking what can we do with the laws to address this problem? Is there something to be added to the "red flag" law or some other type of law?

 

Knowing what is known about humans as a species and their psychology, the only way to truly go about addressing those who truly are in immediately need of help, to physically prevent them from causing harm to themselves or others, is to immediately confine them to the appropriate facilities for as long as is necessary. Up to and including the duration of their natural lives if it is ultimately believed there is no hope of the individual ever improving, or otherwise being untrustworthy to ever legally own a firearm again.

If one cannot be trusted to legally own a firearm under any circumstances, exactly why are they out and about in society in the first place? What have they done to demonstrate their trustworthiness to warrant their release?

 

Correct. As I stated in my previous post, I am NOT suggesting that we get rid of guns. That would be giving would-be and actual criminals a "field day". Clearly, taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.

I am pondering the issue of how do we maintain the right to bear arms while simultaneously finding the potential problems before they become real such as in school shootings. We always hear how someone was very quiet or reserved or seemed "odd" or "didn't fit in", etc. It seems like it would be impossible to know which "shy kid" will go off the rails. And, what if the weapons used belong to an adult in the family? If that adult isn't displaying any concerning behavior, the kid would probably never hit anybody's radar until it's too late.

So, how do we *catch* that person somewhere between
(1) feeling lost, alone, angry, etc., and
(2) brandishing weapons and killing a bunch of people?

Can such a line even be found before it's too late?

 

I know this has been a big issue since so much funding has been cut in that area. A few decades ago, many psychiatric facilities were closed down and patients were basically put on the streets with a 30-day supply of their psych. meds. Many were left homeless. The lucky ones were able to get support from their family.

Back then, we lived about a block away from an elderly woman whose son was released from our local psychiatric hospital. It would be less than a year before police found him standing over his mother's body (trapped under her walker) with a bloody butcher's knife in his hands. The story made the papers in our mid-sized suburban area. Clearly, the man would not have qualified to own a gun (and nothing could have stopped him from killing his mother no matter what). He was convicted but there was nowhere to put him except prison.

There are many people with mental illnesses that prevent them from differentiating right and wrong. They clearly should not have legal access to guns. However, they are not so bad off they should be locked up in overcrowded prisons either. Politicians want to say they are the exception instead of the rule but the "crack" in the system is crater sized and constantly growing.

 

This being the case, there is no need for a 'red flag' firearm law.

A law that allows the state to take custody of a person, based on nothing but a report to the authorities by another person, until such a time that he can demonstrate to a court he is NOT a danger to himself or others, will never pass constitutional muster.

 

I believe it can. If you look back to elementary school, you probably remember some "troubled" kids. I believe this is where we need to focus our attention.

 

I just want to point out that the whole "murder-suicide" argument seems strangely and eerily similar to the whole "terrorist" argument for taking away our rights.

In the good old days, at least potential criminals wouldn't commit a crime if they knew they were going to get caught, or wouldn't end up being able to financially benefit.

 

Laws only affect those inclined to obey them. For decades we've reaped the benefits of closing mental facilities in a misguided "compassion" for the inmates whose mental states prevented them caring for themselves and functioning in society on their own. So the " compassionate" reformers had their way, the poor mental patients were dumped in the streets en masse and the do-gooders patted themselves on the back for a job well done. Worked out great, hasn't it?

 

I'm only talking about potentially violent people. Isn't that what the thread is about?

 

Who are potentially violent people?

 

Hard to do that in the midst of an inssurection movement trying to get us to defund and disband the police.

 

That may be true. It certainly warrants study.

I stayed in an abusive relationship to avoid losing my house or alienating the kids. If I left, she'd file a hardship, and while she wouldn't keep the house, neither would I. I kick her out, then I kick her kids out too. I hit her back, she calls the cops and they prolly believe her over me.

So I opted to just take punches to the face for a while.

Now I have the house, one of the kids moved in when she turned 18 and the other visits frequently.

...tho I never once considered murder and/or suicide.

 

Thank you for sharing. Sadly many men experience abuse and have no way out.

 

The problem with such a position is the fact it can easily and correctly be argued that every individual is potentially violent.

 

Yes and I appreciate the discussion. Those who are quick to violence were likely that way as children. That is when professional help will do the most good. Instead, they learn to hide their violent tendencies to avoid punishment.