Whether it be using Involuntary Commitment standards and procedures or full-on reliance of such commitments, the solution is obvious. Neither side in the debate--certainly not the fringes--is satisfied. So there's at least one argument in its favor.
Below are excerpts from three article (two of my own) addressing this. The third is an objective review of the second, bringing out some of its points better than the original.
NOTE: This first article was written by yours truly before I read the second.
The problem is that too many on the pro-gun side will say that the crazy people are the problem--implying the answer is to control those people. On the other hand, they oppose any "Red Flag" laws, period, as a matter of course--implying control over those people is wrong. In typical Teabrainer fashion, they suffer a cognitive dissonance in their rhetoric, squared only their libertarian foolishness in supporting a politically self-defeating and politically and socially irresponsible vision (TDF 41, starting in Paragraph 8). ...
The answer, thus, is to have fiscal conservatives to bite the bullet and impose INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT rather than disarmament. If a person is THAT dangerous, then get them off the street completely. "The gun genie is out of the bottle."
...
"[I]nvoluntary commitment laws to pose less inherent threat to RKBA than Red Flag laws: They don't focus on guns, and the Patriot side can use them against non-gun owners."
================
Some of them: Schools can no longer be soft targets, institutionalization will need to come into play, and police will need to relearn what their job is.
...
Three parts of the solution present themselves readily. First, to make schools hard targets for would-be murderers. Second, to institutionalize those who are insane and dangerous. Third, is to reject liberal nostrums on gun control because they obviously won’t work.
...
I last wrote about the absolute necessity of preventing these killings of children and teachers in the aftermath of the 2012 Newtown school massacre...
...
What needs to be done is to change the state laws which effectively prohibit the involuntary institutionalization of insane people who are a danger to the community.
...
It’s long past time for us to learn the lessons that reality keeps teaching us and act upon them. How many more kids have to die before we do?
================
The biggest takeaway for people should be stated need to control crazy people. There are so many reasons for removing nutcases from society, and libertarian-minded people need to have this understanding imposed upon them.
...
[From original article:] State “red flag” laws permit police to confiscate firearms from an individual on the basis of a complaint by police, a family member, or a neighbor.
And here's the big concern. "Red Flag" laws are complete no-go's for libertarians and purists, and even more practical pro-gunners are leery to the same point of them. However, the fellow has indirectly addressed part of the problem.
The TDF position has been that pro-gunners should be actively involved in crafting any Red Flag legislation so as to include serious protections from their misuse. The writer notes making "dangerous insanity more definable." Such would act to mitigate the danger of liberals declaring "a mean tweet" or "pro-White statement" grounds to get a Patriot disarmed. Indeed, often yours truly has said to run them along the lines of common 96-hour involuntary commitments, perhaps even simply using that power. After all, if a person is dangerous enough to disarm, they are dangerous enough to restrain.
...
[From original article:] The focus on AR-15 style rifles is convenient for liberals but entirely off base. Charles Whitman didn’t have an AR-15 when he murdered those people at UT Austin. He had a bolt action rifle, a pump action rifle, and an M-1 carbine.
My point here is something of a two-edged sword. According to the great Ken Hackathorn, "When I was a... 18-year-old, [the M-1 carbine] WAS the AR-15 of MY generation. This WAS the 'assault rifle.'" ("Ken Hackathorn on the M1 Carbine: Reputation vs Reality" -- quote at 11:56 point. NOTE: Yes, it's the anti-Trump Gun Jesus, but it's still the great Ken Hackathorn talking.) On the one hand, the 1966 shooting referenced does indeed involve something which, though actually escaping the usual AW furniture-feature restrictions, held a comparable role and did feature hi-cap magazines. On the other (pro-gun) hand, it shows the presence and ready availability of a weapon of vaguely similar capability (particularly in the context of a mass shooting) during a time before the AR-15 and when such events were apparently rare.
[From original article:] It’s long past time for us to learn the lessons that reality keeps teaching us and act upon them. How many more kids have to die before we do?
The truth is, this is a question for both sides.
================
"It really is the solution, folks: INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT systems. The flipside of our Right to Arms is our responsibility to public safety. The function and intent of the former can be fulfilled without undue danger to the latter. And the necessity and responsibility of the latter can be fulfilled without undue burden on the former."
