H/t: Clare Lopez, one of my fave national security pundits. We don't always agree, but there is definite respect.
The article takes an effort-based approach to the issue of mass/school shootings. Obviously, then, libertarian-types and Second Amendment purists won't be totally pleased with it. It even hits a sacred cow or two by rolling anti-gun talking points over, which would cause many Teabrainers to stop reading (presuming they can read).
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.
My post a few days ago: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD: E212: "Reality, but also unintended exposure of mental health inconsistency -- VIDEO: 'The gun genie’s out of the bottle: Former FBI deputy assistant director.'" (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com) addresses much of what I address here. In fact, I quote heavily from it--for which I gave myself permission, so it's not plagiarism.
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.
First off, libertarians will hate the idea of institutionalization. They literally want crazy 14-year-olds on dope speeding past schools firing machine guns toward the kids, with the only liability being fixing the divots in the ground from the bullet impacts (barring impacts on people or buildings or such). Yet 2A purists will often say the problem is people, not the guns, and so it would follow that controlling the people is the answer... Just another of the common, Teabrained cognitive dissonances flowing from single-point, single-layer (single-dimension) conservative kneejerk responses.
I said the same thing a few days ago in TDF 212:
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).
We, as American citizens, are failing to perform the duty of protecting our children. In order to perform that duty, we need to take action, not just mouth “thoughts and prayers.”
Here is a sacred cow commonly butchered in anti-gun talking points being rolled by the writer. No doubt some pro-gunners will stop right there: "Oh, I see where this is going." That is not an unreasonable thought, but given who initially promoted this, it is especially necessary to continue, at least for the time. In any case, the libertarian is already turned off and probably back to his or her pot smoking, as it said "we need to take action"--"need" (in the sense of required) and "action" being two concepts they hate.
Biden’s reactions were ignorant, arrogant, and stupid. There are more than twenty million AR-15 style rifles in civilian hands in the U.S. (and probably five times that many “high capacity magazines” for rifles and pistols). If the owners of those rifles were intent on murder, America would be about as safe a place to live as Mogadishu. It isn’t, because the vast majority of those people abide by the law. Criminals, especially those who are dangerously insane, do not.
Yes, the article is pro-gun, so those stopping at the dissing of "thoughts and prayers" were wrong. Indeed, a common pro-gun point is made--if gun violence was commensurate with gun prevalency, we'd have far more than we do, and society would indeed look like the Darwinian dream of some libertarians.
"Probably five times that many (20 million x 5) 'high capacity magazines'": Probably the number is much, much higher. (To the writer's credit, he later ups this to ten times the number.)
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.
The first one obviously appeals to the pro-gun community. The second pushes off more libertarians, of course, and might raise a "red flag" to some of the more alert pro-gunners (don't worry, the article does address that--and that will be fun). The third is included more to complete the triple.
I last wrote about the absolute necessity of preventing these killings of children and teachers in the aftermath of the 2012 Newtown school massacre...
Libertarians cry again at the word "necessity," but to the thinking person the statement by the writer sounds banal at best. He says it's an "absolute necessity" to prevent these events, as if a reasonable person could argue we could reasonably tolerate the trend: "Oh, it's not a big deal. We'll always have some bad stuff like this happen," and leaving it at that, without hardly a suggestion at mitigating the "bad stuff." Actually, of course, that's exactly how some libertarians and purists do respond. (No link was provided by the writer, so what he said there will not be examined.)
It has been obvious since 1966 that the insanity of the shooters is a primary reason for their crimes... There are many people — unfortunately, including some faux conservatives — who insist that more funding for mental health programs will help prevent school shootings.
It is off to consider such people "faux" in their conservatism. Indeed, often that proposal is used by legitimate conservatives to head off gun control calls. But, as we see in the next paragraph, the writer actually calls for exactly that approach, albeit in a more extreme way.
Nonsense. Pouring money on social programs such as employing more social workers to conduct random visits to families and check on “disturbed” people will accomplish nothing. 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.
YES! He's starting to ring the bell! "Involuntary institutionalization." (Of course, that is a form of "mental health program," hence part of my criticism of his previous paragragh.) As noted before, that concept does send libertarians yelling through their doobie, along with many of those conservatives he talks about. "That's PEOPLE CONTROL!" they might yell, pointing to the earlier-mentioned dissonance. "And really expensive," the conservatives would add. (Though it need not be--see later.) Those conservatives aren't "faux" for their objection, though, but rather simply mainstream. (I myself am a Reactionary. I'm the guy liberals and NeverTrumpers tried to tell you Trump was.)
And for the record, the big barrier to institutionalization is court decisions saying nutcases have rights.
In any case, the writer is very much on target. These folks are dregs on society anyway. As I stated a few days ago in TDF 212:
It is the TDF position that nutcases don't have the same rights as normal people. 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." If they want to do harm, they'll get what they need to do so--be it a firearm, explosive, or motor vehicle. And besides, yours truly wants nutcases removed from society anyway. Give them the proper evaluation, and if they can't be cured to where they can be trusted in society with a gun, then remove them permanently.
(CAVEAT: Down's Syndrome sufferers--and yes, it's a health negative--should be given a certain carve-out as a matter of public policy, provided they are under supervision of family or private guardian, due to the birth-defect nature of their disability. They can be productive, and only rarely do they pose a threat or exceeding burden on society.)
Moreover, psychologists and psychiatrists have a duty to make dangerous insanity more clearly definable — not easier to prove — in commitment proceedings.
EXCELLENT POINT!
And it will be explored further next.
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.
I followed up my earlier statement in TDF 212 with the following:
"[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.
(No, yours truly had not read the article being reviewed here before TDF 212. He was simply smart enough to see the same points, and deal with them.)
What follows in the article is the usual discussion of anti-gun law problems and fails, and aspects of active security measures for schools. A few points, though, are worthy of comment. And as usual, I expose both sides here.
If gun laws were effective at stopping crime, Chicago — which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country — wouldn’t suffer between six and a dozen gun murders every weekend.
Caveat to this common assertion: Chicago to be sure is not a preferred place for a 2A practitioner to be, but it has been forced to mellow some.
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.
There is no higher duty we have than to protect our children.
Patriots might rightly question that priority, in favor of preserving our heritage.
And libertarians would argue that ensuring cheap doobie is the higher duty.
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.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
TDF 212
