Commonly Touted Policies Are Ill-Suited to Stopping Mass Shooters
These three gun controls failed in New York, and there is little reason to think they would work elsewhere.

"In New York," former Gov. Andrew Cuomo bragged on Sunday, "we passed the best [gun control] laws in the nation." Although those laws manifestly did not prevent the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket on May 14, Cuomo thinks the answer is more legislation of the same sort.
Cuomo mentioned a federal "assault weapon" ban, and other politicians responded to the Buffalo massacre by calling for expanded background checks and more aggressive enforcement of "red flag" laws that aim to disarm dangerous people. But those policies are fundamentally ill-suited to stopping crimes like the Buffalo shooting or Tuesday's deadly attack at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
The Buffalo shooter legally bought the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle he used in the attack from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. According to the online manifesto that police attributed to the attacker, the rifle did not qualify as an "assault weapon" in New York at that point, because it had been fitted with a fixed magazine.
The shooter easily reversed that modification so the gun could accept detachable magazines, and he reportedly used magazines that exceeded New York's 10-round limit. Although that change had practical implications, other workarounds allow New Yorkers to legally buy and own AR-15-style rifles like the Bushmaster XM-15 that are functionally identical to prohibited models.
As long as a rifle has none of the military-style features that New York prohibits (such as a pistol grip, a threaded barrel, or a bayonet mount), it is not an "assault weapon," even if it accepts detachable magazines. Such "featureless" rifles are perfectly legal in New York, even though they fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the banned models.
That is the basic problem with "assault weapon" bans: They define the category based on functionally unimportant features, leaving mass shooters with plenty of equally lethal alternatives, including the handguns they overwhelmingly prefer. While Cuomo thinks a federal ban could be effective if it also covered "large capacity" magazines, which come standard with many guns, millions of such magazines would remain in circulation.
The Buffalo shooter passed a background check when he bought his rifle, because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, which is typically true of mass shooters. According to a recent National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, just 13 percent of the perpetrators obtained weapons through illegal transactions.
Even theoretically, a federal law requiring background checks for private gun transfers, as New York already does, would not pose an obstacle for the vast majority of mass shooters. And in a country where civilians own more than 400 million firearms, a would-be killer with a disqualifying record would not have much trouble finding a source willing to flout that rule, as gun owners routinely do in states that notionally require "universal background checks."
On the face of it, it seems more plausible that New York's red flag law could have stopped the Buffalo shooter if only it had been properly applied. After all, he was reported to state police as a high school senior last June because he mentioned murder in a written response to a question about his post-graduation plans.
The shooter successfully passed that off as a sick joke, and it may yet turn out that a more thorough investigation would have cast doubt on that explanation. But even fellow students who had known him for years apparently did not view him as a threat.
Predicting violence is much harder than supporters of red flag laws often imply. Psychiatrists are notoriously bad at it, and people who display what might look like "red flags" almost never commit crimes like these.
Casting a wider net might or might not help prevent such attacks, but it certainly would ensnare many innocent people who do not actually pose a danger. When it comes to gun control, that is a perennial pitfall.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cuomo is the mastermind of the best COVID policies evah!!! We should definitely trust him on gun control, as well. - OBL
OBL - Am i doing this right?
#TrustCuomoNotIckyRepublicans
#TrillionairesForBidenFlation
I'll give you an honorary pass. OBL doesn't use !!!.
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. (res-72) All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
In addition to people bearing arms for self-defense, here's an idea that may or may not be acceptable to libertarians, does not involve gun-control, and takes advantage of liberals political practices, and quench liberals' thirst, for the federal government to "do something", intervene or regulate. The idea is this - federal standards for government school security (though I'm sure liberal practice would be to extend it to private schools as well.)
This argument for it is designed to take advantage of liberal thought with respect to government and quench their desire to "do something", but directed away from gun-controll. The federal government already sets safety standards in many areas - food safety, drug safety, highway safety, air safety, job safety, transportation safety, homeland security etc., etc., etc. Why not school safety or securiy? The idea would be that the Department of Justice would come up with a set of best practices, training standards, and facility layout standards as any other regulatory agency would according to federal rulemaking procedures.
Every government K-12 school would then have to implement those standards. With the right entry and doorway standards, trained personnel including plainclothes, and the right entry procedures and policies, virtually all school shootings could be prevented.
The problem for libertarians would be that it would be added federal regulation, a federal mandate upon the states and localities, and also, possibly, upon private schools. To that I would reply that the focus would be almost entirely upon government schools, virtually all of which receive some federal money, directly or indirectly. Also, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the feds could ensure the protection of students peaceably assembling for class. So long as it's government regulating government, it's not too bad libertarianism-wise (there's a word for ya). As for private schools, they already face liability (which the government does not) if they fail to take reasonably adequate measures to protect those in their charge. And, per capita and in absolute terms, the risk of being victim of a shooting is less in private than government school - https://www.cato.org/blog/are-shootings-more-likely-occur-public-schools .
The above is not a perfect libertarian solution. But, it's far better and would be far more effective than gun-controll. And, it could channel liberals knee-jerk desires for federal regulation so as satisfy liberals desires to "do something". At least, it would likely be more effective and less oppressive than gun-controll.
If they wanted to stop mass shooters the law should require every adult to be armed in public.
No. So many idiots.
Constitutional concealed carry. Instantly politer society.
Yeah, not everyone, just everyone that wants to.
Because polite society is defined by the fear of death for even the slightest misstep.
Fear of death for threatening life.
There are too many that wouldn't even use them as a club, this arming the bad people.
Not since the first 100-years of this nations history has government been doing anything that had to do with "working"...
And the more time that goes by the less it's about "working" and the more it all has to do with Gov-Gun toting complete and utter POWER over it's people (i.e. Communism and Socialism) building....
The sad truth is if someone wants to kill strangers they probably will kill quite a few before anyone can stop them. First they have already decide to die or spend the rest of their life in prison. So whether a gun, bomb, vehicle driven into a crowd, axe or knife they will kill and wound people before the cops can ever get there to stop them.
Maybe of the government lowered the rhetoric, ended the insane policies and quit trying to divide people along so many lines, there would be less angry people in the nation.
Maybe if the government lowered their Gov-Gun pointing (i.e. POWER) and were !-LIMITED-! to just ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all.....?
There's a "standard" used by the FBI and Mother Jones that defines mass killer as four or more dead. Someone thought to investigate that, and looked at all "mass" killings of fewer than four, defined as any one killing strangers in public; not family, neighbors, co-workers, etc. He found that in most cases, such shootings were stopped by ordinary people with their own guns, and his conclusion was that the ordinary people were on the scene and didn't wait for police to show up.
It's 10 years old but still worth reading.
The FBI lowered the standard for a "mass killing". It is now defined as “three or more killings in a single incident”.
That is the definition set in 28 USC § 530C(b)(1)(M) which I believe was passed in 2012. But I also believe you are correct that they used the definition of "four or more" until relatively recently. I don't know exactly when or why they started counting them differently.
The FBI has a cleaner definition of "active shooter" incidents which excludes self-defense, gang violence, drug violence, residential or domestic disputes and a couple other categories from the count. They also generally exclude the shooter from the count of dead in the incident. (Approximately half of active shooter incidents end with the shooter dead. If you add the shooter back in, that may be where Mother Jones got the 'four or more' definition.)
But yes, even more recent statistics support your general conclusion that fewer innocents are killed or injured when non-law enforcement confront the shooter than when people wait for law enforcement to show up.
Your first paragraph is true.
Your second paragraph — there’s no evidence the killer was driven by divisive political rhetoric. There is some evidence he was bullied in school, and that might have been part of his motivation.
To kill 4th graders he didn't know? "So-and-so bullied me so I'm going to go kill all these little kids I don't even know?"
All I said is “There is some evidence he was bullied in school, and that might have been part of his motivation.” That’s a pretty weak claim, and meant to be weak.
I think the shit did it to specifically do a great evil out of hate or for a thrill or for a feeling of power that would, to him, be worth his life. The best way to deter that type of thing is for people to be trained to shoot to paralyze or blind - neck, spine, groin/lower back, eyes - all of which are hard to protect with body armor. Once one of these shits gets paralyzed or blinded and is suffering for life, make 'im a posterboy in a very humiliating way. Specifically broadcast the shit's suffering to the places on the internet where those types might be, given the browsing history of those types of pukes. The perp's escape is via suicide. Instead, shoot to cripple, paralyze or blind, and the puke has to spend a lifetime in agony. Let 'em all know that's what'll happen to them.
The government can’t secure schools or stop criminals, but they can disarm law abiding citizens, so, of course, the path is obvious.
I seem to recall a policy suggestion of having armed staff in schools to beat the police response time...
Maybe if we remove high-capacity safes from banks, we can reduce the number of bank robberies!
Maybe reduce the number of holes in the border to reduce the number of high-capacity fentynal carriers from entering the US and killing far more citizens than rifles!
You don't need to remove the safes, just the money. And Elizabeth Warren, AOC and many other "democratic" socialists are working on that.
We need to send Joe Friday door-to-door collecting guns from their legal owners. That will solve a problem.
The problem with mass shootings in the US is a mental health problem not a gun control problem. Switzerland and Finland and Serbia don't have mass shootings but they got plenty of guns. What we lack in the US is impulse control
Agree with your first sentence. Not so sure about the last one. Switzerland, Finland and Serbia also have populations 50-100 times smaller than the US. You have to scale their incident counts to population size for a fair comparison.
In other words, any population is going to have some fraction of mentally illness leading to violence. Part of the reason we notice it in the US is just that there are so many of us, not necessarily that the rate of illness or the severity of illness is greater.
Actually, there are more mass shootings and resulting dead per capita in all those countries than in the U.S. - https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
Didn't realize that.
Missing from all the conservative/libertarian rants on how Democrats are evil for trying to stop gun violence: alternative solutions to stopping gun violence.
After all the excuses, strawmen, and diversions, can we finally agree that "pro-life" includes figuring out why Americans lead the modern world in killing each other with guns? Why we shoot up schools and kill children? Where's the pro-life crowd on gun violence?!
Oh, right... they're the ones with the guns.
Right, Sure; Because people don't commit crimes, guns do all on their own accord... I wonder where that other gun was to stop this criminal act of violence???
Democrats aren't trying to stop sh*t.... They're trying to give it a almighty endless pass by restraining law abiding citizens from stopping the violent act.
As-if the ever growing gun grabbing by government and ever-growing shootings were a F'En clue.... Stop being so stupid.
See my comment above. It is far more effective to have federal school security standards than inherently ineffective and wrongful gun-control. In the latest shooting, the perp was in the building unopposed for quite some time, could have done as much damage with a revolver. Could have been stopped by one armed teacher.
https://reason.com/2022/05/25/commonly-touted-policies-are-ill-suited-to-stopping-mass-shooters/?comments=true#comment-9511607
Also see https://reason.com/2022/05/25/commonly-touted-policies-are-ill-suited-to-stopping-mass-shooters/?comments=true#comment-9511886
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
" National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, just 13 percent of the perpetrators obtained weapons through illegal transactions."
Yes. I reject the idea that most people know where to buy black market guns, little less black market AR-15s