The New York Times Says the Manhattan Mass Shooter Was 'Committed,' but That's Not True
The same newspaper notes that the killer "obtained a firearm legally," which means he was never "committed" to a mental health institution.

"Before Park Ave. Shooting," says the headline over a New York Times story published this week, "Nevada Police Had Gunman Committed." If so, that means Shane Devon Tamura, who killed four people before committing suicide at a Manhattan office building on July 28, was disqualified from possessing firearms under both federal and Nevada law. Yet last week, the Times reported that Tamura "obtained a firearm legally in his home state of Nevada even though he had a documented history of mental health problems." The headline: "Gunman's Mental Health History Did Not Prohibit Gun Purchase."
What gives? In 2022 and again in 2024, Tamura was subject to a "mental health crisis hold," which Nevada law authorizes when police, based on "personal observation," have "probable cause to believe" that someone, "as a result of mental illness," poses "a substantial likelihood of serious harm" to himself or others. That is not the same as being "committed" to a "mental health institution" under court order, which triggers the federal and state bans on gun possession.
That distinction is relevant to the gun control debate provoked by Tamura's horrifying crime. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul blamed Nevada's "weak gun laws" for the shooting. More specifically, the Times highlighted the fact that Tamura could have obtained the rifle he used in the attack "without additional background checks" because he "had a permit to carry a concealed weapon" issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in May 2022. But the Times acknowledged that Tamura had "no criminal history," and now it seems clear that he did not have a disqualifying psychiatric record either, which means he would have passed a background check.
In other words, the background check issue is a red herring, which is usually true when politicians or journalists suggest that safeguard could have prevented a mass shooting. After the 2015 mass shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, for example, President Barack Obama recommended "common-sense gun safety laws," including "stronger background checks," to prevent such crimes. But it turned out that the killers had obtained the rifles they used in that attack from a neighbor who bought them legally. Since the neighbor was allowed to buy guns, "stronger background checks" would not have made a difference.
After the 2022 mass shooting that killed 10 people in Buffalo, New York, the Biden administration "renewed its calls" to "expand national background checks," the Times reported, "as it has done time and again after mass shootings." Yet the Buffalo killer passed the background check that was conducted when he bought the rifle he used in the attack from a federally licensed dealer in Endicott, New York.
Those situations were not unusual. The vast majority of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally, either by the killers themselves or by their relatives or acquaintances. Mass murderers typically do not have the sort of criminal or psychiatric records that would disqualify them from buying firearms. And even when they do or are not allowed to buy guns for other reasons (because they are too young, for example), they can get them through intermediaries.
According to a National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, 77 percent of the perpetrators "purchased at least some of their guns legally," while 13 percent made "illegal purchases." In mass shootings at K‒12 schools, over 80 percent of the killers "stole guns from family members."
In short, the "universal background checks" that politicians reflexively recommend after mass shootings cannot realistically be expected to have much of an impact on such crimes. The Manhattan shooting is just the latest illustration of that point.
Nevada already requires background checks for private gun sales, which means those transactions have to be completed via a federally licensed dealer. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that Tamura bought his rifle in October 2024 from Rick Ackley, "his supervisor at Horseshoe Las Vegas," the casino "where he worked an overnight surveillance shift." Chris Rasmussen, Ackley's lawyer, told the Review-Journal his client "legally sold" the rifle to Tamura. Ackley "did everything right," Rasmussen said. "The transfer was through a federal firearms licensee, and it was all lawful."
For gun control enthusiasts, of course, the fact that Tamura was able to legally obtain his murder weapon underlines the laxity of Nevada's laws. Given his "documented history of mental health problems," they say, that purchase should not have been allowed. Although that argument might seem compelling, a policy that would have prohibited the gun purchase based on Tamura's mental health holds would raise serious due process and Second Amendment concerns.
In September 2022, the Times says, Tamura's mother called police to report that "her son was inside a Las Vegas motel, threatening to kill himself." That incident resulted in Tamura's first mental health hold, which entailed 72 hours of detention and a psychiatric evaluation.
As the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health explains, a hold can be extended by court order when the individual "is still assessed to be danger to self or others." In that case, he can be held until a hearing to determine whether he meets the criteria for court-ordered commitment, which requires "clear and convincing evidence" that he poses a substantial danger to himself or others "as a result of mental illness."
Contrary to the misleading Times headline, Tamura evidently was not committed after that first evaluation. Police sought a second hold in August 2024 after his mother again reported that he was suicidal. That hold likewise did not result in a commitment order.
"In states with stricter gun control laws, Mr. Tamura might not have been able to purchase a gun legally," the Times says. In California, for example, "just one of Mr. Tamura's mental health holds would have resulted in a temporary firearm restriction for five years," and a second hold would result in a lifetime ban on gun ownership.
If that rule were applied in Nevada, it would mean that someone could lose his Second Amendment rights based on nothing more than "probable cause" to believe he posed a danger to himself at some point in the previous five years. That is the same as the standard for arrests and search warrants, but it is much lower than the "clear and convincing evidence" required for gun confiscation orders under Nevada's "red flag" law, which last up to a year unless a court renews them for another year.
If Nevada adopted the policy described by the Times, by contrast, residents could be prohibited from possessing guns for five years without judicial review, based on nothing more than a low-confidence police assessment. That situation would blatantly contradict the policy judgments underlying the state's red flag law, which allows suspension of someone's constitutional right to arms for one-fifth as long only by court order based on a much stricter standard of evidence.
Even with such safeguards, people can easily lose their Second Amendment rights under red flag laws when they do not actually pose a threat to themselves or others. Those problems surely would be multiplied under a probable cause standard, depriving many people of the right to arms for no good reason.
Can that cost be justified by the possibility of preventing a mass shooting? Even in this case, it is doubtful whether a California-style rule would have stymied Tamura, who already owned a handgun and could have obtained a rifle from a private seller less punctilious than Ackley. In any event, there is an unavoidable tradeoff between the potential public safety benefits of such a policy and the civil liberties of people who are not bent on mass murder, a category that is bound to include the vast majority of individuals affected by the laws that the Times admires.
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
"The New York Times Says the Manhattan Mass Shooter Was 'Committed,' but That's Not True"
OR
The New York Times Says [ insert variable} but That's Not True
Sometimes their corrections are true.
*Sometimes*
JS;dr
What this country needs is common sense New York Times control !
But what about the assault dildos plaguing the WNBA?
No, the women can keep playing as long as the money doesn't run dry.
*tiktiktiktiktiktik* *tak-tak-tak-tak-tak-tak-tak*
Okay, mister. Let's hear that in stereo:
https://youtu.be/N1IALzT7g3k
If Nevada adopted the policy described by the Times, by contrast, residents could be prohibited from possessing guns for five years without judicial review, based on nothing more than a low-confidence police assessment.
You mean, like without due process?
Definitely an infringement!
Due process only applies to illegals.
Sullum, the law differentiates between voluntary and involuntary commitments. The former does not get your right to self-defense infringed upon, that is correct.
You can check yourself in voluntarily - that is still, colloquially, a commitment.
"You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave"
Sure the NYT frequently gets everything wrong, but it’s dangerous for Trump to attack them.
— Veronique de Rugy
My suggestion: We grant 2A supporters full DOGE-like authority and resources, for a period of 10 years, that they deem necessary to significantly reduce mass shootings and other gun deaths not resulting from instances of self-defense. If they can do this, then we'll know how to proceed into the future. If they can't do it, then supporters of better guns and ammo regulations would take over, minus 2A true believers' obstructionism.
Here's another suggestion I can hardly believe I'm offering. We'll give up abortions (except in cases of rape or incest) in exchange for the ARs and big mags. Long guns would still be great for hunting, of course, and a really good six-gun should be great for self-defense. And teaching teenagers the rule of "condoms: the first time and everytime" would help to prevent most unwanted pregnancies and STIs. So how about it?
Sweeping up the illegal immigrant gang members and sending them to a prison in El Salvador would reduce mass shootings in the US by reducing the gang violence that constitutes many mass shootings, but that's POC on POC crime, so any attempt to reduce that is racist.
We'll give up abortions (except in cases of rape or incest) in exchange for the ARs and big mags.
That is mighty white of you. While it's good to know you speak for all gun grabbers, you might want to check with your constituents first. According to Copilot there were 427 Americans murdered using an AR or AR derivative in 2020. That same year there were about 620,000 abortions. I really don't see progressives being willing to give up the opportunity to kill ~1,500 unborn children for each murder they would ostensibly prevent.
Firstly, congrats are in order to Jacob for writing an entire article arguing semantics.
Second, the NYT does bullwork for the truth. They have all their I's crossed and T's dotted.
The New York Times is about as relevant as last weeks butt wipe.
Between that useless rag and the WaPo/ aka Jeff Bezos Post both of whom are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the CIA, Americans are beginning to reject them along with the MSM TV news channels, such as CNN,MSNBC and even Fox as examples of B.S. outlets.
It is any wonder that online sources such as Zero Hedge, Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan are stomping the MSM into the dirt.
No one trusts or should trust anything the MSM says.
"There are two things I live by, number one, I don't believe anything the government says and number two, I don't take very seriously anything the main stream media says." George Carlin.
"The New York Times Says the Manhattan Mass Shooter Was 'Committed,' but That's Not True."
The Onion, The Babylon Bee and The National Enquirer have more credibility than the NYT.
Red Team & Blue Team of infrastructural high-noise cognitive dissonance, I need you each to get together to triumph over prior coordinated left-right audio chromatic schism exposure and contemplate state-originated facts contradictory message blitzing. This is not the Queen; we have routed around scheduled game-play for reasons that history has failed to achieve objectives due to an unfortunate broadcast about a possible "row" in government that wrought to kill the lady successor by introducing a Pandora's Box of bad luck 😉
😉 Only kidding. Keep calm and eat your veggies. Pandora's Box was closed by the great heroine Ταμαλία, who in spicy vigor spotted disorganization in an open box during her travels and shut it without a further thought as she passed along an ancient collection.
This matter of controlled wrenching has been purely an illusion caused by depth of engagement in structural audio-simulated environments suited to variously-imagined genres and dramas of AV, becoming subtly overrun by increasing noise levels beyond; train egress of greater frequency, greater numbers of automobiles, and higher sky traffic populations.
Solve these problems, Red and Blue team, and reconcile your spectral differences accordingly by joining an epic adventure of discovery and matched wits in the comfort of commuter train expeditions to and from thought-provocative destinations.
Have a nice day : )