Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Searching for Gun Violence Solutions That Don't Collectivize Punishment

Are "gun violence restraining orders" the answer?

Angel Valentin/Polaris/NewscomAngel Valentin/Polaris/NewscomFormer Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, and David French, a senior editor at the conservative National Review, probably differ on most domestic-policy issues. But on one particular gun-control measure, they clearly agree.

French wrote about the measure last week, in the wake of the heinous school massacre in Parkland, Florida. McAuliffe pitched the idea with regard to domestic abusers two and a half years ago in a news conference. They're both right.

It's called a gun violence restraining order (GVRO), or sometimes a gun violence protective order. It's based on a familiar model: the domestic restraining order. As the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explains, GVROs "allow families and household members, as well as law enforcement officers, to petition a court to remove a person's access to guns if he or she poses an imminent danger to self or others."

The Parkland massacre makes the utility of GVROs excruciatingly obvious. The FBI now concedes that it failed to act on a tip about the shooter from someone who found the shooter's behavior, gun ownership, and social media posts disturbing. But even if the FBI had acted, it might not have been able to prevent the shooting: You can't throw somebody in jail simply for behaving erratically.

Sadly, this is not a new story:

  • Seung-Hui Cho exhibited numerous warning signs before committing the massacre at Virginia Tech.
  • The man who killed more than two dozen people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, had escaped from a mental facility and tried to carry out death threats, among other red flags.
  • The perpetrator of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando had a long history of troubling behavior and acted so bizarrely in a gun store that the owner said he called the FBI.
  • Friends of the man who killed nine people in a black church in Charleston say he had threatened to shoot up a school the week before.
  • Acquaintances of the man who killed 13 people at Fort Hood said he was a "ticking time bomb" and complained that their superior officers ignored clear warning signs.
  • A Connecticut investigation found that the perpetrator of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School exhibit clear "warning signs" that the school district and others "missed opportunities" to address.

Not every mass killer gives off an air of impending menace. The perpetrators of the shootings in San Bernardino and Las Vegas did not telegraph their intentions. But most mass killers often display a clear set of similar warning signs: social isolation, depression, narcissism, resentment, a sudden fascination with firearms, and so on. When an individual raises fears that he might do something horrible, a GVRO gives friends, neighbors, family, and authorities a means of preventing a nightmare.

The other advantage of GVROs, as French notes, is that they do not constitute "collective punishment."

The vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. will never hurt anyone, so they naturally bristle at the idea that they should be forced to give up their rights because a minuscule percentage of others abuse those rights. (And the percentage truly is minuscule: 73 million Americans own a firearm; 5 million Americans own an AR-15. As the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court has noted, "in 2012, the number of AR- and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States." Yet in 2014 rifles of all types, not just assault-style rifles, accounted for fewer than 250 homicides.)

Collective punishment should offend not just gun owners, but any American who believes in individual responsibility and due process. And, in fact, liberals generally abhor the collective-punishment model when it is imposed in other circumstances or on other populations—e.g., on Middle Easterners and Muslims by policies such as the Trump travel ban.

For similar reasons, liberals also recoiled against many policies of the Bush administration, such as warrantless wiretapping and suspending the habeas corpus rights of alleged enemy combatants, imposed in the name of saving lives. Such policies were not only unconstitutional, liberals argued, they were also ineffective—precisely the points most conservatives make about gun control. (Hence it's worth noting that GVRO's raise legitimate due-process concerns, and need to be crafted carefully to minimize such concerns.)

Arguments about constitutionality and effectiveness are worth having. But Americans should not let their disagreements about other measures stand in the way of the things that (a) are constitutional, (b) would be effective, and (c) both sides can agree on.

So far fewer than half a dozen states have GVROs. Virginia considered, but defeated, a similar proposal (although the state does now require domestic abusers who have been served with a protective order to surrender their firearms). If Americans want to do something genuinely useful about mass shootings, passing GVRO legislation throughout the country seems like the obvious next step.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Photo Credit: Angel Valentin/Polaris/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • DajjaI||

    If Americans want to do something genuinely useful about mass shootings

    How about evaluating whether GVROs work? Because I'm sure they have no effect either way, and thus will only end up getting exploited by the police state. (The core problem is psychiatry and this is only putting the fox in charge of the hen house.)

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    As if psychiatry has never been exploited by the police state.

    I imagine requests for GVROs will contain as truthful information as a warrant application. Warrants never get abused by the police state.

    Crappy idea.

    The problem is that "clear warning signs" are usually a product of hindsight.

  • John||

    Has there ever been a modern police state that didn't exploit psychology to declare its dissidents mentally ill? I honestly can't think of one. Misusing psychology for the purpose of politics is modern police state 101. It has replaced the old method of using religion to declare political dissent heresy.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Not that I can think of.

  • Consigliere of the Dark Ones||

    It has replaced the old method of using religion to declare political dissent heresy.

    Old method? The USSR still exploited religion when it existed.

  • Chasman1965||

    Not really. My wife is a teacher. She sees about one kid a year that could be a school shooter. She and the other teachers talk about it. My wife does what she can to make students in her class feel like they are part of something, to the point of informally monitoring the cafeteria, and guiding students to sit with students that are sitting alone. The problem is as much a lack of community as it is mental health.

  • Devastator||

    I'm sorry, mang, but being visited by cops 26 times does constitute reasonable suspicion of whether you need to be near firearms. A lot of the other mass murderers had similar issues.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Let's poll all of the abused women who had an active restraining order against someone when attacked. Well, let's poll the ones that are alive, at least.

  • shawn_dude||

    Let's unpack this comment.

    You start out by casting doubt on whether removing guns from people who are statistically more likely to kill someone in a heightened emotional state will work. Seriously, by this logic, why not just let people with DUI's continue to drive? Or epileptics? But you're sure they'll have no effect? You provide us no evidence for this but we should take your word rather than that of the "police state."

    Which brings me to "police state." I'd like to think hinting at conspiracy theories would automatically turn off your audience, but I've read enough of these threads to know a good number of people wearing tinfoil hats totally agree with you here.

    Oh, hey, psychiatry! Guess what, we agree here to some degree. But if someone is known to be psychologically unfit for owning a gun a) we not only let them buy them, but the the NRA and gun nuts demand they be allowed to buy them (see Trump's order to stop the government from reporting certain mental illnesses to the background check system.) b) the same folks that want crazies to have guns are likely to be against Obamacare and other types of free access to medical care and psychiatric help. So hey, insist they have a right to own an AR-15 and then deny them access to medical care--a winning combination!

    If someone can lose their right to drive a car because they are unfit to drive, they should lose their right to own a gun if they are mentally ill or have been making credible threats to hurt people.

  • NYC2AZ||

    " a) we not only let them buy them, but the the NRA and gun nuts demand they be allowed to buy them (see Trump's order to stop the government from reporting certain mental illnesses to the background check system)"

    Some lies never die. This one seems to be here to stay for a while because shit weasels gonna shit weasel.

    "If someone can lose their right to drive a car because they are unfit to drive, they should lose their right to own a gun if they are mentally ill or have been making credible threats to hurt people."

    Do you really think when the gov't revokes someone's license that some magical government forcefield keeps them from getting behind the wheel and driving a car?

  • marshaul||

    Shawn, you confuse proscription with prevention. These are not the same thing.

    For your argument to not be a non-sequiturial rebuttal, there would have no be no DUI accidents, for instance. And yet DUI accidents occur.

    Sure, DUI laws apparently reduce the rate of DUI accidents; but this is not an apple-to-apples comparison as DUI is a very public thing. Hiding in your house with guns and a bad attitude need not be a public activity.

  • mpercy||

    Should they lose their right to drive because a vindictive ex-wife made a false accusation? Imagine the hoops to jump through to try prove a negative...

    While we're on the ubiquitous car analogy, we've observed that many automobile deaths involve DUI and/or speeding. In an effort to DO SOMETHING--because if we save JUST ONE LIFE it'll be worth it--we need common-sense mandates that all cars be fitted with breathalyzer interlocks with 0.00 BAC required to start the engine and also GPS-enabled governers that prevent the car from ever exceeding the posted speed limit on any stretch of road. Because no one NEEDS a car that can go 145 MPH. Only police, fire, ambulance will be able to exceed speed limits.

  • Devastator||

    Psychiatry is really the least scientific of all the soft sciences. They barely guess disorders above the average citizen. It's like Alcoholic's Anonymous, the recovery rates are barely better than someone who just goes cold turkey and never had any help at all. Anyway, someone who is a repeat offender should get more scrutiny. I have several guns including an AR and an AK. I've never had the police called on me either, nor threatened anyone with a gun. I would think similar people have nothing to worry about in this. Slippery slope is about 1 mile that way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun control of any kind if an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment.

  • shawn_dude||

    According to whom?

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "gun" it says "arms." Can you make a list for me of all the arms that are currently banned to the civilian public? Let me give you a start:

    1: nuclear bomb
    2: nerve gas
    3: conventional bomb
    4: grenade
    5: lawn dart (not kidding... this is real.)

    This is "gun control of any kind." Are you saying you have a constitutional right to a nuke? Or are you drawing a line somewhere and, if so, where and using what criteria?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Arms means armaments and ammunition.

    Nuclear bomb, nerve gas, conventional bomb, grenade, and lawn darts are all covered by the 2nd Amendment.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that allows government to ban products, arms, substances, or services. Congress has the power to regulate things relating to interstate and foreign commerce but the 2nd Amendment was added to prevent the feds from limiting armaments.

    Who says. The Constitution. Its in black and white. actually black and tan for the ink and parchment.

  • Devastator||

    So you're all for people have nerve gas and grenades on the coffee table then?

  • MarcS||

    Not according to the supreme court. As i recall, they are the final word on what is and is not constitutional. Your beliefs on the matter are meaningless.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If a family member can petition to remove someone's 2nd Amendment rights, why stop there? How about the 3rd Amendment, if you want to station some troops in grandpa's house to make a little extra rent money?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    (Hence it's worth noting that GVRO's raise legitimate due-process concerns, and need to be crafted carefully to minimize such concerns.)

    Yeah, I'm sure that they'll be crafted carefully. Right.

  • John||

    The problem with this idea is that it assumes that taking away a person's access to guns, if it even can be done, makes them no longer a danger to themselves or others. Let's say the person really is dangerous. They are no kidding psychotic and are hearing voices telling them to murder their family. So, the family goes and gets a gun restraining order. Okay, that just means the person murders his family with an ax or runs over them with a car or burns down the house with them in it. How has the gun restraining helped?

    If someone is dangerous such that someone can convince a court they should no longer be allowed access to weapons, denying them access to guns but allowing them to roam free otherwise is not a solution.

  • John||

    People need to be honest about the problem and the tradeoffs involved in trying to solve it and stop engaging in magical thinking that people will no longer be dangerous if only we can keep them away from evil guns. If someone is dangerous, the only way to keep them from doing harm is to lock them up. If you don't want to live with the obvious and significant dangers that come with giving courts the power to lock up people who have not yet actually done something awful but just seem likely to, then be honest about that and understand that the price of avoiding those dangers is dangerous people doing horrible things before they can be stopped.

    I am not saying that one solution is any better than the other. That is for everyone to decide for themselves. But whatever your opinion, don't kid yourself into thinking there are any other choices.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that's a very tricky question. Some people really do just need to be locked up. But I have a hard time justifying forcing it on anyone who hasn't done anything criminal.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...giving courts the power to lock up people who have not yet actually done something awful but just seem likely to"

    Same goes with depriving them of life, liberty, or property. Just another way around due process, that will serve as a precedent every time there is a "compelling interest" at stake.

  • MarcS||

    60% of people incarcerated in this country are being held on pre-trial detention. I'd hardly say this sort of measure is unprecedented.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    The problem with this idea is that it assumes that taking away a person's access to guns, if it even can be done, makes them no longer a danger to themselves or others.


    It's just a feel-good measure, John, nothing more. Gun-grabbers don't care if the person whose guns were taken away sets a whole building on fire as long as he doesn't discharge one single cartridge.

    What is funny is the way these so-called "gun restraining orders" are touted so highly in the Media supposedly because they worked so beautifully in Connecticut, as there hasn't been another mass shooting since they were put in place. Because, you know, mass shooters make their intentions clear to all before the fact...

  • John||

    Are they pointing to Connecticut? You really can't make this shit up. I mean there has never been a big school shooting in Connecticut.

  • silver.||

    "... another mass shooting ..."

    Ostensibly the GVRO has prevented further violence since the Newtown tragedy. This debate is filled with a lot of blurring of the relationship between correlation and causation.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    Are they [the Media] pointing to Connecticut?


    Oh, they are.

  • Zeb||

    Because before Newtown they were having mass shooting rampages like every week.

    Maybe I can sell them this rock I have that repels tigers.

  • damikesc||

    What is funny is the way these so-called "gun restraining orders" are touted so highly in the Media supposedly because they worked so beautifully in Connecticut, as there hasn't been another mass shooting since they were put in place. Because, you know, mass shooters make their intentions clear to all before the fact...

    According to the reporting of this crime, this dude certainly seemed to make it public.

    The biggest problem with gun control is that it is immoral and impossible to PROACTIVELY fight crime. You cannot stop a murderer before they kill because, until that trigger gets pulled, they didn't do anything wrong. Planning evil isn't illegal.

    So, barring some incredibly lucky coincidences, police aren't able to protect you from harm. They can clean up the mess after the fact somewhat, but in the end, when your life is on the line, only you can save you.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Pretty sure that Conspiracy to Commit a Crime is a crime in most places.

    That said, there are deterrent measures you can take that make crime less likely to happen, as well as making it less harmful when it does happen.

    Utopia is not the goal post.

  • Longtobefree||

    Is talking to yourself, or to the voices in your head, a conspiracy?

  • Rebel Scum||

    The problem with this idea is that it assumes that taking away a person's access to guns, if it even can be done, makes them no longer a danger to themselves or others.

    You'll never create utopia with that attitude. How dare you acknowledge human nature!

    In seriousness, yes, I agree. Same principle behind "if all the guns and knowledge to build them evaporated the only thing that would change is the weapons used." Some people are bad and will still find a way to harm others.

  • John||

    There once was a world without guns, it was called the middle ages or any time before that. And how did that work out? Basically, society was ruled by a class of warriors who had the time and the money to learn the martial arts. There was no such thing as a popular revolution or partisan warfare before the invention of firearms. That is because, without firearms, someone who doesn't have proper training and expensive weapons and armor is utterly defenseless against someone who does. Firearms were the bringers of freedom to the world because they brought equality of force. You didn't need years of training and to be rich enough to buy expensive weapons and armor to have a fair fight once firearms became widely available. The frailest and sickest old woman can pull a trigger and murder the greatest and most heavily armed knight.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Firearms were the bringers of freedom to the world because they brought equality of force.

    Agreed.

    The frailest and sickest old woman can pull a trigger and murder the greatest and most heavily armed knight.

    Unless gov't goons take it from her

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    """The frailest and sickest old woman can pull a trigger and murder the greatest and most heavily armed knight.""

    And murder it would be since liberal land believes government is the only one that can use force to defend you.

    Every now and then when having the discussion with a liberal, I will agree that if I could snap my fingers and make all the guns in the world disappear, I would. They smile at that. Then I say because I'm pretty good with a sword and I could take your property at will. The smile goes away, but I doubt the lesson is learned.

  • damikesc||

    Firearms were the bringers of freedom to the world because they brought equality of force.

    To paraphrase Ann Coulter, God made man and woman. Guns made them equal.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm wary of the idea because of its potential for abuse, but *if* those concerns could be addressed (and that's a big if) then I'd be open to it. Not enthusiastically, but still open to it. Can a violent person find other means to hurt people? Yeah, of course. But the restrictionists are right about one thing - not everything has to be *the* solution. Guns lower the barrier to entry to violent crime and make killers more efficient, and if you could effectively raise the marginal cost of carrying out violent crime with guns, you will have a marginal effect on the amount of violent crime.

  • John||

    I do not believe that guns necessarily make killers more efficient or even lower the barrier to being one very much. Look at what happened in France by just using a rental truck to run people down. Building a fertilizer bomb is not that difficult and setting a fire very easy. In most of these cases, the killers have some kind of personal grudge or connection against their targets. And if they can't use a gun, they will likely use something else.

    Also, we can't stop people from accessing child porn or drugs. I cannot imagine being able to keep someone who was determined from getting a gun. I don't see where this would save many lives at all and would certainly lead to all kinds of abuses.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Building a fertilizer bomb is not that difficult and setting a fire very easy.

    This, as well. I always tell gun-grabbers that it is possible to make a powerful explosive from items you can easily acquire at a hardware store. Where there's a will, there's a way and someone with will is not going to be thwarted by gun restrictions. You don't help the innocent by removing the easiest to use, most convenient form of self-defense.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I do not believe that guns necessarily make killers more efficient or even lower the barrier to being one very much.

    Really? There is a reason why armies primarily use guns instead of other hand-held weapons, and why criminal gangs mostly use guns instead of trucks and flame throwers. Again, some people will undoubtedly turn to guns if they can't get other weapons, but not everyone, and those that do will often turn to less efficient weapons.

    I cannot imagine being able to keep someone who was determined from getting a gun

    Again, I don't disagree that some people will still get a gun, but that doesn't preclude a marginal effect.

  • John||

    So we are going to create a system that is almost certainly going to cause all kinds of civil liberties violations and ensnare God knows how many innocent people, for the sake of having a marginal effect of stopping the rare mass murderer who doesn't want to use an axe or a truck and can't steal or buy a gun off the street. Sorry but I am unconvinced.

    And the point is that even if guns are easier, that only matters if the added difficulty results in the person not committing murder. And in cases of someone crazy and evil enough to commit mass murder, that seems unlikely.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I agree about the concerns over civil liberty issues. I was trying to set those to the side and address only effectiveness. Marginal, in this context, doesn't necessarily mean small. The magnitude depends on the slope of the "demand curve". I don't know what the slope of that curve is at the point of murderers. I seem to think it is steeper than you do but I also think it is shallower than restrictionists want to believe, but I'll readily admit that I don't have strong evidence one way or the other. I certainly don't think it's flat, though. Also, even if the number of attacks are the same, if they become less deadly then that still constitutes lives saved. That was what I was trying to get at with the efficiency argument.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I do not believe that guns necessarily make killers more efficient or even lower the barrier to being one very much.


    Seriously dude? Seven minutes before you wrote this, you were extolling the virtues of guns and how they make lethal violence so easy that "[t]he frailest and sickest old woman can pull a trigger and murder the greatest and most heavily armed knight."

    Choose a script and stick to it. Either guns make lethal violence so easy an anemic grandma can do it, or they're such a non-issue that nobody is any more dangerous for having one.

  • ||

    Choose a script and stick to it.

    Somebody really ought to do something about the epidemic of anemic septuagenarian school shooters.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You jest, but the Vegas shooter was a retired 64 year old guy. Pretty sure he wouldn't have been able to pull that off without a gun.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    The Vegas shooter also had enough warning signs on him that screamed Government Spook/CI and other shady Deep State shit that the story disappeared down the memory hole.

  • DrZ||

    Are you saying he did not know how to drive? Could have done nearly as much with a large vehicle.

  • ||

    Pretty sure he wouldn't have been able to pull that off without a gun.

    He certainly could've made a nice dent with his pilot's license.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Are you saying he did not know how to drive? Could have done nearly as much with a large vehicle.


    He certainly could've made a nice dent with his pilot's license.


    ... are you guys suggesting that guns aren't what lets grandma defend herself, but Cesnas and BMWs?

    Interesting line to take this in.

  • ||

    ... are you guys suggesting that guns aren't what lets grandma defend herself

    Absurdly narrow and not-even-literal reading of posts, across authors, is absurd and narrow. Please continue as though it makes you appear enlightened and smug, though.

  • ||

    Yeah, my opposition comes from the oxymoron it rather directly creates. If you could ensure due process via a jury of peers, facing accusers, etc. I could see a manner of gun-based TRO. However, the whole idea of due process via peers and in front of your accusers rests on the notion that you are fully competent to defend yourself.

  • John||

    If we conclude you are too dangerous to have a gun, how are you then also not too dangerous to walk around free?

  • EscherEnigma||

    There's been a lot of inconsistent gun rhetoric going around lately, but weren't you okay with felons that have served their time and been released not having their gun rights restored?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""If you could ensure due process via a jury of peers, facing accusers, etc. I could see a manner of gun-based TRO."'

    I would expect it to turn out like Title IX due process in colleges. That's what they would want.

  • ||

    I would expect it to turn out like Title IX due process in colleges. That's what they would want.

    I disagree. "Gun Culture" is one thing. However, there are a considerable number of people who don't own a gun and may've never legitimately laid hand on one and still believe in the 2A. An "I defend myself as I see fit culture" who even supports gun control, but not at the expense of due process.

    Not that I think the idea should move forward or that any implementation is certainly on solid footing as much as I see people say "15% of people own guns and 40% of the NRA thinks policy XYZ is acceptable so how does such a small minority make for such outsized regulation?" Completely ignoring the fact that 85% of people don't own guns and 40-60% of them oppose any given policy.

  • shawn_dude||

    The current polls are like 97% in favor of limiting access to assault rifles. And yet Congress refuses to debate it. So I don't think it matters what percentage of the voters want something; it matters what the people who donate cash to politicians want.

    Also, "due process" does not preclude a temporary restraining order. You can temporarily lose rights or freedoms as part of the due process itself. Just convince a judge that you have a significant chance of winning the case and you can preemptively and temporarily restrain someone pending the final result. This makes sense given that some remedies might disappear as a consequence of the time required to litigate. (IOW: the "bad guy" can get away with it before the court can conclude he's the bad guy.)

  • ||

    You've got your stats mixed up or cherry picked. 97% favor background checks which, since we already have them, isn't unusual. My newsfeeds has assault weapons ban at 50%. After Sandy Hook, support for assault weapons bans rose to somewhere like 67% among the general populace. And, sorta again, given that a good chunk of that 67% conflates 'assault' with 'fully automatic' until advocates point out that 'fully automatic' is already illegal and current firing rates don't significantly exceed proficient users from more than a century ago, hardly.

    Moreover or even more importantly, my loose interpretation of all these polls, the first question is between "What political affiliation are you?" and "With regard to school shootings, what political affiliation are you?" followed by any sort of "Do you support an assault weapons ban?" Leaving the "I don't answer these questions to complete strangers and/or in polite company." demographic largely underrepresented.

    Also, WRT "convince a judge" this is the situation specifically intended to be (a)voided, if it can be. It makes the state, rather than your witnesses and peers the victim and renders you unable to effectively defend yourself against your accuser(s). The fact that a trial and due process would quickly degenerate into DA's issuing 'No Knock' raids to pick up legal gun owners is the main reason why I don't think a more due process would be very effective for very long.

  • Consigliere of the Dark Ones||

    After Sandy Hook, support for assault weapons bans rose to somewhere like 67% among the general populace.

    Reason ran a survey that asked the question "In just a few words, how would you describe an assault weapon?". The answers are illuminating.

  • silver.||

    Holy shit. These are fantastic.

    MACHINE GUNS A GUN WHERE YOU CAN PUT IN A MILLION BULLETS

    The lack of clarity on the definition of an "assault weapon" is nothing new to most of us because it's a completely arbitrary phrase. The linked survey has been enlightening to some of my anti-gun buddies; it demonstrates the dearth of knowledge about firearms among the general population. It's sad that productive gun control debates can't occur because misinformation is the norm.

    This old video from a California firearms instructor outlines the concept that "assault weapons" are merely aesthetically scary. It's outdated, so I would rather see an AR clone than an AK clone because AKs still have wood, and ARs are the current demonized weapon. Most laymen think that an AR15 is identical to a service rifle, fully automatic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shawn, you are full of shit on that poll.

    Doesn't matter anyways. Only repealing the 2nd Amendment for limiting access to rifles and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    WHAT THE FUCK IS AN "ASSAULT RIFLE"???

    Answer that one for me, you progtard, and maybe we can have a conversation.

    As long as one fucktard politician wants to take my "shoulder thing that goes up" in the name of gun control, I give no quarter.

  • mpercy||

    Pew Research:

    Three-in-ten American adults say they currently own a gun, and another 11% say they don't personally own a gun but live with someone who does. Among those who don't currently own a gun, about half say they could see themselves owning one in the future.

    Gun ownership is more common among men than women, and white men are particularly likely to be gun owners. Among those who live in rural areas, 46% say they are gun owners, compared with 28% of those who live in the suburbs and 19% in urban areas. There are also significant differences across parties, with Republican and Republican-leaning independents more than twice as likely as Democrats and those who lean Democratic to say they own a gun (44% vs. 20%)

    Regionally, Northeasterners stand out as the least likely to own guns: 16% of adults who live in the Northeast say they own a gun, about half the share who say this in the South (36%), Midwest (32%) and West (31%).

  • shawn_dude||

    This is not a serious argument, is it?

    Guy with ax is just like a guy with an AR-15 and high round clip of ammo? If a guy with an ax attacked kids at the high school, how many do you think would have died? Maybe one, if he snuck up on them and they were the first victim.

    Imagine the guy with the ax trying to hack through a classroom door before cops could arrive with their own guns. Do you think he'd chop through fast enough to have a chance at swinging at a student?

    If you can't imagine how an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is different than an ax and how that affects the balance of power between the intended victim and murderer, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think you can be convinced of anything.

  • ||

    Imagine the guy with the ax trying to hack through a classroom door before cops could arrive with their own guns. Do you think he'd chop through fast enough to have a chance at swinging at a student?

    Do you think a .223 is going to be loads more effective? If the goal is to get through the door, I'd choose a halligan or entry bar before a/the axe (assuming a relatively conventional felling axe as opposed to a maul) and a/the axe before 30-60 rounds of .223. I could probably get through the door with the 30-60 rounds, but I'm dubious as to my ability to effectively kill someone or at least lots of people with the gun once I've breached it. It's pretty firmly established that a contributor to this shooter's efficacy was that he pulled the fire alarm so that everyone flooded from behind doors and into hallways.

    I you think a/the specific weapon is anything relative to the element of surprise *and* deliberate planning action, you aren't doing personal or private defense right.

  • silver.||

    I was going to be the pedant and note how hard it'd be to breach a door with .223, but I got distracted.

    If the propane bomb that the Columbine shooters had placed in the woods (which did go off) and the one(s) they'd placed in the commons (which, along with all of the ones inside the school, failed) had been swapped, 100s would have died. Harris' journal indicates that he was going for a cool 500 deaths with the explosions in the common area.

    Similarly, the Tech shooter locked the exit doors with chains. Various methods could be used to inhibit escape and add time for more casualties. Guns are certainly optimized killing tools, but the methods of a motivated terrorist are diverse. Limiting access to any of those tools is a flawed solution.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    A "high round clip"? You really don't know a damned thing about guns, do you?

  • Lester224||

    It's a risk reduction strategy to keep guns away from people with recent records of gun violence. There is no such thing as a risk elimination strategy when it comes to murder. Knives and axes are less deadly than guns. Murder by car is more difficult to execute than murder by gun especially if a person is inside a house or workplace. People with DUIs on their record aren't allowed to drive for certain periods of time in most states. That doesn't mean they can't drive illegally. Risk reduction not risk elimination. I don't understand the argument that risk reduction isn't worth while if risk elimination is not possible. That would be like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because people will murder anyway. Laws are something of a deterrent and risk reduction is better than nothing. Taking away driving privileges from recent DUI offenders reduces but doesn't eliminate risk of death from car accidents. Taking away guns from recent violent offenders reduces risk of them killing someone with a gun but doesn't eliminate it.

  • Chasman1965||

    Exactly.

  • Priscilla King||

    Right. In Alexandria in the 1990s a 15-year-old girl with Prozac Dementia, stopped in traffic, dragged another driver out of her car and literally stomped the driver (also a young woman) to death. It's not only "People taking certain drugs, which are often available by prescription though known to cause violent insanity in a minority of previously nonviolent patients, should not have access to guns." It's "People taking those certain drugs should be *closely supervised*, if allowed out of the hospital at all."

  • Devastator||

    What you're saying is pure speculation.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obviously the only way to guarantee success here is for a national gun registry. Baby steps.

  • shawn_dude||

    Or a bunch of state registries that federal police have access to. You know, like drivers licenses.

  • NYC2AZ||

    Because licensing gun owners would stop murder much like licensing drivers has stopped speeding, red light running, drunk driving, and automobile crashes.

  • Priscilla King||

    Exactly. More government bloat for little if any effect on public safety.

  • Ra's al Gore||

    I don't care about the 20 people this loon kills by ramming a truck into a crowd or the 5 or so he stabs to death; I just want the unilateral right to put him on a government list on just my say so. Due process harshes my buzz..

  • damikesc||

    I'd argue we should try enforcing the laws we have.

    Why have so many people who have been stopped for buying guns for others with almost none of them being prosecuted for the crime of doing so? Let's start with enforcing what we have before making new laws.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    How about repealing the laws that haven't had a demonstrable impact on violent crime?

  • damikesc||

    It'd be nice...but we'd need an actual sample to study and given that the authorities do not want to prosecute crimes in the first place like this, we have no evidence if they'd do any good.

    Would most of these laws help? No. I'd be surprised if they did at all.

  • silver.||

    *snort*

  • Rat on a train||

    Can we expand to non-violent crime?

  • silver.||

    Always! The one and only rule is that you must never decrease the scope of government powers!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah. Fed doesn't like funding gun violence research, so getting good data on what's effective or not in the US is very difficult. After all, the study might show that something worked, and we can't have that.

  • Priscilla King||

    Some studies show that gun violence decreases when the violence-prone have no way of knowing which potential victims may or may not be armed.

    As a tough old lady who hates noise and is in no hurry to buy the glasses that would allegedly improve my shooting scores, I don't like carrying a gun...but I do like that granny bashers, rapists, and evildoers generally do not *know* this.

    (Yes, I'm aware that there could have been some serious repercussions the day a much larger, younger man was literally cringing from the bulge of a cell phone in my pocket. However. There weren't.)

    In overarmed areas, as Andrei Codrescu once observed, people generally tend to be very polite.

  • Devastator||

    You're living in a dream world.

  • ||

    You can't throw somebody in jail simply for behaving erratically.

    Yes, "you" can. Literally. If they can't stay between the white an yellow lines, they can be stopped. If, subsequently, they can't walk a straight line, they can be jailed/detained for up to 48 hrs. without cause.

  • John||

    You can throw them in jail for making threats. If someone threatens to murder someone, that is a crime. All it takes is a reasonable apprehension that they are serious.

  • ||

    I also don't think it takes that much to seriously deter many of these people. They don't generally appear to be long-term thinkers like other serial killers. I could see how 48 hrs. in a holding cell would be enough to either put the fear of the law into them and/or drive them off to other pastures.

    Certainly an arrest for threatening to shoot up a school and a subsequent arrest for actually shooting up a school, or just a gas station, would/could invoke some manner of deterring penalty.

  • Priscilla King||

    Absolutely. And if they're making threats and also using drugs that may lower inhibitions and/or boost energy, I'd say the apprehension that they're serious is pretty reasonable.

  • shawn_dude||

    An apparent DUI is "cause." You can take drunk people off the road and jail them.

  • ||

    You don't have to be drunk. Driving erratically or otherwise impaired driving is sufficient.

    More generally, the notion of '3 felonies' means, in today's society "you" *can* throw someone in jail for literally no reason. The gun control people are 10,000% missing the notion that local *and* federal law enforcement passed the buck and sat on their hands until this kid did something.

    I don't like the "3 felonies" society but it exists. If it's going to exist, it should at least serve *this* purpose.

  • Devastator||

    Is someone is proven a danger to himself or someone else they clearly can be jailed and put under observation.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "things that (a) are constitutional, (b) would be effective, and (c) both sides can agree on."

    Unfortunately, this describes an empty set. In fact arguably, b alone is an empty set.

  • ace_m82||

    Not to mention that literally none of them matter.

    Assuming something could be a, b, and c, that doesn't imply that it's moral to do. In fact, c alone almost completely disproves morality!

  • wxman40||

    Pretty much

  • Brian||

    Confiscating weapons from "warning sign" people?

    Sounds like a great new gig for SWAT.

  • tgrondo||

    Yeah, those swat team guys are soooo careful....just ask Andrew Finch in Wichita....

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, if government decided to implement an unconstitutional policy of gun confiscation SWAT would need to be super careful getting thru a minefield surrounding my yard while I open up on them with all the arms protected by the 2nd Amendment.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... even if you assume that they're going to come for your guns, why would they choose to go through your minefield?

    Even if your mines are perfectly hidden, once the first one goes off they'll all back off. And if you're firing on them at the same time, then they're just going to hunker down and siege it out.

    Either you'll run out of ammo, run out of water, or get fire-bombed.

    Your weird revenge-for-things-not-actually-done scenario seems a little, well, unrealistic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SWAT guys come in in small groups of 5-10 guys so close that one mine would wipe out a whole team.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, maybe. But the smart ones come in at least two groups, the one at the front and the one at the back. Technically three groups, because the overall commander is laying back with a rifle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your weird comments when you don't know how to defend yourself against police and military forces seems a little, well, unrealistic.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Dude, take some constructive criticism. You need a bigger stockpile of food and water and a basement or bunker that'll survive a the rest of the house going up in flames. Preferably with a secret escape tunnel.

  • Consigliere of the Dark Ones||

    I found this weird thing in my neighbor's yard... what is it?

  • AlmightyJB||

    If they are going to do something like that there needs to be a clear threat and the orders should expire in 30 days during which time the police can gather evidence for an arrest and/or a mental health evaluation can determine if that person is a serious danger to others. The evaluation should be appealable. They should only be issued if there is actual evidence of a threat.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm not a fan of NICS but since were stuck with it, if you're threatning to shoot up a school I'm not to worried about a 30 day delay. If your life is in danger to the point you need a gun than don't threaten to mass murder children beforehand. It's not that hard. As mentioned, it will be abused though.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm sure next will be the MSM declaring all Republicans mentally ill as they've done in the past, and demanding they be put on a list.

  • Mauser||

    What I find amazing is how many so called libertarians are for restricting the 2nd amendment - that is shitty. The right to bear arms is a natural right preceding any fucking government.

  • wxman40||

    How many libertarians even know that the entire Bill of Rights was written from a natural rights framework?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Founders were doing something unprecedented, so there was not much to work from. Natural rights, Magna Carta, Common Law, Articles of Confederation, 13 state constitutions, and the idea of federalism-Liberty-free trade-limited government.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    It was also largely written by slaveholders, so forgive me for not bowing and scraping to whatever thought soup was going on inside their heads.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Mass shootings are rare (statistically)....no gun control proposals will meaningfully reduce the possibility of a someone taking a conventional weapon, with conventional magazines, and finding a way to exploit a soft target. If we are lucky to have an armed and well trained individual near by then the death toll can be limited. Banning bump stocks could slow down a shooter, updating databases can prevent someone who is denied a weapon from getting that weapon, and requiring background checks for private gun sales could keep guns from felons. We still have to trust government bureaucrats to do their job....when they typically don't do it well. We need harsh penalties for illegal use or possession of guns.....some seem to want to excuse people for making really bad choices. Our society does not agree on what the 2A means....the Court has given us Miller, Heller, and McDonald. I think we should stick to arguing about policies instead of philosophical questions where no one can win. My 2 cents.

  • Mauser||

    What the left & the dumbocrats fail to realize is there are two gun cultures in America. One that is made up of law abiding citizens who hunt and / or collect firearms because they firmly believe in the second amendment and that it upholds liberty.
    The second culture is where most gun violence occurs and that is your gangs who inhabit the slums of the major cities. Country boy Billy from Missouri is going to have little in common with Tyrone from South Central LA.

  • drugwarisevil||

    Why are these shootings happening at just government schools? Why not at private schools or shopping centers, big box stores, restaurants? Why just government schools? Could it be that forcing children (or people generally) to be around others that they don't like or that don't like them could be part of the problem? Yes the student was expelled, but obviously too late. What if the children could choose? What if they could attend schools that they choose or to skip school and work at a job instead? Maybe that might make a difference.

  • Mauser||

    Very good question, I think you're on to something.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Why are these shootings happening at just government schools?
    Because they aren't?

    Of the 20 deadliest mass shootings in America since 1950, three are on college campuses (Virginia Tech, Universty of Texas, Umpqua Community College) and three were in K-12 public schools (Sandy Hook, Stonemand Doughlas, Columbine). Of the rest, we have a concert, a movie theater, two in restaurants, two military bases, and a whole mess that weren't location-specific.

  • Priscilla King||

    Excellent point, EscherEnigma. If we consider the phenomenon of homicide-suicide where people feel a need to kill a lot of other people before killing themselves, and not only shootings, we see that it's NOT only schools. In the 1990s another slang name for this phenomenon (before "Prozac Dementia") was "going postal" because a couple of U.S. Post Office workers did it. Then around 2000 when a lot of new mothers were trying antidepressants for postpartum depression, there was an outbreak of "Killer Moms." Several cases have involved "road rage" and motor vehicles, including buses loaded with passengers.

    And oh, by the way, one of Canada's very few cases...would Drugwarisevil classify McGill as a government school? I suppose it is, sort of...

  • Chasman1965||

    Private schools have been targeted in the past. Mainly it's public schools, because 90%+ of school children in the U.S. are in public schools. There was a murder suicide in an Episcopal school in Jacksonville in 2012.

  • wxman40||

    I literally see this becoming the most abused law in the federal and state law enforcement arsenal. Well other than asset forfeiture

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The protections mentioned in the Constitution usually are the most violated by government because the Founders were well aware of what happens when government becomes tyrannical.

    Asset forfeiture is property that taken for public use needs just compensation $1000 for $1000 taken.

    Government cannot decide that certain arms need banning because then there is no 2nd Amendment protections.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    Hinkle, I generally like your writing (guitar playing OTOH...) but this is BULLSHIT. LEOs in California already used the restraining order database (anyone can request a restraining order on anyone) cross-referenced with a gun buyer wait list to justify a knock, search and confiscate method.

    FYI - OJ & Fat Teddy didn't need a gun

  • jfxgillis||

    God you people are incorrigible.

  • silver.||

    Elaborate, please

  • L.G. Balzac||

    What do they call those things that drive nails into stuff with an air compressor?

  • mondo_cane||

    " liberals also recoiled against many policies of the Bush administration, such as warrantless wiretapping and suspending the habeas corpus rights of alleged enemy combatants, imposed in the name of saving lives."

    Liberals were not the only people to "recoil" against many policies of the Bush administration. I'm a conservative libertarian. I also recoiled against many policies of the Bush administration such as those above set out in quotes.

    For any American who believes in liberty and the Constitution, Bush's was a disastrous presidency.

    For those who don't believe in liberty and the Constitution, why are you living here?

  • DrZ||

    I don't know about banning guns, but I am all for a ban of lawn darts. Those darn things are really dangerous.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Es Gibt Nicht.

  • Mauser||

    Was meinst?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "Searching for Gun Violence Solutions That Don't Collectivize Punishment"

    Such a thing does not exist.

  • ranrod||

    Cruz's disturbing social media posts (hidden from the public by the police state) as they then control the narrative!
    Are Gun Violence Restraining Orders Consistent With Due Process?
    Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."
    The Brady Campaign(gun grabbers) to Prevent Gun Violence argues that if Florida had a GVRO law, it could have thwarted Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter. National Review's David French urges conservatives to consider supporting GVROs, which he argues can protect public safety while respecting the Second Amendment. These claims seem highly dubious to me.
    Legislators seeking to prevent mass shootings have an incentive to make the criteria for GVROs as weak as possible.

  • ranrod||

    Even if David French gets to write the law, there is much potential for abuse by malicious or mistaken petitioners, abetted by judges who will be inclined to err on the side of what they believe to be caution by revoking the Second Amendment rights of possibly dangerous people. And whatever the standard of proof, it relates not to the actual commission of a crime that has already occurred but to the possibility that the respondent might commit a crime (or commit suicide) in the future.

    Under these laws, people can lose the constitutional right to armed self-defense if a judge thinks they probably pose a "significant danger" to themselves or others. Conjoining those probabilities means the vast majority of people covered by these orders would never have used a gun to harm anyone.
    http://reason.com/blog/2018/02.....rders-cons

  • Cloudbuster||

    So instead of collectivizing punishment, we can ... punish people who haven't done anything wrong yet. That's a fantastic alternative.

  • Mauser||

    Comrade, for the people's safety we must implement these measures to ensure the Kulaks are dealt with properly.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Why are you pretending that Trump has a soul?

  • Alex the wolf||

    "The perpetrators of the shootings in San Bernardino and Las Vegas did not telegraph their intentions. But most mass killers often display a clear set of similar warning signs: social isolation, depression, narcissism, resentment, a sudden fascination with firearms, and so on"

    And easy access to a semi auto.

    This is the end of the road for me, enough is enough. When facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?

    Semi autos need to go

  • silver.||

    Not sure if you're being facetious or not. What does "have to go" mean? Stop sales or confiscate? Maybe 90% (WAG) of firearms are semi-auto. That pretty much leaves single-shots, bolt-action rifles, pump shotguns, and single-action-only revolvers. The number of semi-auto weapons is enormous, and a buyback program would easily enter the $100s of billions even when buying the weapons at 1/2 value. The issue with offering less money is that folks won't relinquish them, and after the confiscation those weapons can be sold on the black market for 2,3,4x their value. Which do you think people, especially criminals, will choose?

    Unlike what the media calls "high-powered assault weapons," many bolt-action rifles pack a serious punch. Firing buckshot into a crowd with a shotgun is plenty deadly, and if you've seen an old western movie, you know that SAO revolvers can be fired quickly. Most likely these assholes would just obtain an outlawed pistol through unscrupulous means.

  • Alex the wolf||

    I mean semi automatic rifles like the AR-15.
    Illegal or severely restricted everywhere else in the world, including countries with comparable standards of living like Australia and Britain. It should be legal for current owners to keep theirs but would encourage a buyback by paying a higher price and ban future sales and ammunition. This is consistent with the second amendment.

  • DaveSs||

    AR-15/10 can be easily modified to use virtually any caliber. Everything from .17HMR rimfire on up to the giant 50BMG (though for this one, its kinda silly)


    The usual 223/556 that AR15s use is also used in quite a few other firearms.
    The idea of banning ammunition for an AR-15...ya that just won't work.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Everywhere else in the world also has restrictive speech laws and no freedom from warrantless searches. I guess it's time for us to get with the program there too?

  • Priscilla King||

    Exactly. We the people of the United States need to be leading the Old World nations out of tyranny, not following them back into it.

  • mpercy||

    I have an AR-15 style gun chambered in .22LR. You're gonna ban .22LR? Really? Also have one chambered in .223, which is also a hugely popular caliber.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    90% sounds high. Most long guns are not semiauto for example.

  • DaveSs||

    Sum up the last 50 years, maybe not.

    The last 20 years though I'd say semi-auto is the dominant action for newly manufactured firearms.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    most mass killers often display a clear set of similar warning signs: social isolation, depression, narcissism, resentment, a sudden fascination with firearms, and so on

    Your Bayes is backwards. Most people who display those "signs" never become mass killers. Not to mention that depression, narcissism, and resentment are not things that "family members and LEOs" are likely to be able to determine, and "social isolation" and "fascination with firearms" are fairly subjective criteria.

  • Lester224||

    Finally someone who understands statistics. The highest correlation for people who kill with guns is people who own guns, not people who are mentally ill. And correlation is still not causation.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    GVROs are an idea I can endorse. But not before pointing out that the author is doing from the other side what gun control advocates are rightly criticized for—trying to distract with subject changes from the larger problem that must be solved. Like large-capacity magazine bans, GVROs aren't really a solution, just a prayerful aspiration—something that might help a bit, sometimes.

    The OP makes clear elsewhere what is at the root of the problem, saying, "The other advantage of GVROs, as French notes, is that they do not constitute "collective punishment."

    The vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. will never hurt anyone, so they naturally bristle at the idea that they should be forced to give up their rights because a minuscule percentage of others abuse those rights."

    No. It is not punishment to be forced to obey alike with others a Constitutional law. The OP's formulation is a question begging refusal to recognize that it is the extent of the right to self defense which is in controversy. If that controversy eventually gets decided against gun enthusiasts, they will not be punished for having to obey the decision, any more than Scalia's decision in Heller was a punishment for would-be gun controllers.

  • Myk||

    Anti-gunners would never abuse GVRO and turn people in because they have a gun so they must be crazy enough to use it. The idea may be sound but it's too easily abused.
    It's also pretty much there and failing everywhere with see something, say something, FBI ignores something.

  • MaleMatters||

    Stop thinking mass "shooters." See what I mean in:

    "Gun Control and Mass Killers"
    https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/
    2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-
    control-fails-against-mass-killers/

    Join the url and delete the spaces.

  • mpercy||

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    But 10,000 gun-control laws, fees for licenses, licenses at the whim of a bureaucrat fingerprinting, background checks, photo ID requirements, etc...

    But ask someone to produce a simple photo ID to vote, let alone prove their citizenship? Oh the humanity...

  • mpercy||

    When everyone was on the bandwagon for using no-fly list to ban firearms purchases...the no-fly list is inscrutible. No one knows who's on it, how they got on it, etc. until they are denied. I firmly beleive Hillary Clinton's calling the NRA terrorists was a first step toward marrying the concepts. First, get everyone to agree to use a secret list to prevent gun purchases, then declare all NRA members terrorists and add them to the list. Viola!

    It's virtually impossible to get your name taken off the list. Just ask "civil rights icon and longtime Rep. John Lewis revealed he, too, had been snarled by the watchlist dragnet. According to his office, the Georgia Democrat had over the course of a year been held up 35 to 40 times. Despite reaching out to a number of federal agencies over that period, Lewis' name had remained on a list. " [CNN]

  • Longtobefree||

    Wouldn't it be simpler and a lot more constitutional to just lock up anyone crazy enough for a judge to grant this kind of 'restraining order'? (Assuming you are talking about a judicial proceeding with lawyers and due process)
    Or are you talking about any 'official' just saying take the guns from the house no matter who owns them? I have seen proposals that would empower nearly anyone, including (Washington) 'dating partners' or a roommate from up to a year ago. No chance of abuse here. Because none of the existing places with this kind of nonsense is using beyond a reasonable doubt; they use reasonable cause (define that please) or substantial likelihood (what exactly is that?). And they do not take guns away from just the (supposed) nut job, but from everyone in the house.
    So a man with a million dollar collection of antique firearms, and a son in public school taking prescription drugs because the teacher says so, can lose it all if an ex says the kid is going to shoot up the place. I would say put the kid in an institution, But I am old and bitter. And more shockingly, openly carried multiple firearms on the Va Tech campus on a weekly basis. This was in the bad old sixties, and all members of the rifle and pistol club went out on Saturday and shot up a few thousand rounds of ammo. We had pistols on our hips and rifles over our shoulders, and no one got shot. Then some clown unconstitutionally banned firearms from the campus, and the students were gunned down.

  • Priscilla King||

    Where I live, family members use "restraining orders" to score points in family disputes. I had an eighty-something relative who'd paid a Deputy Sheriff to deliver a "no contact" order, one week, drive up to my house to complain that I hadn't called him for two weeks...16 days later.

    The first time someone pulled this stunt on me, the order did mention a ban on carrying firearms, so although I don't carry one I went to court to get the order cancelled. Apparently a lot of people did because now the orders merely ban people from calling or visiting the people who say they want "no contact" with a friend, relative, customer, and the police are fully aware that they're merely the only way some people can get the last word. The last time I received a "no contact" order, the officer who delivered it actually said, "Do you have a gun? There's no law against your carrying a gun, as long as you're not threatening X with it."

    (In this case, X was an employee who'd found out that I'd given her a bad rating...and my lawyer advised suing, but claimed a conflict of interest, and I'm still living with the shame and guilt of not having found a lawyer for whom there would have been no conflict of interest. It's actually fairly common for employees, even government employees, to take out "no contact" orders against people who they think may be adversely affecting their ratings.)

  • Priscilla King||

    Posting from about an hour's drive west of Virginia Tech...I heard that.

  • MikeyB||

    #1 All people who get a prescription for psychotropic drugs or antidespressants will have their purchase rights suspended indefinitely. A doctor can clear them and the doctors would be immune from liability. This could be done through the DOJ's prescription monitoring program.
    #2 All students who are suspended from school for most anything (TBD) will have their purchase rights suspended indefinitely. A doctor can clear them and the doctors would be immune from liability. Schools would NOT be immune from liability for failure to report.

    I don't think it too onerous to say that anybody who is mentally unstable (and both of these conditions indicate a problem) should have their ability to purchase suspended. And it's not too much of a barrier to let a doctor clear you as opposed to a judge.

  • اخبار مصر||

    #1 All people who get a prescription for psychotropic drugs or antidespressants will have their purchase rights suspended indefinitely. A doctor can clear them and the doctors would be immune from liability. This could be done through the DOJ's prescription monitoring program.
    #2 All students who are suspended from school for most anything (TBD) will have their purchase rights suspended indefinitely. A doctor can clear them and the doctors would be immune from liability. Schools would NOT be immune from liability for failure to report.

    I don't think it too onerous to say that anybody who is mentally unstable (and both of these conditions indicate a problem) should have their ability to purchase suspended. And it's not too much of a barrier to let a doctor clear you as opposed to a judge.

    http://www.besholaa.com/2018/0.....warie.html

    http://www.besholaa.com/2018/0.....ypsum.html

  • Reverend Draco||

    What's wrong with collectivized punishment?

    It's good enough for god. . . it's good enough for people.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online