I Stand Corrected.

 

In my recent post, A Few Thoughts on "Common-sense Gun Reform" I voiced a criticism of so-called "red flag laws". In that post, I wrote "There's no evidence that such a law would have prevented the Uvalde shooter from buying a gun". However, I've come upon an article at Foxnews that says Salvador Ramos harassed users on the YUBO app before the Uvalde shooting.

According to the report:
Social media messages that have reportedly surfaced on the platform Yubo following a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, show the suspected killer made threats toward other users and was casually referred to as the "Yubo school shooter" before the shooting.
Salvador Ramos, 18, harassed people online on social media and made other threats before Tuesday's tragic shooting that left 19 children and two teachers dead, Sky News reported.

It would appear that users of the app were aware of Ramos' violent messages, although, of course the average user would not have known his true identity. Perhaps, if users had reported Ramos' messages to the app's administrators and had those administrators reported his online behavior to police, the tragedy might have been prevented.

A Few Thoughts on "Common-sense Gun Reform"

 

After the recent school massacre at a Uvalde, Texas Elementary school, the White House issued a statement that President Biden is not considering 'doing anything' to get rid of the Second Amendment. Biden simply wants "common-sense gun reform".

I've been hearing the call for common-sense gun reform for quite some time, without any real understanding of what the term actually means.

Putting the term into a search engine, I found a few proposals.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch
New York Congressman Joe Morelle
bradyunited.org
Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Although there are some differences in the proposals, all seem to agree on

1) "red flag laws"
2) expanded background checks
3) a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

I'm sure these "common-sense gun reforms" will prevent some of the mass shootings plaguing the United States.

The so-called "red flag laws" would work only in those situations where a potential gun owner has exhibited certain types of behavior. There's no evidence that such a law would have prevented the Uvalde shooter from buying a gun. The same would apply to the expanded background check proposal. In this case, the killer passed the required background check in Texas. He had not committed a felony before purchasing the weapons and ammo.

I can't see any problem with the 3rd proposal - the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I've no objection to people owning weapons to protect home and family, but does anyone really need an assault weapon? I know, some will claim that citizens in the U.S. need military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to guard against a rogue government, but does anyone believe they can withstand the full force of the U.S. military?

For its worth, IMHO, the first two proposals will prevent some, but not all mass killings. Proposal #3 seems reasonable to me.

UPDATE
Please check my post I Stand Corrected for further thoughts on "red flags".