El Paso, Thousand Oaks, Pittsburgh, and the mass shooting in Midland-Odessa last week. These are just some of the places where there have been mass shootings in the past year. It seems like a never-ending nightmare, especially by those who are victims of such tragedies. Mass shootings are sadly not anything new, but the response to mass shootings is getting more intense. Recent rhetoric has surrounded white nationalism and mental health. In addition to such rhetoric, there has been a policy alternative that has emerged: red flag laws.
A red flag law, also known as an extreme risk protection order, is a petition for a temporary order of removal of firearms from an individual who would be proven to be a danger to themselves or others. While this could be in response to gun suicides, red flag laws have primarily been in response to preventing further mass shootings, especially since 51 percent of mass shooters exhibit a warning sign of some sort.
One thing that red flag laws already have going for them is their popularity. A Washington Post poll from last year shows that 85 percent of Americans are in support of red flag laws. The argument for red flag laws is stronger than citizen support. One study shows that red flag laws to prevent suicides reduced suicide rates in Indiana and Connecticut by 7.5% and 13.7%, respectively (Kivisto and Phalen, 2018; also see Swanson et al., 2019). It is trickier to say whether they would help with preventing mass shootings because they are statistically rare occurrences. Even so, a study preliminarily suggests that an intervention as urgent and individualized as the red flag law could help reduce mass shootings (Wintemute et al., 2019).
Proponents of the Second Amendment are concerned that red flag laws would be used as a backdoor to eroding gun ownership. I share those concerns because I could see red flag laws being abused. At the same time, I also see the public safety concerns of those who support red flag laws. Similar to the positions of libertarian think-tank Cato Institute and the National Rifle Association (NRA), I would want red flag carefully written to include protections of Second Amendment and due process rights, as well as have a narrower definition of "dangerousness." The last thing we need is for the slippery slope to become a reality.
I also have reservations about red flag laws working even if they are implemented with such constitutional protections. One is the assumption that most or all dangerous individuals are reported in time to prevent such an act. The second concern is one I brought up after the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, which had been the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. The correlation between mental illness and mass shootings is low enough that it lacks a coherent risk-identification strategy. I would rather see improvement in mental health services than further stigmatization of those who require mental health services.
My bottom line is this: Red flag laws with the proper constitutional protections would be fine. However, don't expect it to perform miracles in preventing mass shootings.
No comments:
Post a Comment