Hi, Ben, very interesting read. Here's another perspective: I have read that there are 20 million assault rifles in this country. I don't know how many people there are with mental illness but it seems to be enough to make headlines, more than we are capable of intervening. So, unless we do something about this combination, it is virtually certain that we will have more mass shootings - that's not an unk-unk. 1) We can try harder to intervene and maybe get better at it. 2) There is a 2nd Amendment right to possess guns. But in the interest of the safety of the population as a whole, are we safer to allow possession of assault rifles or not?
Ernie — At the macro level, with the numbers you cite, I would think it’s almost inevitable that mass shootings will continue to afflict us. A version of the law of large numbers. The piece I’m looking at is down to an individual. Even with red flag laws, when would an intervention have stopped something that would have happened— or wouldn’t have occurred anyway? Your question about are we safer to allow possession of assault rifles? Of course not.
Very interesting this week. We can always speculate endlessly on what might have been. And one of the differences in our system of justice and that of some totalitarian states is there has to be provable actions in most cases to charge. Obviously this has both pluses and minuses. We do need the dog to bark in most instances.
Nicely written. Minor correction, 4 airplanes on 9/11. Two at the WTC, one at the Pentagon and one in the field in Pennsylvania. Occasionally I read about the FBI or other law enforcement folks thwarting a mass attack. As most others agree the wide spread possession of assault weapons is insane. There are numerous examples in other countries where these weapons are banned and murders dropped significantly.
As an analogue to your observations, we might borrow a concept from public health known as the precautionary principle. Loosely defined, it stands for the proposition that policymakers should opt for caution before taking action when a human health hazard is at risk. In the context of access to assault rifles, we should take seriously the kinds of threats represented in the Vermont and similar cases. Exercising the precautionary principle in such cases would implicate First Amendment concerns, but a public health approach could prevent at least some mass shootings. Another intervention would be to indict those who facilitate access to assault weapons knowing that the individual is mentally unstable. Just today, the father of an Illinois man who shot up a July 4th parade pleased guilty to a misdemeanor charge for facilitating access for his son’s gun license.
Hi, Ben, very interesting read. Here's another perspective: I have read that there are 20 million assault rifles in this country. I don't know how many people there are with mental illness but it seems to be enough to make headlines, more than we are capable of intervening. So, unless we do something about this combination, it is virtually certain that we will have more mass shootings - that's not an unk-unk. 1) We can try harder to intervene and maybe get better at it. 2) There is a 2nd Amendment right to possess guns. But in the interest of the safety of the population as a whole, are we safer to allow possession of assault rifles or not?
Ernie — At the macro level, with the numbers you cite, I would think it’s almost inevitable that mass shootings will continue to afflict us. A version of the law of large numbers. The piece I’m looking at is down to an individual. Even with red flag laws, when would an intervention have stopped something that would have happened— or wouldn’t have occurred anyway? Your question about are we safer to allow possession of assault rifles? Of course not.
Very interesting this week. We can always speculate endlessly on what might have been. And one of the differences in our system of justice and that of some totalitarian states is there has to be provable actions in most cases to charge. Obviously this has both pluses and minuses. We do need the dog to bark in most instances.
Ben,
Nicely written. Minor correction, 4 airplanes on 9/11. Two at the WTC, one at the Pentagon and one in the field in Pennsylvania. Occasionally I read about the FBI or other law enforcement folks thwarting a mass attack. As most others agree the wide spread possession of assault weapons is insane. There are numerous examples in other countries where these weapons are banned and murders dropped significantly.
Hi,
As an analogue to your observations, we might borrow a concept from public health known as the precautionary principle. Loosely defined, it stands for the proposition that policymakers should opt for caution before taking action when a human health hazard is at risk. In the context of access to assault rifles, we should take seriously the kinds of threats represented in the Vermont and similar cases. Exercising the precautionary principle in such cases would implicate First Amendment concerns, but a public health approach could prevent at least some mass shootings. Another intervention would be to indict those who facilitate access to assault weapons knowing that the individual is mentally unstable. Just today, the father of an Illinois man who shot up a July 4th parade pleased guilty to a misdemeanor charge for facilitating access for his son’s gun license.