John Malik
opinion

Red Flag Laws Need to Be Implemented

Red Flag Laws Need to Be Implemented
Believe
12
Over the last decade, the U.S. had 100 times more school shootings than any other country. There were 288 in the United States and only two in the next highest country, Canada.
fstop123, iStock / Getty Images Plus
A school shooting is defined as "any time a gun discharges a live round inside (or into) a school building, or on (or onto) a school campus or grounds, where “school” refers to elementary, middle, and high schools—K–12—as well as colleges and universities," according to the activist and research group Everytown, which started tracking school shootings after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. In 2018, the U.S. averaged one school shooting per week. As of 2018, the country has had hundreds of school-based shootings, which is 57 times as many shootings as Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the U.K. and 21 other countries - combined. Still, school shootings in elementary, middle, and high schools are not commonplace and only represent about one percent of all school gun violence incidents. But, school shootings are the cause for the majority of deaths from school gun violence. Within the first 45 days in 2018, there were 17 school shootings including the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida when 17 people were killed and 14 people hospitalized with life-altering injuries. Some of the deadliest mass shootings in the country have taken place in schools, like the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary Newtown, Connecticut which killed 26 people - most of whom were six year old children. According to CNBC: "The count for 2017 school shooting was 65, including seven through Feb. 14. The last year that neared 2018?s total for the first 45 days of the year was 2014, in which there were 15 school shootings midway through February. There were 58 total school shootings in 2014." No other country needs to keep statistics like this because of far stricter gun control laws.
7 believers
opinion
Clearly, the inaction by politicians has caused harm to our children Their failure to address the root causes of school gun violence is having lasting consequences for millions of American children.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire: March 24,2018: A young girl holds a sing saying “no guns” at the March for our Lives” rally. School shootings don’t just affect the victims. They affect everyone.. Arthur Villator / Shutterstock.com
7 believers
We're hurting our children without these laws in place. Their mental and emotional health is also at risk without red flag laws
It's important to remember that victims of these tragedies are not limited to the dead or physically injured. Children can't often verbalize the emotional trauma of surviving a shooting but it does affect them mentally and emotionally. In “Mitigating the Effects of Gun Violence on Children and Youth,” James Garbarino and his colleagues point out that “children exposed to gun violence may experience negative short and long-term psychological effects, including anger, withdrawal, post-traumatic stress, and desensitization to violence.” While we tend to focus on the mental state of the attacker, we don't talk enough about the mental state of the survivors in the days, months, and years following an attack. Most people with a mental health illness, even post-traumatic stress disorder, are not violent. What certainly isn't helping these children is the continued glorification of guns and gun ownership in American society, television shows, movies, and video games. Some of these children are likely being re-traumatized without being able to express it. According to the Child Welfare League of America, the effects of gun violence on children is "very real...children and youth exposed to chronic trauma can experience inhibited brain development, producing a lasting impact on life outcomes." There is an "emotional overload" from having dealt with violence and it can sometimes cause children to have unchecked aggression through no fault of their own.
1 believer
And it affects some more than others It can have a negative impact on future behavior.
Backpack and sign on ground at March for Life protest. Svineyard/Shutterstock
A 2002 study says that, "Certain children may be at higher risk for negative outcomes if they are exposed to gun violence. Groups at risk include children injured in gun violence, those who witness violent acts at close proximity, those exposed to high levels of violence in their communities or schools, and those exposed to violent media." More than 215,000 American students have been exposed to some sort of gun violence as a result of a slew of school shootings. This does not include the thousands who have come in contact with gun violence outside of school. Medical costs for pediatric gun-related injuries costs approximately $330 million a year, according to a study published in the Hospital Pediatrics journal. This does not include the cost of ongoing treatments for physical injuries or mental health treatments for psychological damage. According to Dr. Jean Kim of George Washington University medical school. “mass shootings are a first-line traumatic event that can potentially trigger post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)...Children, in particular, are even more vulnerable; multiple studies have shown that childhood trauma has more lifelong and pervasive effects on young developing psyches, both in terms of their psychological worldview, and their physiological systems that handle stress and anxiety." Gun violence can put children at risk of developing anxiety and a host of mood disorders as well, often signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. We're putting our children through a similar trauma which soldiers experience in battle.
1 believer
Unfortunately, these school shootings are predictable There are often emotional and behavioral warning signs of the attacker's plans.
Mike Focus/Shutterstock
4 believers
Attackers usually exhibit some indication of what they're about to do A Secret Service study showed there are clear predictive indicators.
Goir/ iStock / Getty Images Plus
The United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education studied targeted school violence incidents and found behavioral warning signs that caused others to be concerned in 93% of cases. The Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center studied 41 school attacks from 2008 to 2017 and found that none of the school shootings were impulsive acts and all of them could have likely been prevented. The study found most of the weapons students used came from their home, many of the shooters were absent from school in the days prior to the shooting because they were suspended due to bad behavior, the disgruntled students were often treated poorly and teased by classmates in person and online, and some of the students exhibit mental health disorders and/or were suicidal. More than 75% of the attacks were in response to some sort of incident between the shooter and another student. More than half the attacks also involved the shooter and a gripe with a school administrator, however. As the number of school shootings increases and the details of the shooters and their methods are made public, so too are the troubled students who want to emulate them. Contrary to what people might think, the majority of the attackers actually came from two-parent homes and the families sometimes had deep community ties. About half of the attackers were actually doing well in school, with less than 5% failing classes.
3 believers
In fact, people have prior knowledge of a shooter’s plans in the vast majority of cases Attackers are often clear about what they will be doing with family or friends.
Demonstrators in front of White House protest government's long-standing inaction on gun control, following deadly shooting in a south Florida high school with an AR-15.. bakdc / Shutterstock.com
The United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education studied targeted school violence incidents and found that in 81% of incidents, other people, most often the shooter’s peers, had some type of knowledge about the shooter’s plans. These incidents were not impulsive, but plans were often carried out after an incident with a classmate or school administrator. Most of these attacks were done alone but the attacker being bullied, being unable to deal with some failure or loss of a job, status, or relationship and the resulting withdrawal, anger, or depression were often clues to friends and family that something may be in the works. Other times out of the ordinary behavior could have been an indicator like one attacker asking his friends to help him get ammunition for one of his weapons, making modifications to their existing weapons to make it easier to conceal beneath their clothes, one attacker even shopped for a long trench coat with his mother and then cut the pockets out of the coat to make it easier to hold a weapon through the holes. In nearly two-thirds of the incidents, more than one person - usually a friend or sibling - had information about the attack before it happened or at least that something "bad" or "big" would occur. They knew the attacker had access to a cache of weapons at home or otherwise and had a dispute with students bullying them or a gripe with a teacher or administrator. Many even knew the date and time, often telling several other classmates about the plans as well. However, adults knew about the plans to attack in only two of the more than 40 incidents studied. Adults did sometimes know about the attackers' history and experience of weapons, which was often an indicator some sort of plan was in the works.
4 believers
One of the 8 points in the 'Everytown for Gun Safety' plan is to pass these laws. Red Flag laws are crucial as the country still grapples with Second Amendment issues
Protesters gather for a vigil outside of the NRA on the fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.. Nicole Glass Photography / Shutterstock.com
Everytown for Gun Safety developed an 8-point plan to protect children and communities from gun violence. That plan includes passing Red Flag laws. They consider them to be a critical intervention tool for preventing violent situations. According to the group: "These extreme risk protection orders, sometimes known as red flag orders or gun violence restraining orders, can be issued only after a specific legal determination is made that a person poses a serious threat to themselves or others. They also contain strong due process protections to ensure that a person’s rights are balanced with public safety. Once an order is issued, a person is required to relinquish any guns they have and is prohibited from buying new guns. This prohibition is temporary, generally lasting one year." When family or law enforcement are made aware that a student or another person is a risk to themselves or others, and that person has access to guns, they can go to a court and ask a judge for a civil restraining order. These Red Flag orders, commonly known as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), can only be issued after a specific legal determination is made that a person poses a threat to themself or others. Under federal law, people with serious mental illness are not prohibited from owning a gun unless they have been involuntarily, psychiatrically hospitalized or have a court disposition related to mental illness (e.g., not guilty by reason of insanity). ERPOs differ from existing federal and state law because they allow for preventive action in the absence of a civil disposition or criminal conviction.
3 believers
In fact, many supporters of the Second Amendment also advocate for these laws They are a proven tool, drafted with strong due process protections, and enjoy strong bipartisan support.
Louis.Roth / Shutterstock.com
6 believers
Fourteen states and many GOP senators support these laws The measures go beyond politics to keep the community safe.
Ronnie Chua/Shutterstock.com
4 believers
Connecticut was the first state to pass them. It helped keep many people safe from mass shootings.
Ron Frank / Shutterstock.com
In 1999, Connecticut became the first state to enact firearm seizure legislation following a mass shooting at the state lottery headquarters. Connecticut’s law requires an “independent investigation” by police if they believe that a person poses “a risk of imminent personal injury” to self or others, followed by a warrant request, with several formal checks on the judge’s ability to order the seizure and retention of firearms by law enforcement.
2 believers
Indiana was second. People in the state have been trying to close loopholes in the law as well.
March For Our Lives is a movement dedicated to student-led activism around ending gun violence and the epidemic of mass shootings in schools today. Los Angeles, CA.. Hayk_Shalunts / Shutterstock.com
In 2005, after the fatal shooting of a police officer in Indianapolis, Indiana enacted firearm seizure laws. Indiana’s law permits warrantless seizure of a person’s firearms if a police officer believes the person has a “mental illness” and is “dangerous,” defined as an imminent or future “risk of personal injury” to self or others. Indiana’s firearm seizure law was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides in the ten years following its enactment, larger than that seen in any comparison state by chance alone.
2 believers
And then other states followed suit. Protecting those who are in danger from themselves and keeping the community safe are universal priorities.
Students at Tucson High Magnet School conduct a student walkout as part of the national #ENOUGH! walkout day.. Jeffrey J Snyder / Shutterstock.com
Four additional states (California, Washington, Oregon, and Florida) have recently passed "extreme risk protection orders." Although the specifics of each piece of legislation vary, all of these laws allow risk-based firearm seizures that are time-limited, with a level of judicial oversight and due process, and that apply to persons who are not already prohibited from owning guns. To date, 19 other states have proposed such legislation, and federal policies are being considered. Even Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in his opening remarks at the full Committee meeting, said he supports these laws and sought to downplay fears of second amendment infringement. "There are a lot of people [who] may be worried, 'Is the government going to come take your guns?' And the answer is, 'No,' " Graham said, hinting that one day he hopes there could be a federal process for law enforcement or family members to be able to petition a court signaling someone is "about to blow." Part of the reason for the reversal in political position is that public opinion has shifted. The New York Times reported that "a third of Americans reported that fear of a mass shooting stops them from going to certain public places, according to a survey by the American Psychological Association. Sixty percent say they’re worried about a mass shooting in their community." Lieutenant Governor of Texas Dan Patrick, who was a vocal advocate for protecting people's right to bear arms, actually proposed expanding the state's background checks in 2019 after the shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas. Part of the reason is also still political - fear of more strict restrictions if Republicans don't do anything in the near future if Democrats gain control of Congress and there is another unfortunate massacre.
2 believers
Trump supports their passage. Despite being committed to protecting the Second Amendment, the president changed his mind on red flag laws after a series of school shootings
Russ Vance / Shutterstock.com
The Federal Commission on School Safety, which was convened by President Trump following the shootings at Parkland and Santa Fe, recently endorsed Red Flag laws as an effective tool to prevent school gun violence. He has called on states to adopt “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) laws that protect the due process rights of law-abiding citizens. ERPOs allow law enforcement, with approval from a court, to remove firearms from individuals who are a demonstrated threat to themselves or others and temporarily to prevent individuals from purchasing new firearms. President Trump supports improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the STOP School Violence Act, which provides for State-based grants to implement evidence-based violence prevention programs. The Administration requests that Congress provide funding in 2018 to jump start implementation of this evidence-based program in middle and high schools nationwide. Trump should, however, also lobby Republican governors known for doing nothing about gun control in their states to issue these ERPO laws with no loopholes allowing people to purchase firearms across state lines, a black hole of information as funding to improve NICS is still on hold.
2 believers
Even the NRA supports Red Flag laws as long as they are restricted The powerful lobbying organization recognizes their right to bear arms could be further limited without addressing red flag issues
80schild/Shutterstock.com
"We need to stop dangerous people before they act," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action said. "So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders," he said in a somewhat shocking support of at least a small restriction on gun ownership by those who are seen as threats to the community in which they live. The NRA's support for red flag laws comes with the condition that there be high legal thresholds for temporary gun removals — higher than most gun control activists call for. But gun control groups have assumed the NRA strictly opposes such laws, which is not true. The NRA should be using its immense lobbying power in Congress to push states to do this as well and funding to improve national databases on gun ownership. However, this is no altruistic support. It's based on a fear that if ERPO laws are not supported, real gun control reform could happen, further restricting gun ownership, particularly in households with children.
1 believer
Mike Bloomberg is also both a Second Amendment and Red Flag law supporter. He is an example of a politician who can toe the line between both.
rblfmr / Shutterstock.com
At the 00:30 mark of the video, Bloomberg confirms that he supports the right to bear arms but nonetheless believes in changing laws to red. Bloomberg's opinion is important in this instance because his thoughts on the matter mirror that of many Americans. They don't want to permanently change the Constitution, particularly an amendment part of the Bill of Rights. But, they don't want people who police deem a danger to their communities roaming about with the ability to purchase and own multiple firearms and deadly weapons. Many, like Bloomberg, feel that if you pass a background check, don't have a criminal record of violent offenses, and police have not deemed you a risk mentally or emotionally - then you should be able to own a firearm. Evidence has shown some of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history were not impulsive acts prompted by some emotional or traumatic event. They took careful and deliberate planning by people who were exhibiting some unchecked signs of mental illness.
1 believer
One of the 8 points in Everytown for Gun Safety’s plan is to pass these laws Red Flag laws are part of a comprehensive gun safety plan
Louis.Roth / Shutterstock.com
Everytown for Gun Safety developed an 8-point plan to protect children and communities from gun violence. That plan includes passing Red Flag laws. They consider them to be a critical intervention tool for preventing violent situations. The gun safety advocacy group sees "extreme risk," or red flag laws, as part of a comprehensive way to reduce or even end gun violence in America. It says "these laws create a legal process by which law enforcement, family members, and, in some states, educators can petition a court to prevent a person from having access to firearms when there is evidence that they are at serious risk of harming themselves or others. Extreme Risk laws are a critical intervention tool that can be used to prevent violent situations." When family or law enforcement are made aware that a student or another person is a risk to themselves or others, and that person has access to guns, they can go to a court and ask a judge for a civil restraining order. These Red Flag orders, commonly known as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), can only be issued after a specific legal determination is made that a person poses a threat to themselves or others. Under federal law, people with serious mental illness are not prohibited from owning a gun unless they have been involuntarily, psychiatrically hospitalized or have a court disposition related to mental illness (e.g., not guilty by reason of insanity). ERPOs differ from existing federal and state law because they allow for preventive action in the absence of a civil disposition or criminal conviction. Of course, this is just part of the puzzle for Everytown. The group also advocates for stricter controls on automatic weapons and transport of weapons between states, among other things.
3 believers
opinion
Red Flag laws are powerful because they are preventative There's evidence they've prevented acts of violence in Maryland and Florida.
Karen Roach/Shutterstock.com
3 believers
opinion
Red Flag Laws help people who pose a threat to themselves and others They often need help and these laws can provide a community safety net.
Jiri Hera/Shutterstock.com
Red flag laws have been passed in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The nonpartisan Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis studied more than 20 cases in which California’s red-flag law was used in an effort to prevent a mass shooting by taking away firearms from individuals who presented a threat to themselves and others. The law was invoked in a total of 414 cases in California from 2016 through 2018. No shootings resulted in those cases. Researchers said the study “suggests that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere,” according to a report from the Washington Post. They also said it isn't clear whether the attacks would have definitely taken place otherwise, but the evidence proves the red flag laws work at least somewhat. A 2018 study found gun-confiscation measures were associated with a 13.7% drop in the gun-suicide rate in Connecticut and a 7.5% reduction in Indiana.
1 believer
These laws are a way to act before threats are carried out There Have Been Many Cases of People Making Threats Toward Schools Involving Firearms
wk1003mike/Shutterstock.com
Red flag laws have been passed in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The nonpartisan Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis studied more than 20 cases in which California’s red-flag law was used in an effort to prevent a mass shooting by taking away firearms from individuals who presented a threat to themselves and others. The law was invoked in a total of 414 cases in California from 2016 through 2018. No shootings resulted in those cases. Researchers said the study “suggests that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere,” according to a report from the Washington Post. They also said it isn't clear whether the attacks would have definitely taken place otherwise, but the evidence proves the red flag laws work at least somewhat. A 2018 study found gun-confiscation measures were associated with a 13.7% drop in the gun-suicide rate in Connecticut and a 7.5% reduction in Indiana. In Maryland, Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin stated that during the first 3 months of the implementation of Red Flag laws, 5 instances involved schools and 4 of those included significant threats.
2 believers
People Who Make Alarming Threats Are Often Armed Red Flag laws can help identify them and keep everyone safe.
Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin of Maryland has stated that during the first 3 months of the implementation of Red Flag laws, firearms were seized in all 5 instances where significant threats were made against schools. Adam Lanza, the youth that killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, owned 7 firearms. Access to firearms, whether in the home or elsewhere, has been a noted warning sign for potential attackers as well according to a recent report from the U.S. Secret Service. Evidence has shown that most mass shootings are not impulsive acts, but planned meticulously. That involves procuring and owning firearms. Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire upon the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the Western Hemisphere. Paddock was staying at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and with the help of hotel staff brought in 22 suitcases over a number of days. All contained weapons and accessories he owned and stored in his home. If red flag laws and public education about the warning signs had been in place, police could have prevented people like Paddock and Lanza from acquiring weapons and planning their attacks. Both had suspicious behavior leading up to the attacks, as had several attackers according to friends and family interviewed for a study by the U.S. Secret Service, who have proven mass shootings are planned and threats are often made once the person has obtained the firearms they want.
2 believers
Taking the simple step of implementing Red Flag laws should reduce the number of school shootings in America for the next decade.
Editor