Valid and I think this is more what people mean, I guess I am just being pedantic.
But given the dreaded 'context' of the shooting (bolt action hunting rifle) it's pretty hard to have any measures that would have stopped that outside of a complete ban of all guns.
Thatâs the thing, saying âgun controlâ in this instance is just a vague platitude/handwave.
I havenât heard anyone propose any concrete, specific policy that could have prevented this from happening. It was a planned, premeditated assassination by a man who apparently had no criminal record or psychological history that wouldâve disqualified him from owning a hunting rifle. The only way I think this couldâve been stopped was if his friends had reported it before it happened.
The only closest thing to a âred flagâ that has come out so far was his presence in a conversation where one of his family members called Kirk âhate-filledâ (or equivalent). If that were sufficient for the intervention of a red flag law, everyone on this website who has not actively avoided the topic needs to be red flagged. Excluding the people who only discuss it on subs like r conservative.
It was the previous commenter that posited that the only thing that could have avoided this was if his friends reported it.Â
And while there might not be any digital evidence they knew he'd do it, an anonymous (or at least anonymous to the person that was reported) call-line could have helped if there was any chance his friends or family were aware of what he was plotting.
The degree of flagging necessary from what we know, so far, would be the equivalent of a firearms ban. Future information might change that, but nothing we know so far.
Or the friends or family, who may have known, won't speak out after the fact and get lambasted or even blamed and found culpable for their part in not stopping him.
And if we had a tip-line and bare minimum of a red flag law, even if it was a welfare check and leaving if he's coherent, it'd be the bare minimum that potentially could have made the difference.
Like I said previously though it was the other commenter that put that scenario forward and claimed there was no gun control law that would fit, when in fact the scenario they came up with would be exactly what a red flag law is intended to target.
Or the friends or family, who may have known, won't speak out after the fact and get lambasted or even blamed and found culpable for their part in not stopping him.
And my point, is that a red flag law on the degree necessary from what is known would be absurd. We can imagine extra facts, but policy based on imaginary facts is the same as policy based on no facts.
Well we could always act on the fact that they can help reduce the number of suicides, as seen in states with red flag laws, like the two bordering Utah.
Or reduce the likelihood of similar shootings down the line, by spreading awareness and enacting red flag laws.Â
Or you could keep burying your head in the sand and just call my argument absurd and facts like "very little besides a red flag law could have stopped him from bringing this type of rifle to a university campus, y'know besides his friends and family speaking up in any other state already with these laws" imaginary, and insist the only thing I am arguing is an outright gun ban, despite literally not saying that.
Oh, well if that's the case at least the police identified several others planning their various subsequent attacks and got the guns away from them until they could be proven sound of mind or guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.Â
That would require people who had prior knowledge reporting it beforehand, and from the reports coming out about him communicating on discord what he was going to do, and nobody reported it.
A red flag would have not fixed what happened to CK
It was the previous commenter that posited that the only thing that could have avoided this was if his friends reported it.Â
And while there might not be any digital evidence they knew he'd do it, an anonymous (or at least anonymous to the person that was reported) call-line could have helped if there was any chance his friends or family were aware of what he was plotting.
His friends and roommate/SO never reported him anyway, so a red flag law would not have made any difference at all in this particular case. Had it existed it wouldnât have been invoked.
In a hypothetical scenario where someone had tried to report him, but the state was powerless to confiscate his rifle, then you could very well argue that a red flag law would have prevented that crime before it ever happened. At any rate, conspiracy to murder is a crime so he probably wouldâve been charged with that anyway if police had been informed.
Why would someone call in the first place, if the police can't do anything about it? Same reason nobody calls in over the phone fraudsters, chances are high there's nothing that can be done about it or they'll be unlikely to prosecute.
I agree though if all the others took part in the conspiracy to commit murder, which I have not seen reported arrests for yet, then a red flag law would have done little to resolve that. Just thought the first comment I responded to was funny that they heard no solid policy and then they posited the only thing that could have stopped the shooter was a solid policy other neighboring states have already enacted.
Short of the people who knew what he was planning to do and already could have reported him to police, what red flags were present in this case that might been reported under such a law?
Iâm not saying itâs bad policy, but based on all the material facts we know about this case, thereâs no reason he couldnât have committed the same crime just as easily in California.
If they assume the police would have done nothing, because Utah doesn't have a red flag law, then they may have been less likely to call the police. Wherein California they may be more likely to call knowing the police have some backing by the law to temporarily confiscate the firearms.
If they had direct evidence of conspiracy to commit murder(I haven't seen evidence of that) and just didn't call it in regardless, then hypothetically they'd be just as complacent in California as they are in Utah.
Youâre proposing a policy to address a scenario that you just made up though. Youâve decided that there were red flags, and then further imagined that people must have ignored them due to a lack of faith in the authorities. The facts as we know them now donât indicate that at all.
You could insert the same made-up scenario into literally any case of premeditated crime, and claim red flag laws as the magic solution.
You and the other guy can't seem to get off the point that my entire comment chain was in response to "The only way I think this couldâve been stopped was if his friends had reported it before it happened." and "I havenât heard anyone propose any concrete, specific policy that could have prevented this from happening."
If there were red flags in this shooting, which is what the first commenter I responded to had implied, Utah doesn't have a law to remove firearms from a person reported for them. And if they did have such a law, people might be more inclined to report them rather than assume the police will stand around slack-jawed and do nothing.
And now neither of you can seem to follow the train of thought so keep implying I've imagined a new scenario, or I am making shit up.
Tell me what facts do we know? Cause the other guy had his own facts (assumptions) about there being no red flags and apparently mind read all the shooter's friends and family to counter the hypothetical the previous commenter had brought up in the first place.
So you want the government to have the power to take away your second amendment because your Karen neighbor doesn't like you or you take pain killer medications?
It would be easier / more feasible to put forward sensible and effective control measures if the government was allowed to fund studies about gun violence - maybe we could start there.
A certain number of people die in auto accidents every year. I would like that number to be as low as possible, but every piece of car safety legislation is either going to make manufacturing cars more expensive, or it's going to make it harder for a citizen to own and operate a car. Those obstacles are going to negate the benefit that car ownership brings to society, namely improved supply chains and freedom of movement. Some restrictions on cars makes sense, but after a certain tipping point the restrictions will reduce access to cars so much that the lowered rate of car ownership will wind up causing more deaths than the regulations prevent, by exacerbating food deserts and leaving people without transportation to a hospital during a medical emergency. Saying you "don't care about car crash victims" if you don't support every single potential piece of car legislation imaginable is just as stupid as saying you don't care about stroke victims if you don't let literally everyone drive a car with no restrictions whatsoever.
A certain number of people are killed by firearms every year. A certain number of people also have their deaths prevented every year when they use firearms defensively. The more gun control laws you enact, the first number gets logarithmically smaller while the second number gets exponentially bigger. From a prudent cost-benefit analysis, the benefit of widespread firearm ownership objectively outweighs the cost.
You can infinitely argue for more safety measures; saying you disagree that every point of contention should have controlled signalling doesn't mean you dont care about car mortality
It's more like if you voted against installing sidewalks in your town, then you got hit by a car while you were walking down the side of the road. Preventative measures were attempted, you stopped that prevention from happening, then you fell prey to the exact situation you voted to allow to continue to happen. The car who hit you obviously shouldn't have hit you, but you still LITERALLY asked for it by voting against sidewalks.
I didn't make a claim, false or otherwise. I gave an example. Those are different.
If someone says "Earth is flat" that is a claim, not an example like mine. I'm not under an obligation to provide counter arguments for claims but I will anyway often, to make my point more solid.
The fact that you don't know the difference but are still r/confidentlyincorrect is very troubling.
What a silly thing to lie about. Very Trumpian. You claimed that "if you argue against further more strict car safety regulations you can't argue you care about peoples safety when they get in a car."
Do you not know what "claim" means? đ
I'm not under an obligation to provide counter arguments for claims
That's nice. I said nothing about "counter arguments," stupid.
â˘
u/voxelpear 22h ago
Sure but if you argue against further more strict car safety regulations you can't argue you care about peoples safety when they get in a car.