Mental illness is also not a new thing in the last few decades. Again, it's a bit of both things.
I’m so happy you said that. I agree wholeheartedly. We used to lock them up from society and have doctors poke and prod them. While that probably wasn’t the best solution, handing them, EBT cards, free condos, cell phones, and Internet, and letting them roam the streets with access to everything sane citizens get is demonstrably worse.
I agree there has been a pendulum shift, and maybe it's gone too far.
Where I am going is that it seems like damn near every one of these types of shootings (specifically this, church/mall/school type shooting), after the fact we are left scratching our heads as to why this person has access to guns and why they aren't getting help. Most of these recent ones - here, Buffalo, etc.. have had advanced warnings and clear red flags but nothing was done and there are roadblocks to a solution.
It feels like we ALL can agree - this person was in crisis, needed help, and shouldn't have had guns. Great, now what? Should he have been detained against his will this summer? Often nothing can be done if the patient doesn't volunteer. Should the police have gone and taken his guns once he said he heard voices about shooting up a base? If they did, in Maine without red flags could he have turned around and bought more guns? I'm not claiming to have all the answers here, just asking questions and trying to prod people and see where their thresholds are.
I feel like if you say voices are telling you to shoot up a place you should immediately be placed in a psych ward.
The Constitution requires due process and a very heightened burden of proof to involuntary commit somebody. So, no.
Yep........but we want solutions, right? I think if you make threats of a mass shooting you forego your rights for due process.
You think that, sure. But, to my earlier point, the Constitution is paramount in our country trumps thoughts like yours (for good reason but, in a situation like this, possibly with unfortunate consequences).
And this is why I mentioned the ACLU being opposed to Red Flag laws. To me there needs to be a middle ground found somehow. My wife as an educator has a duty to report if she suspects abuse of a child. There has to be a procedure put in place that if a doctor/mental health professional sees a person as a danger to self or others, that a report could be made. However, who would pay for all these individuals to investigate these claims and further not trample all over the accused's HIPAA rights, would be the sticking points to this whole mess.
Yes, legally, it's incredibly complicated as the Constitution calls for a balance between public safety and an individual's guaranteed due process rights (combined, on this issue, with at least some measure to own/possess a firearm) - which is, practically speaking, a really freaking hard balance to strike.
But, so people understand, a large reason we struggle mightily with gun violence in this country is because of the personal protections and freedoms the Constitution offers us in this country versus other countries where they may not have a similar Constitution. So, again purely from a legal perspective, I don't see how the government can implement anything which generates a significant change unless there is some Constitutional Amendment that passes that strongly cuts at one of or all of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to our Constitution (for all you non-constitutional scholars, these are big ones). And, if not obvious, from a political perspective such a drastic and significant Amendment probably isn't happening anytime soon.
Tl;dr: The Constitution is partly to blame for the government's inability to curtail mass shootings (though I'm not at all suggesting we abolish it).