Minnesota just played host to one of the most high-profile mass shootings of the year. The events surrounding it are terrible in and of themselves. Now, the state is considering more gun control, even as its red flag law failed.
It's not the first time such a law has failed, nor will it be the last by any stretch of the imagination.
Such measures require people to see troubling behavior, put it together in their minds that something is happening, then go to the trouble of alerting the proper authorities so that such an order can be issued.
And, as we saw in Minneapolis, not everyone does that.
The local media there, though, calls this issue "gaps" and mentions those as celebrating so-called successes.
The warning signs were ominous.
A University of Minnesota student was spotted staring at a computer game that lets players pretend they are going on a killing spree at a middle school. A classmate told police that the student had become reclusive, and medical records revealed a history of depression and suicidal thoughts.
The 22-year-old also posted threatening photos of an assault rifle on social media, and neighbors had seen him carrying what appeared to be two firearm cases toward a light-rail station.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office acted quickly. It asked a judge to allow law enforcement to take the student’s weapons under Minnesota’s new red flag law. Within hours, the request was granted. Police recovered two machetes, a shotgun and a rifle from the student’s apartment a day later.
This intervention last October is exactly the kind of proactive police work proponents of the state’s red flag law hoped for when Minnesota became the 21st state to allowed authorities to take firearms from people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
Since the law took effect in January 2024, judges have used it to bar 281 people from legally owning guns for at least two weeks. That includes 10 people who had threatened violence at schools or day care facilities and 40 who openly discussed targeting a workplace or engaging in a gunfight with police officers.
Now, let's look at this for a moment. Yes, many of these cases sound ominous. Making threats is illegal. Posting photos of yourself holding a legally purchased firearm, however, isn't, and there doesn't seem to have actually been any threats.
The media cites this as proof that the law works, but was that video game an outlet that might have prevented him from doing anything? Or was it just a game that was potentially vile, but otherwise just harmless fun?
See, this is the problem with every so-called success of a red flag law. They list 281 people who have been hit with on, including those who they report explicitly threatened schools, but how many of those other 270 or so were a threat to anyone? How many of them were just weird, and that was enough to freak people out?
The "gaps" are well known. The Annunciation Catholic School shooting is still at the top of everyone's mind, to just give one example.
We know that experts miss the warning signs with people like that shooter all the time. That killer was under the care of a psychologist, one who was unaware of what was going on in his troubled mind. If the experts get it wrong so often--and yes, they get it wrong an awful lot, on both ends of the spectrum--then how can we believe less trained people are going to get it right?
These people who don't get caught up in the red flag orders aren't "gaps." They're people who were missed by the people who surround them, who could have used previously existing laws to get them help, but failed in that as well.
Unfortunately, the media doesn't dig that deep.
Most journalists take what someone drops on their desk, dig just deep enough to write that story, then move on. They don't actually dig any deeper or look at a more in-depth analysis of what's been presented to them. They're clueless of almost every topic they cover, and don't do any more than they have to.
So, they don't ask around and find out that there are other laws in place that not just keep people away from guns if they're a danger to themselves or others, but keep them away from anything that can cause harm. They don't recognize any of it because they simply don't care to.
And that's assuming you're lucky and not dealing with one who is an activist. If you get someone like that, all bets are off.
The truth is that red flag laws are self-justifying. Every order issued is used to justify the existence of the law, even if there's no reduction in literally any metric associated with so-called gun violence.
But those gaps? Those are people who needed help. They're not guns who just randomly attacked out of the blue.
