On February 26th, 2020, an employee of the Milwaukee Molson Coors brewery came into the plant with two handguns and opened fire. He killed five other employees, and then took his own life before police were able to secure the area. That night, the police thankfully avoided releasing the identities of any of the dead, so that their families might be informed and have some time to process the information before being set upon by reporters and others, who although well-meaning, often make the situation worse.
The purpose of this write-up is to analyze the facts of the case, and note what actions the government could take that might have prevented this, and might prevent further tragedy. I'll take a look at the effects of proposed and theorized laws on this specific event.
Before analyzing the effects of laws and policies, we need to note the important facts of the case. The shooter was a 51 year old, African American man, who was employed as an electrician for 20 years, the last 17 of which being at the Molson Coors plant. According to witnesses, family members, and coworkers, he had been in the middle of a conflict with a fellow electrician at the plant for quite some time. On top of that, he had expressed a variety of beliefs that seemed to be paranoid in nature, both about his coworkers and the company as a whole.
When news outlets looked into his personal, medical, and legal history the following facts came to light: He was a United States Coast Guard veteran, discharged in 1991. He had been experiencing back pain likely since his time of service (news sources list it as about 25 years prior to 2010) that was exacerbated by multiple events, including one for which he had been seeking workman's compensation. At one point, insurance assessors were basically staked out in front of his house during weekends to try to find proof that he'd lied about the back pain.
The back pain was severe. After working 50 hours in a week, he would often remain in bed for the majority of the weekend in order to recover enough to go back to work the following week, according to family members. His doctor prescribed Vicodin, an painkiller that contains a synthetic opioid, as well as Cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant. These were both reportedly prescribed for the back pain, which is not terribly uncommon for chronic back pain. So not only was he most likely constantly in pain, but he was under the influence of two psychoactive drugs, both known to cause issues with cognition that can lead to paranoia. Despite this, no news outlet has reported any history of psychological treatment.
Based on the above information, I believe that his back pain should have been ruled a service-connected disability, resulting in him having access to VA medical and psychological care, as well as some compensation and access to the training and education resources made available to disabled veterans. This assessment will come into play further into the analysis.
First, let us cover what laws were actually broken. Obviously, homicide is illegal, so the shooter violated that law. According to news reports, a "no gun zone" law was not in effect, though there may have been one in effect and just not mentioned. If so, that law was also violated. The existing firearms control laws were all followed. The shooter was a known "gun collector" according to neighbors, but exhibited no violent tendencies before that day. No outstanding criminal record was noted by news outlets, so it is likely that every firearm he owned, he purchased and maintained perfectly legally. Sources close to the shooter also noted that he used a gun safe, which is above and beyond the current laws. Wisconsin does not require registration of firearms, nor does it have limitations on magazine size, suppressors, or basically anything else aside from minimum age when it comes to handguns. So, aside from homicide, it's likely no applicable laws were broken.
Second, let's look at the most strict firearms control laws in the USA and discover if any of those had been violated, and what effect they would have had if enforced. California has the most stringent laws when it comes to firearms and magazines themselves. Under California law, it is possible that he would have violated the maximum 10 round magazine restrictions, but as these were handguns, that is unlikely. Outside of special order magazines, even the highest capacity handguns ship with a maximum of 15 round magazine, with most having less than 10. There are some laws that restrict the use of suppressors (erroneously called "silencers"), and one of the handguns he employed had one attached according to witnesses. If he fired the first shots only with the handgun with the suppressor, it's possible that later victims thought that the sound was machine related, rather than a gunshot, and thus did not flee as early. Based on that assumption, the absolute maximum such a ban, if enforced, could have done is slightly reduce lethality. However, it's important to note that suppressors, even on low caliber firearms such as handguns, do not "silence" the weapon, but simply reduce the amount of sound that comes from the barrel. The sound is still quite loud and distinctive. For that noise reduction, the shooter would have paid in accuracy, and possibly fire rate depending on the type of firearm. It is my assessment that, given the targeted nature of the attack, it is not likely that removing the suppressor would have reduced the lethality of the attack.
Another type of firearms restriction that has been discussed is more strict background checks. Looking at this, Massachusetts has the most wide-reaching restrictions based on background checks. Massachusetts' law bars anyone with nearly any criminal record from owning firearms, as well as anyone who has been ruled unable to handle their own affairs, and anyone who has undergone in-patient psychological treatment. Although I assess the last provision to be a violation of the rights of disabled Americans, we will still apply those restrictions to this case. Based on all information available at the time of my analysis, he would have passed such a background check. Such a law would have had no effect on the lethality of the attack.
Finally, let's look at the proposed and theorized laws of those lawmakers that are also advocates for firearms control reform. Since these are not detailed, I will endeavor to look at each concept and assess it's affect on the lethality of the attack very briefly:
Universal background checks barring any criminals from owning firearms: No effect.
National licensing program and registration for firearms owners and firearms: No effect.
"Red Flag Laws": only those with restrictions already ruled to violate the rights of Americans would have had an effect. Again, the shooter was an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no history of psychological treatment, and that did not express violent tendencies. That wouldn't have even gotten a judge to grand a restraining order, much less an order to remove his firearms. Minimal effect if any.
Assault Weapons Ban: No effect.
Ban on high capacity magazines under current definition of the term: No effect.
Mandatory Assault Weapons Buyback: No effect.
Given all of these, it seems clear that no currently proposed firearms control law, whether actually filed, in place somewhere in the USA, or simply proposed as part of a campaign speech would have effected the lethality of this attack significantly.
There are, however, laws and policies already in place that, had they been implemented more completely and earlier, would have likely reduced the probability of the attack in the first place. Thanks to the Inspector Generals' of the DoD and VA that have been instigated in the last decade or so, new policies requiring all discharged personnel to be entered into the VA system, increased probability of favorable decisions from VA Disability assessors, and increased funding to psychological health programs, it is possible that if he had access and encouragement to seek treatment with the VA, the paranoia he experienced that likely influenced his decision to attack would have been identified and treated. In short: if the government had worked harder to ensure his mental health as a veteran, this might have been prevented.
On top of this, there is a policy that should have been implemented a simple safety reaction to the opioid crisis that would have likely prevented this attack: Anyone prescribed opioids beyond a very short treatment window should be required to seek out psychological treatment. The details of that treatment should be up to the psychological professionals involved, and not released to the government or other organizations in accordance with privacy law. This simple policy would have likely helped him deal with the psychological effects of the medications he was prescribed, as well as the constant pain he experienced and the fear and anger he expressed as a result of the conflict he had with his coworkers and company.
The final conclusion is simple: due to the firearms used and the history of the shooter, no existing or proposed gun control laws would have affected this attack, but approaching the issue holistically leads to the inescapable conclusion that the government could have better served him as a veteran, and as a possible victim of the opioid crisis.
TL;DR: in this one case, just this one, the only actions the government could have taken to prevent this would be to ensure proper medical and psychological treatment to veterans and patients prescribed opioids.
No comments:
Post a Comment