TTAG reader NYC2AZ writes:
I think something needs to be highlighted: the after-action reports of attempted or successful mass murderers. While the NRA hangs their hat on the “mental health” angle, that tactic is as flawed as the “ban guns” angle. Easy and uniform answers for these acts are unlikely. Each individual who attempts or commits mass murder is different in their approach and their reasons. Further, the NRA is starting to see that the antis can play the “mental health” card as well, with such do-nothing legislation as “the gun violence restraining order.” The following article excerpt (after the jump) is another example of someone who was “evaluated” (much like Elliot Rodger) months prior to their murderous event. But in this case, the murderer was stopped by armed intervention within 90 seconds of starting his attack . . .
A teen who fatally shot another student at his suburban Denver high school last year had been deemed “not a high-level of threat” after shouting a death threat against his debate coach three months earlier, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The disciplinary records show that Karl Pierson, 18, was allowed to return to class in September, less than a week after he was demoted from captain of the debate team and said he would kill the coach, who was a school librarian. The documents say Pierson showed no remorse for making the threat . . .
The documents offer the first glimpse into the response to the threat Pierson made Sept. 3. Authorities and school officials have acknowledged that he threatened the debate coach but have never explained how that threat was handled, even after other students’ parents demanded answers.
The documents also show that just two days before the shooting, school officials sent Pierson home early after he pounded on a locked classroom door so hard that teachers in other classrooms could hear him.
The information in the documents, which were submitted into Pierson’s student record by then-Assistant Principal Kevin Kolasa, was verified by two people familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about it.