Better Than Bans

Last week, the peace of a warm summer afternoon in New York City was shattered  when a gunman armed with an AR-15 style rifle entered a Park Avenue skyscraper and opened fire in the lobby and on the 33rd floor. He killed four individuals—including an off‑duty NYPD officer, a Blackstone executive, an employee at Rudin Management, and a security guard—and wounded several others before turning the gun on himself.

The shooter, Shane Devon Tamura, a former Las Vegas casino security guard with a well-documented history of mental illness, had traveled cross‑country to the Midtown Manhattan office building, where the National Football League has its headquarters. He blamed the NFL for a neurodegenerative disease known as CTE, from which he claimed to have suffered, despite never having played for the NFL.

As is frequently the case in the wake of a mass shooting event in which a semi-automatic rifle is used, there came immediate calls for a federal assault weapons ban. Yet, looking closely at this case, would it have actually made a difference in a country where, according to the Firearm Industry Trade Association, there are already more than 20 million AR-15 style rifles in civilian hands? Unfortunately, probably not. New York already has such a ban, and it didn’t stop this terrible tragedy.

However, better laws—and better implementation of those laws—could have made a difference in helping to prevent this and other instances of senseless violence. In this case, it starts with Nevada, where Tamura lived, not New York.

Plugging Mental Health Gaps

Last month, Nevada enacted a new law allowing police to temporarily confiscate firearms “on or near” an individual placed on a mental health crisis hold without a warrant. It’s a good start. But the new law does not permit general home searches or broad firearm confiscation beyond what’s directly tied to the crisis event. That’s the first gap.

Moreover, the law came too late to apply to Tamura. According to The Trace, Tamura had been placed on mental health crisis holds in 2022 and 2024. Under Nevada state law, individuals can be held for up to 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation if deemed a danger to themselves or others. But notably, an emergency hospitalization alone does not automatically disqualify someone from owning firearms, and the law does not apply to firearms purchased after the hold either. That’s the second gap.

Tamura bought the gun he used in the shooting from a co-worker, who purchased the AR M-4 rifle, with a scope and a barrel flashlight attached, legally. Tamura also had a valid concealed-carry weapon permit in Nevada that he obtained in 2022, the year of his first mental health crisis hold. He used it to legally buy a Colt Python .357-caliber revolver on June 12 of this year.

Without any flagging or follow-up regarding Tamura’s mental status, he was able to purchase and carry guns despite his deteriorating mental health.

Expanding Red Flag Laws

Nevada has had an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law, commonly known as a red flag law, in place since 2019. These laws empower courts to temporarily restrict firearm access from individuals in crisis. But Nevada’s law has scarcely been used. The state attorney general’s website shows 28 high-risk protection orders in 2024, and 20 in 2023. An office spokesperson said there were just six orders so far in 2025.

Two major impediments to the effective implementation of these laws are 1) poor training of law enforcement officials, resulting in reluctance on the part of police officers to use them, and 2) a lack of public knowledge that these laws even exist. Often, it’s a combination of both of these factors. Nevada only very recently began offering subgrants to community organizations that provide ERPO resources for families looking to help family members in crisis, as well as enhanced ERPO training programs for police. 97Percent offers similar training to police departments around the country to ensure that these powerful law enforcement tools are used as intended to prevent gun violence.

There is no public record indicating that a high-risk protection order was ever issued against Tamura. Officially called an “Order for Protection Against High-Risk Behavior,” Nevada’s law allows law enforcement or family and household members to petition a court for the temporary removal of firearms from someone deemed a danger to themselves or others. Ex parte orders can last up to seven days. Final orders can remain in effect for up to one year.

If someone close to Tamura knew he was struggling and knew he had access to firearms, they could have pursued such an order—but did not. Stronger and better‑utilized red flag laws could have made a difference.

Enhancing Background Check Systems and Interstate Data Sharing

More generally speaking, enhanced background checks at point of purchase and thorough interstate reporting of mental health adjudications also could allow authorities to intervene before a violent escalation. Tamura bought the gun he used in the shooting from a friend. He traveled across state lines. He was essentially under the radar. But he didn’t have to be. With enhanced reporting and universal background checks, Tamura might never have gotten his hands on a deadly weapon in the first place.

Why Not Bans?

Gun bans—particularly on lawfully owned rifles—often fail to address the real vulnerabilities that enable tragedies: mental health gaps, interstate loopholes, reckless dealers. They also risk infringing on constitutional rights without improving public safety. In contrast, targeted reforms, such as improved red flag statutes and stronger background checks with real‑time mental health flags, allow law‑abiding citizens to retain rights while protecting the public. The sacrifice of one of Tamura’s victims, NYPD Officer Didarul Islam, who died protecting others and enforcing New York’s current laws, underscores the duty of lawmakers to build better tools for prevention, not scapegoat lawful gun owners or erode constitutional protections.

A Unifying Path Forward

The 97Percent vision demands that America craft solutions that respect rights yet are razor‑sharp in preventing avoidable tragedies. The policies cited above are not only effective but also supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Smarter policies, faster intervention, better enforcement, and compassionate prevention strategies won’t stop every act, but they can disrupt a trajectory before it turns lethal. With these reforms, tragic incidents like the Park Avenue shooting could become increasingly rare. Lawful rights and sensible, data‑driven laws are not in conflict—they must coexist.