Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

[truethat]

I would like to address this comment but I'm not quite positive I understand you and hesitate to go the wrong direction. Can you expand upon this point for clarification please?

There's this idea that "criminals will get their hands on the gun anyway!!! They'll go to some back door arms dealer and buy a gun!

That's a mythology. First up, most of these mass shooter types are cowards. They don't try to "solve problems" if they did they would probably not be the cowards that they are.

So the idea that some loser coward is going to be savvy enough to "find an illegal gun" is a mythology in my mind. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that one of the reasons they do these shootings is that it's EASY for them to get a gun. If they couldn't get them as easily they probably wouldn't do it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I did in the post. We can't rely on "Medical diagnosis" of mental illness because some people have not been diagnosed. And as you point out, we certainly can't waste tons of money on researching everyone else.

So instead we have to change the law and basically we're going to have to make rules based on behavior of the person a litmus on the background check.

For example, if someone has a history of Domestic Violence complaints against them, someone who has a history of violence. IOW reports at work for fighting (physically) with coworkers. Someone who has been accused of making threats against people. Someone who has been arrested even if they are not convicted. Anyone with a DUI conviction etc.

It would be fairly easy to set it up as a database. There will be a certain number of code points. For example, one fight at work could have some rational reason behind it. But once you pass a thresh hold of code points, you can no longer buy a gun. You'll just have to live like the rest of us in the country that don't own guns. (We're fine, in case you are wondering)

And what the pro gun people are going to have to accept is that somewhere along the line there will probably be cases of people where a vindictive friend or ex girlfriend or whatever, calls up and reports the person and he is unfairly denied the right to have a gun.

A similar comparison is how someone could manipulate the use of a restraining order to affect a police officer's job. If they have a restraining order against them, they can't use their weapon which affects their job (if I'm wrong about this please correct me.)

So the point is that it's better to deny a law abiding citizen who has been lied about, the right to buy a gun, than it is to risk a lunatic getting one.

Your entire control point mechanism is before the gun is purchased.

 

[Ranb]

Would it be possible to put the "scary black rifles" into a category similar to Class II? (Question is generally directed toward RanB, for the legal ins and outs). Not to price them out of most people's reach (and they're fairly expensive as it is), but for the additional hoops one's required to jump through that will hopefully weed out those who want to put holes in people rather than paper targets and feral pigs.

The AWB of 2013 (the bill that failed) in one of its earlier versions would have classified assault weapons as National Firearms Act firearms. This would have required the payment of a $200 tax, and obtaining the local sheriff's signature which also included your photo and finger prints. One major difference would have been that the firearm was surrendered upon the death of the owner; no more heirlooms.

For most people it would have just made the purchase a longer process and $200 more expensive. My applications have taken 3 weeks to 11 months for approval; 3 months is the average now I think. But since the BATFE approves all (as far as I know) applications that are filled out properly (a felon can't do this) all we end up with is a longer list of registered guns. Assault weapons are not on the list of firearms that have the (20-life?) sentencing enhancements .

As far as I know the BATFE doesn't do much more than the NICS for bkgd checks. I'm not really sure why they need the fingerprint cards. I don't think machine gun and silencer owners are much more vetted than any person who buys a shotgun at the local gun store. I'm certain it would prevent some impulse buying. The application process didn't stop me from impulsively downloading a few applications and sending them in for firearms I made though. A maker can get a refund if they change their mind prior to making any parts.

The major impact would have been those sheriffs who don't sign applications for any reason or use reasons other than (think race or creed here) the purchaser's criminal background. This was a de-facto ban in some areas. That all changed a few weeks ago. 41p was a change to the regulations as an individual is now just required to inform the sheriff of their NFA firearm purchase by sending him or her a copy of the application; no groveling for a signature anymore. This is one of Obama's gifts to the gun culture in the USA in addition to the ammo shortage and firearm buying sprees.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

There's this idea that "criminals will get their hands on the gun anyway!!! They'll go to some back door arms dealer and buy a gun!

That's a mythology. First up, most of these mass shooter types are cowards. They don't try to "solve problems" if they did they would probably not be the cowards that they are.

So the idea that some loser coward is going to be savvy enough to "find an illegal gun" is a mythology in my mind. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that one of the reasons they do these shootings is that it's EASY for them to get a gun. If they couldn't get them as easily they probably wouldn't do it.

I accordance with your statement above I'm willing to decouple the mass shooter events from every other shooting that happens. Just for this discussion.

I propose we limit ourselves to discussing the shootings on this list
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
and see if we can identify control points which could be used to prevent similar occurrences.

 

[truethat]

Great, now I suggest that you go through the list and find me the people who have no background information that my suggestions would match.

No history of Domestic Violence
No history of threats
No arrests
No DUIs
etc.

You show me a spanking clean innocent who just suddenly lost the plot and we'll discuss those.

 

[BStrong]

There's this idea that "criminals will get their hands on the gun anyway!!! They'll go to some back door arms dealer and buy a gun!

That's a mythology. First up, most of these mass shooter types are cowards. They don't try to "solve problems" if they did they would probably not be the cowards that they are.

So the idea that some loser coward is going to be savvy enough to "find an illegal gun" is a mythology in my mind. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that one of the reasons they do these shootings is that it's EASY for them to get a gun. If they couldn't get them as easily they probably wouldn't do it.

Unfortunately, it isn't a myth at all:

http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/depart...about-us/memorial-to-officer-david-j-chetcuti

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/4/15/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E664-2

" Mr. Speaker, the weapon which Sullivan used to kill David Chetcuti
was an assault rifle, a class of firearm that many of us thought we had
succeeded in removing from our Nation's streets. Marvin Sullivan, who
was not legally able to purchase the kind of firearm he used to kill
Officer Chetcuti, assembled his weapon from a series of gun components
which he was able to purchase without any of the restrictions which are
imposed by law on the purchase of assault weapons.

Through mail order catalogues, over the Internet, and at gun shops--
without any of the restrictions on the purchase of fully assembled
firearms--Sullivan was able to purchase the components that he used to
make his illegal weapon. That gun was created for the sole purpose of
killing another human being. The weapon he built defied and
circumvented all the firearm safeguards for which we have fought long
and hard. The components were easy to procure, the assembly was simple,
and the final product was devastatingly deadly."


http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28584499/walnut-creek-shooter-murder-suicide-made-his-own

"WALNUT CREEK -- A one-time Stanford University student who killed his former girlfriend and himself at her home last month built the gun he used from parts he ordered from the Internet, police said Tuesday.

Scott Bertics, 21, turned the homemade weapon on himself after shooting 19-year-old Clare Orton in the doorway of her family's home on Holton Court, off Homestead Avenue, around 6:50 a.m. on July 21. Orton was home for the summer during a break from classes at San Diego State.

Police quickly focused the investigation on where Bertics got the two guns found at the scene. Neither had a serial number, Walnut Creek police Lt. Lanny Edwards said."

http://fusion.net/story/5286/increasing-number-of-homemade-guns-being-used-to-kill/

"They call them Barbies for men, because of the interchangeable parts that allow you to alter your semi-automatic rifle to your liking. Hobbyists have been building their own AR-15s for years using parts sold as upgrade components. It’s all perfectly kosher as long as you are legally allowed to own a gun and keep it for your own personal use.

Until recently, it was underground – a hobby for serious gun aficionados. In the last few years though, gun building has grown in popularity, with groups coming together at build parties to spend an afternoon assembling their own firearms. Pizza and beer included.

Now, a joint Fusion/Univision investigation has found criminals are getting their hands on homemade guns, and they are increasingly being found at crime scenes in the U.S. and in the hands of drug cartels in Latin America."

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/

THIS IS MY ghost gun. To quote the rifleman’s creed, there are many like it, but this one is mine. It’s called a “ghost gun”—a term popularized by gun control advocates but increasingly adopted by gun lovers too—because it’s an untraceable semiautomatic rifle with no serial number, existing beyond law enforcement’s knowledge and control. And if I feel a strangely personal connection to this lethal, libertarian weapon, it’s because I made it myself, in a back room of WIRED’s downtown San Francisco office on a cloudy afternoon.

I did this mostly alone. I have virtually no technical understanding of firearms and a Cro-Magnon man’s mastery of power tools. Still, I made a fully metal, functional, and accurate AR-15. To be specific, I made the rifle’s lower receiver; that’s the body of the gun, the only part that US law defines and regulates as a “firearm.” All I needed for my entirely legal DIY gunsmithing project was about six hours, a 12-year-old’s understanding of computer software, an $80 chunk of aluminum, and a nearly featureless black 1-cubic-foot desktop milling machine called the Ghost Gunner.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'll start at the top of the list, with Omar Mateen. No arrests for domestic violence (reports after he was dead cannot be used to prevent buying a gun before he was dead), he held a State issued concealed carry permit and armed security guard license, both requiring investigation, and had been intensely investigated by the FBI for terrorism connections and released back to the wild.

So there's one.

 

[truethat]

I'll start at the top of the list, with Omar Mateen. No arrests for domestic violence (reports after he was dead cannot be used to prevent buying a gun before he was dead), he held a State issued concealed carry permit and armed security guard license, both requiring investigation, and had been intensely investigated by the FBI for terrorism connections and released back to the wild.

So there's one.

Fantastic, you've got ONE. Keep going. I didn't say ARRESTS for Domestic Violence. I said history of Domestic Violence that could be reported anonymously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1963b4-30b8-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html


He had twice come under investigation by the FBI

And a history of Domestic Violence.

He's out. No gun allowed.

 

[cullennz]

We have detailed background checks already.

Next step?

Gun shows?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Fantastic, you've got ONE. Keep going. I didn't say ARRESTS for Domestic Violence. I said history of Domestic Violence that could be reported anonymously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1963b4-30b8-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html


He had twice come under investigation by the FBI

And a history of Domestic Violence.

He's out. No gun allowed.

You can't ban someone for life from doing something, just because they've been investigated. What about due process?
And if he's never been arrested for domestic violence, how would you know to take his guns away? On basis of rumors like you suggest? An anonymous accusation without evidence is enough to take away someone's rights?

 

[truethat]

You can't ban someone for life from doing something, just because they've been investigated. What about due process?
And if he's never been arrested for domestic violence, how would you know to take his guns away? On basis of rumors like you suggest? An anonymous accusation without evidence is enough to take away someone's rights?

That's why I keep saying we're going to have to accept the fact that some people are going to unfairly not be able to own a gun. And that's why there's got to be a certain number of points that add up. For example, if it was ONLY that he had been investigated by the FBI or it was ONLY that he had a history of domestic violence (though no arrest or conviction) then he'd still be able to get the gun.

But once you hit a point where the person has a history of red flags showing up. SORRY, no gun.

And as I said, it could be abused. But what are we willing to accept? That some people are going to be unfairly denied their rights? Or that we protect public safety? What is the lesser of two evils in this case? Someone who can't buy a gun and must live like the millions of Americans who don't own guns. (Newsflash it's not that big of a deal) or more mass shootings of innocent people.

A good comparison is the Sexual Predator list and label. The law was designed to protect children from sexual predators. A bunch of people on that list were caught up by mistake and are trapped by it even though they are innocent.

Example, a guy is 17 and his girlfriend is 15. He's black and her mother is racist. The day he turns 18 she has him arrested for statuatory rape and the guy is forever labeled. It totally screwed up his life. But we accept that possibility because the safety of children matters more.

What exactly is ruining a persons life by denying them the ability to buy a gun? It's way less problematic than the Sex Offender List.

 

[BStrong]

Fantastic, you've got ONE. Keep going. I didn't say ARRESTS for Domestic Violence. I said history of Domestic Violence that could be reported anonymously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1963b4-30b8-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html


He had twice come under investigation by the FBI

And a history of Domestic Violence.

He's out. No gun allowed.

Might want to check the BoR again, because the 5th Amendment addresses the question:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The law is clear wrt firearms and domestic violence convictions.

If you want to start denying any type of civil right via allegations rather than convictions, you're not going to get very far.

 

[BStrong]

Gun shows?

Licensed dealers must comply with federal law wrt background checks for handguns and fed. 4473 forms for everything, and the individual states (like California) can pile on anything else they can think of as a hoop to jump through, but the "Gun Show Loophole" meme is nothing more than individuals (not FFL holders) selling their personal property.

California already prohibits private party transfers and requires all PPS to go through a dealer with all the mandated paperwork and a ten day waiting period, which for some strange reason doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the crime rate.

 

[truethat]

That's a ******** answer. Mental Illness bans don't do "DUE PROCESS" on gun regulation. If you are willing to accept that then you have already conceded that you are willing to make exceptions.

And we have the right to make the law of our land. This is our job. You can deny people buying things all the time. So the other option is to redefine what "GUN" means.

And then we can let people buy GUNS and redefine weapons so they don't fall into that definition.

 

[Polaris]

Might want to check the BoR again, because the 5th Amendment addresses the question:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The law is clear wrt firearms and domestic violence convictions.

If you want to start denying any type of civil right via allegations rather than convictions, you're not going to get very far.

Indeed. Even putting the "rights" aspect for sake of argument, it's not cool for a government to forbid someone from lawfully doing something without a criminal conviction. It goes beyond just owning guns vs. saving lives - the spirit of such a policy is close to "better 10 innocent men be jailed than one criminal go free". I'd like to think society upholds the opposite principle.

 

[truethat]

Indeed. Even putting the "rights" aspect for sake of argument, it's not cool for a government to forbid someone from lawfully doing something without a criminal conviction. It goes beyond just owning guns vs. saving lives - the spirit of such a policy is close to "better 10 innocent men be jailed than one criminal go free". I'd like to think society upholds the opposite principle.

This is the statement that I say that people talk about as if they are being patriotic when they are just being stupid.

Let's reword that to reflect the real issue. "Better a school full of children be killed than an innocent man be denied a gun."

That's what you're actually saying when you say that.

 

[BStrong]

That's a ******** answer. Mental Illness bans don't do "DUE PROCESS" on gun regulation. If you are willing to accept that then you have already conceded that you are willing to make exceptions.

And we have the right to make the law of our land. This is our job. You can deny people buying things all the time. So the other option is to redefine what "GUN" means.

And then we can let people buy GUNS and redefine weapons so they don't fall into that definition.

I can't comment on what the situation is in your locale, but in California - at a minimum - requires a finding that an individual poses a threat to themselves or others (5150 hold being the most common) before they end up on the prohibited person list.

Your post makes -0- sense wrt domestic violence "allegations" v. convictions.

Would you care to comment on your post asserting the "myth" that criminals and individuals with mental illness don't seek to acquire firearms outside of legal channels? I posted links to some examples

 

[cullennz]

When people in even this very thread call for banning "the AR" I can't help but wonder, once again, what exactly they think they need to ban? Gas operated semi automatic rifles? Semi auto rifles collectively? Rifles that use .233 aka 5.56mm ammo? Or just scary black rifles? Or any firearm utilizing the rotating star-bolt designed by Eugene Stoner?

Is it magazine capacity?

Does it need to have separate upper and lower receiver pieces?

Do I need to post the Hello Kitty AR pictures again?



{full disclosure: I'm an armed leftist, and have many times called for training, licensing and insurance for firearms - and had to put my own thread on the subject on Ignore because some of you people are incapable of following simple instructions.}

This cracks me up

They aren't scary.

They are just completely unnecessary and in the wrong hands (which would have been caught onto with gun controls) can kill a lot of people

 

[cullennz]

Licensed dealers must comply with federal law wrt background checks for handguns and fed. 4473 forms for everything, and the individual states (like California) can pile on anything else they can think of as a hoop to jump through, but the "Gun Show Loophole" meme is nothing more than individuals (not FFL holders) selling their personal property.

California already prohibits private party transfers and requires all PPS to go through a dealer with all the mandated paperwork and a ten day waiting period, which for some strange reason doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the crime rate.

Pointing out one states laws while ignoring others does your argument no good

It should be federal

 

[smartcooky]

Those things will not allow legal ownership of a firearm in the USA either; except for I'm not sure how affiliation with a gang would affect me if I was so involved.

Of course, I forgot to add (but cullennz pointed out) that part of the process includes interviewing at least one family member. If that family member says they are not comfortable with the idea of you owning a gun, you won't get a license. Also, the Police come to your home and inspect your gun storage facilities (which you must have by Law) and which must include a gun safe of some kind

Firearms Acts 1992 and 1993 amendment

19 Conditions relating to security precautions

(1) Every firearms licence shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) the holder shall not put a firearm in such a place that a young child has ready access to it:

(b) the holder, where he or she has both a firearm and ammunition for it in his or her possession, either—

(i) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the ammunition is not stored in such a way that a person who obtains access to the firearm also obtains access to the ammunition; or

(ii) shall ensure that, where the ammunition is stored with the firearm, the firearm is not capable of being discharged:

(c) the holder shall take reasonable steps to ensure that any firearm in the holder’s possession is secured against theft:

(d) the holder shall, where he or she has possession of a firearm that is—

(i) a flare pistol; or

(ii) a humane killer; or

(iii) a stock marking pistol,—

keep it in a locked container, except where it is under the holder’s immediate and personal supervision.

(2) On and after 1 July 1993 the reasonable steps required by subclause (1)(c) shall include—

(a) keeping on the holder’s premises—

(i) a lockable cabinet, container, or receptacle of stout construction in which firearms may be stored; or

(ii) a lockable steel and concrete strongroom in which firearms may be stored; or

(iii) a display cabinet or rack in which firearms may be immobilised and locked so that none of them may be fired; and

(b) keeping locked or immobilised and locked in the cabinet, container, receptacle, strongroom, display cabinet, or rack required by paragraph (a) every firearm which is on the holder’s premises and which is not under immediate and personal supervision of the holder or some other holder of a firearms licence; and

(c) ensuring that no firearm in the holder’s possession is left in a vehicle that is unattended.


NOTE: In NZ, Jamie Gilt would have been charged and prosecuted under 19(1)(a) and had her Firearms License revoked permanently

That is why I suggested an SKS. With the fixed mag blocked to seven rounds or less, it should be good to go. Like these sold here; http://www.guncity.com/762x39-norinco-sks-16-carbine-a-cat-5-shot-semi-auto-227383

The point I was trying to make is that the guns are available; perhaps the human factor is more important.

Yes, I agree. That is why we go to quite an extent to minimise the human factor with a very stringent "fit and proper person" test.

The other thing to keep in mind, or course is that there is no such thing as a "carry permit" in NZ with regard to private citizens. Only the Police can carry firearms and only under certain circumstances. The cop on the then beat in NZ is armed only with a Tazer.

The owning of a firearm in NZ for self-defence is expressly forbidden, although security officials and bodyguards for visiting high-level officials (e.g. a minister from a foreign country) are often granted a special permit to carry weapons on a case by case basis.