Posted on 09/08/2019 3:04:40 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Most mass shooters in the U.S. acquired the weapons they used legally because there was nothing in their backgrounds to disqualify them, according to James Alan Fox, a criminologist with Northeastern University who has studied mass shootings for decades.
But in several attacks in recent years gunmen acquired weapons as a result of mistakes, lack of follow-through or gaps in federal and state law. Not all gun purchases are subject to a federal background check system. Even for those that are, federal law stipulates a limited number of reasons why a person would be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Those include someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, has a substance abuse addiction, has been involuntarily committed for a mental health issue, was dishonorably discharged from the military or convicted of domestic violence/subject of a restraining order.
In 2018, there were more than 26 million background checks conducted and fewer than 100,000 people failed. Of those, the vast majority were for a criminal conviction. Just over 6,000 were rejected for a mental health issue.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at mail.com ...
Mistakes? Bull more like duplicity!
I find that figure a little hard to .... except.
Maybe they had some help from the gun grabbers. Once the left saw how quickly the bumpstock ban was signed, they knew they had a winning recipe.
The left has been funding fake protesters and would fund mass murderers to install socialism.
The gun gran is happening under a Republican prez. This. Should. Be. A. Wake. Up. Call.
Some of them, such as the Sandy Hook killer, also had guns provided by family members (who could pass background checks) or they bought them illegally. The Odessa shooter bought a “homemade” AK47 type weapon, assembled from parts by a man who just sold to anyone who knew about him and could pay his price.
Background checks are good, but there are many ways around them.
However, the keyword should be “crazy,” and children and adults who have been diagnosed with some disorder should certainly be on a watchlist, and so should their close family members. Too many good, innocent people have died at the hands of lunatics.
If they apply for a permit, go and interview them and their family members. The nutcase in Sandy Hook was being protected by his mother, although of course she was the one he killed first. Her (divorced) husband had tried to get treatment for the boy, but she refused. So if the killer’s father had been interviewed when his wife purchased guns, that may have given a different outcome.
Of course, the best thing would be mandatory hospitalization, something we used to have, but that was dropped in the 70s because of the leftist theory that the only sane people were the insane, because they were reacting to capitalism and rejecting US culture. Believe it or not, this was a theme, and it got everything from panhandling and vagrancy laws to potentially long-term mental hospital commitment overturned.
Naturally, the important thing in the US is to control who is in charge of this, sets the standards, and enforces it. Otherwise the Dems would declare that anybody who doesn’t vote Dem is certifiable...
So my feeling is that there are many other issues that need to be dealt with first.
IIRC, one of those people who slipped through the cracks was the husband of celebrated anti-gun a tivist Gabby Gifford’s. How much nail time did he serve?
It seems to me a lot of these mass murderers were drug addicts or users, prescription or otherwise. So, they are committing felonies simply by answering “No” to the drug question on the federal application form.
Yup, 26 million a year!
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
A lot of them, yes. Probably half the crimes committed by people with legally obtained weapons have been committed by people who simply lied. But a lot of these killers get their guns illegally or get family members or friends to buy them legally and then hand them over.
I think we need to get a grip on the nutcase population, especially teenage or young males (which is when schizophrenia typically comes on). If they have a co-dependent person, usually their mother, sister or some girl they have gone out with at some point, they can survive until they are fully ripened homicidal maniacs (as they used to be called).
Right now, we have the radical left encouraging violence, and both of the most recent killers seemed to believe they were “protecting the planet” and doing “population control.” So all a nutcase needs is the encouragement of a violence prone theory, and the left has certainly provided many such theories.
The mass shooters were going to shoot their victims one way or the other—whether or not they got the firearms legally or not.
The guns are on the streets. They are not going anywhere. Even if we did stop selling these rifles, there are millions out there.
Therefore, if we focus on the “tools” alone, we will miss the fact that the user—so dedicated—will find a way to access the necessary tools to get the job done.
Accept.
And as we know, even with all those searches, the system missed some obviously mentally ill people. Like the guy who just went on a rampage in Texas who has been calling the FBI for years and rambling on about who knows what, or the crazy guy who murdered people in Aurora Colorado.
Instead of looking for a needle in a haystack, law enforcement efforts should be directed at the small number of people who actually are mentally ill, and likely to be violent, and who are trying to obtain any kind of weapon.
The person's mental state is potentially dangerous enough that her/she (mostly he) ought to be sequestered in an institution, that even so, without medication they cannot carry through a logical plan of action needed to commit a mass attack, so they don't. BUT if the medication enables them to carry a plan through, the medicine DOESN'T cure the anger or maniacal tendencies, it just enables them to organize their thoughts well enough to carry the murderous plan through!
SO, what that means is that giving the medication does enable a person to live without being institutionalized, but instead it does enable those with a crazy impulse to carry it through, when being locked up would have prevented it. And therefore them being loose as disruptive menaces makes the general culture unpredicatble, sometimes to the extent of individual violence--or even mass murder--arising from unrestrained pathological grievances.
Got that??
...”Some of them, such as the Sandy Hook killer, also had guns provided by family members (who could pass background checks) or they bought them illegally.”...ouch.... if I remember correctly, Adam Lanza, the nutcake in this sad scenario, killed his own mother and took her gun(s) and went on this mad killing spree....provided...?
Really? You think people should have a "permit" from the government to get a firearm? And part of the process should involve interviewing family members. Really?
And in the last two months... (Nov. 2012 and Dec. 2012)
And it continues...
And there is more...
And more...
And yet more...
And more and more and...
We just keep buyin' more...
And we bought more more more...
And more and more and more...
Could it be? More?
More Americans buy more guns...
We just love guns...
Buy a gun, you'll be in Hogg Heaven!
Another month, another record!
Will the record breaking ever stop?
KEEP FLAPPIN' YOUR LIPS, DEMOCRATS! WE'LL BUY MILLIONS MORE. ;-)
The Associated Press lies. Most of the mass murderers were on drugs. They were able to buy weapons by lying on the 4473 forms, because the police didn’t bust them for drugs.
Universal background checks won’t fix that. After both political parties attack the Constitution by passing universal background checks and/or a red flag putsch, lax policing will allow the drug addicts and dealers to continue murdering people.
Dict.org
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=hysteria
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Hysteria \Hys*te”ri*a\, n. [NL.: cf. F. hyst[’e]rie. See
Hysteric.] (Med.)
A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women,
in which the emotional and reflex excitability is
exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished,
so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes
the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into
paroxism or fits.
[1913 Webster]
Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of
the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing,
and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the
throat. The affection presents the most varied
symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest
diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment
alone. Hysteric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.