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 ...
You make a most excellent point: “Most of the mass murderers were on drugs.”
Another common theme among mass murders is that they have had some negative contact with a police agency as a juvenile, and since juvenile records are sealed when said juvenile turns 18, they cannot be accessed in the NICS background checks.
That is an area that should be investigated. Perhaps ALL serious juvenile convictions (i.e., those that, were the perp an adult, would keep him/her FRom being able to legally purchase a weapon?) should be reported for the purpose of denying a weapon purchase?
Being busted for ANY drug use should be an instant disqualifier!
Thank you Mozzafiato for calling these so-called “shooters” what they really are, viz., “murderers!”
Leftists want us to focus on the weapon used to murder, i.e., a gun, instead of the crime and the nature of the crime. It’s a crime to be a murderer; it’s NOT a crime to be a shooter; every time WE go to the range to do some target work or trap or skeet, we are SHOOTERS.
Keep up the good work. BTW, this is a topic where it’d be fun to watch the leftists debate...”Gee...ya mean they’re not mass murderers?”
How about locking up people that try to buy guns who are truly prohibited persons. If you have a criminal record and try to buy, you should be arrested and charged appropriately.
I thought the Odessa shooter used the dreaded AR-15.
Was it 8 people that were prosecuted of the 250,000 that Clinton liked to brag were denied firearms under the AWB?
"Except????"
Why the problem with it? I've bought several weapons and the "check" has taken about 5 minutes average time for them to get the "Everything's Hunky-Dory" signal. My daughter was born in Italy (where I was stationed at the time) and Haig "Blessed her as a US Citizen" and she has foreign-issued birth certificate...her check took about 35 minutes because the "system" was maybe confused... I think the check only looks for "flagged" incidents/info which are only there if one has some sort of record/history...
Yeah, right. And more unicorn farts will save the environment!
Better to swiftly and very publicly stretch their necks. Let'em see a few of their cohorts dangling with loosened bowels, in front of all the girls, and then see how many of'em still feel jiggy. As it stands now they're made famous (the attention they sought to begin with) and martyred in the dem media. They're awash in the rights they wantonly took from others. Friggin pathetic.
Placing the burden on legal gun owners for exercising their constitutionally protected inalienable rights is NOT the way to go about it. Sometimes I think we shouldn't worry too much about any new gun laws seeing how they don't enforce the current laws. But bet yer azz if there was a way to make lawful gun owners ineligible they'd get motivated. Just like they currently do in other venues that increase their coffers or power.
"Why the problem with it?"
OK.. I'm convinced... I went through the chart that tigerseye posted and added it up to 26,150,000...
the logistics of the whole thing is what made me doubt the numbers. That's 71,644 a day.. Thinking the average government worker would maybe do 100 a day the FIB, (I do seriously doubt you could get a government worker to do 100 of anything in one day) or whoever does the job, they would need 2,150 people working around the clock, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year... Of course I am aware that there are computers nowadays but I always thought that every application was a "hands on" kind'a deal..
I have no idea why I'm blathering on about this.. So, I suppose I'll just shut the heck up and remember, next time, to give the situation a little thought before I open my big yap.. :)
Yeah - you committed the same “sin” we all do (for me it’s pretty much a daily deal) by jumping to a conclusion...
Happy FReeping...
PS - I’m also a blatherer at least neither of us is a “yammerer”...like our many concern trolls and others who moan w/o ever doing anything positive... like donating to causes we believe in.
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.