This is what should be seen at every school...
Posted on 05/25/2022 8:42:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
"In New York," former Gov. Andrew Cuomo bragged on Sunday, "we passed the best (gun control) laws in the nation." Although those laws manifestly did not prevent the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket on May 14, Cuomo thinks the answer is more legislation of the same sort.
Cuomo mentioned a federal "assault weapon" ban, and other politicians have responded to the Buffalo massacre by calling for expanded background checks and more aggressive enforcement of "red flag" laws that aim to disarm dangerous people. But those policies are fundamentally ill-suited to stopping would-be mass murderers from carrying out their plans.
The Buffalo shooter legally bought the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle he used in the attack from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. According to the online manifesto that police attributed to the attacker, the rifle did not qualify as an "assault weapon" in New York at that point because it had been fitted with a fixed magazine.
The shooter easily reversed that modification so the gun could accept detachable magazines, and he reportedly used magazines that exceeded New York's 10-round limit. Although that change had practical implications, other workarounds allow New Yorkers to legally buy and own AR-15-style rifles like the Bushmaster XM-15 that are functionally identical to prohibited models.
As long as a rifle has none of the military-style features that New York prohibits (such as a pistol grip, a threaded barrel or a bayonet mount), it is not an "assault weapon," even if it accepts detachable magazines. Such "featureless" rifles are perfectly legal in New York, even though they fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the banned models.
That is the basic problem with "assault weapon" bans: They define the category based on functionally unimportant features, leaving mass shooters with plenty of equally lethal alternatives, including the handguns they overwhelmingly prefer. While Cuomo thinks a federal ban could be effective if it also covered "large capacity" magazines, which come standard with many guns, millions of such magazines would remain in circulation.
The Buffalo shooter passed a background check when he bought his rifle because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, which is typically true of mass shooters. According to a recent National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, just 13% of the perpetrators obtained weapons through illegal transactions.
Even theoretically, a federal law requiring background checks for private gun transfers, as New York already does, would not pose an obstacle for the vast majority of mass shooters. And in a country where civilians own more than 400 million firearms, a would-be killer with a disqualifying record would not have much trouble finding a source willing to flout that rule, as gun owners routinely do in states that notionally require "universal background checks."
That is the basic problem with "assault weapon" bans: They define the category based on functionally unimportant features, leaving mass shooters with plenty of equally lethal alternatives, including the handguns they overwhelmingly prefer. While Cuomo thinks a federal ban could be effective if it also covered "large capacity" magazines, which come standard with many guns, millions of such magazines would remain in circulation.
The Buffalo shooter passed a background check when he bought his rifle because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, which is typically true of mass shooters. According to a recent National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, just 13% of the perpetrators obtained weapons through illegal transactions.
Even theoretically, a federal law requiring background checks for private gun transfers, as New York already does, would not pose an obstacle for the vast majority of mass shooters. And in a country where civilians own more than 400 million firearms, a would-be killer with a disqualifying record would not have much trouble finding a source willing to flout that rule, as gun owners routinely do in states that notionally require "universal background checks."
? He bought both in early May after he turned 18
This is what should be seen at every school...
The district could have had people who carry but didn’t
According to a recent National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, just 13% of the perpetrators obtained weapons through illegal transactions.
I've noticed that the media has moved from the Mass Shooting list from the Gun Violence Archive to a "public" mass shooting list. The GVA list is great when they want to tout "a death per day." That list Is full of illegal guns and minority shooters.
They passed major gun control in 1968, because of Bobby Kennedy. They never stop.
They start wailing as soon as a shooting occurs that fits their narrative. They ignore everything else.
Liberals don’t want to punish people burning and sacking cities. They don’t believe in the death penalty, except they might reconsider for us. They exist to persecute and punish political opponents. Not thwart crime.
There’s only a cultivated illusion of a connection between gun control laws and “reduced gun violence.”
The elites’ true purpose of in gun control is to soft the citizenry’s support of the Constitution, to bring them under the elites’ control...
and to massively reduce the population.
There’s only a cultivated illusion of a connection between gun control laws and “reduced gun violence.”
The elites’ true purpose of gun control is to soften the citizenry’s support of the Constitution, to bring them under the elites’ control...
and to massively reduce the population.
Is this true? He was hospitalized in a mental institution. Did the shrinks not do their job? Does New York report mental cases to their background check agency? Some states don't.
The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and ten round magazines.
Now the politicians want all magazines to be ten rounds. If they get it, soon it will be 8, then 5 then 3. Hide and watch!
Every citizen who goes out in public armed realizes the odds are getting better and better that we’re going to find ourselves involved in a serious shooting sooner or later. It might be a good time to think about the responsibility of carrying a firearm and ask yourself some questions: do I have the right firearm? Ayoob says the right gun is the one you’ll actually carry, regardless of time, place, weather and occasion. Having said that, consider the high likelihood that you will be outgunned. No matter what you have seen on tv, a handgun against a shoulder weapon is not a fair fight. Your little five shot with a 2 inch barrel is going to feel pretty impotent, and might even convince you, and rightfully so, not to engage. I offer no answers; just food for thought.
Two basic methods:
H=Most of the mass shooters are either schizophrenics (we need better mental health protocols). Trump tried implement that, but it never went anywhere.
Or they are some kind of exhibitionists who want to make the news. It is so sad, that in our society, the easiest way to become “famous” is to get a gun and shoot few innocents. Not publishing any detail of shooters will take care about that!
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, yet I would bet on this upcoming weekend nearly as many will be killed in Chicago as were in the Texas school shooting.
Based on what? All the "success stories" where laws have prevented such acts? Here's a common theme for this whole discussion: laws only deter the law-abiding. Criminals will continue to commit criminal acts.
Cuomo mentioned a federal "assault weapon" ban...
Bzzzzt. We tried that, for 10 years. It had no effect on violence or crimes committed with firearms. So if it is demonstrably ineffective, why propose it again? Sure, hit your thumb with the hammer, no, I'm sure this time it won't hurt...
...calling for expanded background checks...
Why? The latest perpetrator passed a background check. Criminals who cannot pass a background check have many other avenues to obtain firearms. Don't bother trying to legislate those away - they are already illegal. Making them "more illegal" isn't going to change a {expletive} thing.
...more aggressive enforcement of "red flag" laws that aim to disarm dangerous people...
These laws are also at best extremely questionable in terms of violating the Constitution. They are also ripe for abuse. An attempt at "more aggressive" enforcement will have negative unintended consequences across the board.
...those policies are fundamentally ill-suited to stopping would-be mass murderers from carrying out their plans.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Exactly right.
The shooter easily reversed that modification so the gun could accept detachable magazines, and he reportedly used magazines that exceeded New York's 10-round limit.
Wait, what!? You mean the criminal broke multiple laws! I'm shocked, shocked I say! ;-/ But gosh yes, in light of that more laws are obviously what we need... :-/
...none of the military-style features that New York prohibits (such as a pistol grip, a threaded barrel or a bayonet mount), it is not an "assault weapon,"...
Would the presence or absence of any combination of those features have had any impact, positive or negative, on the outcome here? No, of course not. So one wonders why the {expletive} they bother with such a distinction - they are functionally and fundamentally irrelevant.
That is the basic problem with "assault weapon" bans: They define the category based on functionally unimportant features,
Ding ding ding. Another winner. So, you support repeal of such obviously stupid and in-effective laws, right? I won't hold my breath.
...leaving mass shooters with plenty of equally lethal alternatives, including the handguns they overwhelmingly prefer...
So you admit handguns are used in crimes more than rifles by an "overwhelming" margin. Yet so much time and effort is put into bans on "assault weapons" and rifles. Why is that? Seems like a terrible waste of resources to go after something admittedly used in a fraction of crimes. You could be forgiving for concluding the bans on "assault weapons" weren't about safety at all, but something else entirely.
Cuomo thinks a federal ban could be effective if it also covered "large capacity" magazines, which come standard with many guns, millions of such magazines would remain in circulation.
They are not "large capacity" they are standard capacity, by your own admission - they come standard with many rifles. Duh! Also, please point to any evidence that even suggests magazine capacity limits have had a positive effect. Then point to any evidence that even suggests criminals would obey such laws. In this latest case, the criminal already violated existing magazine related laws. To believe more magazine related laws wouldn't be violated by such criminals is pure fantasy.
The Buffalo shooter passed a background check when he bought his rifle...
Ah, so obviously what we need are more (aka "universal") background checks. ;-/ Yeah, that'll stop this kind of thing, even though they didn't stop this kind of thing.
I have one simple question, and I want an honest answer... Someone has to know...
Did this gunman force his way into that school?????
If not, how the hell did he get in?
I have not been to any school, ANY SCHOOL in well over a decade where I had to be let in...
Can someone, anyone tell me if this guy forced his way into the school or not.. and if not, how the hell he got in?
I wonder sometimes whether "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" wasn't the MOST damaging movie in the history of our country.
It led to the demise of insane asylums. Look at the societal costs since.
The parents of the Buffalo shooter, and now this Uvalde maniac would have been much more likely to prevent these attacks if they had been more pro-active in raising their sons.
Another lie from the mouth of someone who allowed (forced?) 15,000 seniors to die for political gain.
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.