Secret Service report finds large portion of mass shootings done with illegal gun
Source: The Hill
A substantial portion of people who committed mass shootings last year used guns they possessed illegally, according to a report released Thursday by the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center.
The report analyzed 34 mass attacks that took place in the U.S. last year. Of those, 24 were conducted via firearms, of which at least 10, or 42 percent, involved illegally owned guns, such as those possessed by minors or people with felony convictions or adverse mental health judgments.
Of the total 34, two-thirds of those who committed the attacks exhibited behavior that concerned others, and nearly half had a history of drug abuse, the analysis said.
About half of the attackers also had a history of violence, and 13 of them had committed acts of domestic violence. However, only seven of those had faced charges for those acts.
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/510859-secret-service-report-finds-many-mass-attacks-done-by-someone-with-illegal-gun
sl8
(13,665 posts)RockRaven
(14,897 posts)legally owned firearms. 14 of 24 is a majority. 10 of 24 is a large portion. But let's frame our article and headline around the latter.
Fucking The Hill.....
Sancho
(9,067 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)That adult (male) citizens would, except in frontier areas, keep their guns at home, know how to use them, and be prepared to assemble into a well-regulated militia if the country were attacked or invaded?
In the '70s guns were transported in the trunk of a car, unloaded. I believe that was the position or the rule of the State Police in my state, and was probably advised in the NRA literature of the time.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.
At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldmans book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult menwho were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970spart of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of originalism, Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)Antisocial Personality Disorder. Seems to me these perps really have to dislike people as well as society to do their deeds.
Sociopaths, psychologists say, are made, but psychopaths are hard wired that way from the get go.