We do need to approach guns more like we do cars and trucks in terms of licensing, registration, restrictions, insurance, liability, DUI, etc. Even if that wouldn’t have stopped this particular mass shooting, it would certainly cut down on the number of accidents, homicides, and even suicides that are committed with guns.
As for this shooting… I’ve been wondering how much the feds monitor boards like the 4chan one where the shooter announced his purpose. This shooter was crazy, but didn’t have a definitive diagnosis on the books (that I know of), so he wouldn’t have popped up on the radar during a thorough background check. But if the feds were monitoring that board, if they knew the signs to look for, would we all be willing to give up a little bit of our civil liberties for the sake of avoiding some people losing their lives in this way? Would the shooter even want somebody to stop him? He died too, and if the manifesto he left behind is real, he died very, very unhappy.
There have been other cases where witnesses to this kind of intention to kill have gone to the police and a potential tragedy has been averted. Not so in this case. In fact, one of the other people on the board suggested he corral people into a corner before shooting them. I know it smacks of McCarthyism, but I wouldn’t mind government spying if it were effective in preventing these mass shootings.
awc, Thanks for reporting your reason for asserting that 210,000 rapes are thwarted by guns every year. I appreciate the cite.
I clicked over, because Always click the link, and discovered that your fact sheet is basing its claims on the Kleck and Gertz study, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun”, Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc, 1995.
Oh dear. This is an article that has been widely debunked, because its claims are, let’s say, questionable. When Kleck and Gertz’s numbers are checked against external sources, they are not able to be validated. For example, the number of burglary attempts the article says were thwarted by guns is greater than the total number of burglary attempts. Also, the article says that hundreds of thousands of criminals were shot by law-abiding citizens-- yet somehow these criminals didn’t show up at hospitals to get their gunshot wounds treated. In Kleck’s study, half of the people who reported defensive gun use said they reported the incident to the police, yet somehow these police reports can’t be found.
So the article’s claims were checked against NCVS, against police records, against hospital records, and in all cases, their numbers didn’t stack up. Don’t believe Kleck & Gertz.
Cardinal Fang, you need to read Kleck and Gertz and understand what they say and what they don’t say. It has not been “debunked” as you claim and remains one of the best studies done to date. Pay close attention to what the authors actually say about it and not to what you’ve read somewhere else.
@JustOneDad, the numbers in their article don’t add up. If that is one of the “best studies” done to date, and the numbers can’t be corroborated by any other source, why would we “pay close attention”? No point in calling something a Critical Reading exercise if the numbers are made up or wildly exaggerated.
I don’t think the Kleck/Gertz numbers are made up or wildly exaggerated. Rather, I think they did a survey in which they tried honestly to get good information. However, the percentage of respondents who reported a defensive gun use was small. That means the survey was vulnerable to a small number of respondents who were lying, misremembering, aggrandizing or fantasizing. Perhaps that’s what happened. In any event, if the numbers don’t check against any other numbers, we should be skeptical.
There were 2 people in my yard a week or 2 ago. Good thing I didnt pull a weapon. They were looking for a lost ball. And we just got a letter informing us that there would be tax assessors coming though the neighborhood , complete with an explanation of what they would be wearing and where their badges would be . Guess they don’t want to lose too many tax assessors.
As is clear from this thread, some people have built a wall of denial. Aided by the moratorium on research and deep pockets from the NRA and lobbyists. It will take money to counter those and elect lawmakers who will stand up to the gun industry and special interests. If the liability protections for gun companies can be reduced, then legal action is a potential path. Think about what organizations like Lambda Legal have accomished, or state suits against big tobacco.
I personally like Everytown for Gun Safety as an advocacy group.
Many, if not all of these shooters are obviously defective, yet they all have mothers, who, presumably know them well. There is a complex interplay at work with mothers who want to both protect their offspring and do what is best for them.
Do we require mothers to bring their offspring to the attention of the mental health sector and when they do, what do we offer them?