facepalm

Про антиоружейные законы

Как уже все знают, в Кентукки очередной слетевший с катушек гормональный подросток пострелял одноклассников. Подростку 15 лет. В Кентукки, несмотря на либеральные законы, короткостволом нельзя владеть, если не исполнилось 18. Т.е. пистолет, вот как ни крути, он раздобыл нелегально. Так как подростком пока занимается суд для малолетних, все детали истории знать пока не дают, но предположим, что он позаимствовал пистолет у своих родителей, а не купил на чёрном рынке -- как наиболее вероятный вариант. И на этот случай в Кентукки тоже есть законы, предусматривающие ответственность для того, кто "умышленно, сознательно, или неосторожно предоставляет доступ к короткоствольному оружию для индивида, которому не исполнилось 18 лет":

527.110 Unlawfully providing handgun to juvenile or permitting juvenile to possess
handgun.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawfully providing a handgun to a juvenile or permitting a
juvenile to possesses a handgun when he:
(a) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provides a handgun, with or without
remuneration, in violation of KRS 527.040, 527.100, or 600.020 to any person
he knows or has reason to believe is under the age of eighteen (18) years

Короче, что в лоб, что по лбу -- закон был нарушен как минимум дважды.

Вывод, который неизменно делают сторонники ужесточения оружейных законов: надо больше законов.

Где, *censored*, логика-то? Закон УЖЕ нарушен. Что даст новый, кроме увеличения толщины книг, в которых записаны законы? Надо улучшать выполнение законов, а не их количество.
yes, they are very dim about motives, pre-history, etc.

i agree that prohibiting weapons is silly if you think it will end mass shootings. those who need them will get them somehow.

however several ( 4 i can name at least) mass shooters we know passed background checks with no problems at all. so that is not a solution, either. what is?
> however several ( 4 i can name at least) mass shooters we know passed background checks with no problems at all. so that is not a solution, either. what is?

While it is true that some mass shooters do successfully pass background checks, often there's a bit more to that story. For example, the Texas asshole who shot up a church over some domestic BS should not have been able to pass a NICS check since he had a domestic abuse charge in the past. However, nobody bothered to report it to the proper authorities. So, what exactly seems to be the issue here, lack of laws or lack of proper law enforcement? Seems like the latter to me!
the army psychiatrist who killed 13 people was quirky but would pass any tests. the kid in CT who killed his mom and elementary schoolers - had not even a psych record. the killers in CA could have passed any check... so would the highschoolers in CO. so would brother Tsarnaev junior ( not senior). so would teh recent LV smurderer. the problem is deeper than "laws not followed". much deeper.

there were no laws that were not followed in those cases.

thorough background checks WOULD have stopped MAYBE SOME? of mass murderers. MAYBE> then maybe not. see the above.
For starters, let's stop those who ARE breaking the existing laws. There have been over 300 mass shootings in the US in year 2017. How many of the perps involved in those crimes got their guns legally? So the criminals are a much larger group compared to the deranged "lone wolf" individuals that fly under the radar. Don't you agree that a bigger issue should get a bigger priority? The real problem is that no amount of new laws is going to solve that. Just some good old-fashioned law enforcement.
to agree, i would need to see solid stats that would convince me that indeed, those individuals obtained their weapons illegally. sure not true about the nevada shooter and many recent ones.

stealing a weapon from parents is technically not an "illegally obtained weapon" especially if the parents like to target practice with the kid.

so can you answer your own question - How many of the perps involved in those crimes got their guns legally?

i can't. also - 300 in 2017 alone seems a bit excessive, no?

changing gun laws might decrease availability of guns to some degree, to some potential perps. i am not sure that reduction in availability would translate into a reduction in mass shooting incidents.


"law enforcement" sounds so good but oooo so vague. and the laws are vague ad differ across the nation. in many states you can walk in walmarts and buy a shotgun without anything but a drivers' license. in Alaska, even that is not needed. so there is nothing to enforce.

disclosure - i do have guns at home. never asked for a carry permit, i don't need one.
> so can you answer your own question - How many of the perps involved in those crimes got their guns legally?

The stats are fuzzy, but the typically quoted figures are from 3 to 11 per cent. Depends on how the data is evaluated.

> stealing a weapon from parents is technically not an "illegally obtained weapon"

I disagree, but even if that's true it was still illegal as hell for him to have it on the school property.

> also - 300 in 2017 alone seems a bit excessive, no?

No, that's quite typical, unfortunately.

Keep in mind "mass shooting" does not equal "mass murder". A mass shooting is a shooting which results in more than 4 people getting shot (not necessarily mortally). A typical drug war gang drive-by would typically qualify as a mass shooting with multiple bystanders getting hit. These happen just about every day.

> changing gun laws might decrease availability of guns to some degree

I'm not ready to infringe upon the freedoms of law-abiding citizens based on "might". Data shows that there's very little correlation (if any) between the crime rates and the strictness of gun laws.

There is, however, a very strong correlation between the crime solvency rate and crime rates. Therefore, we should be improving things starting in that direction. Currently, 4 out of 10 murders go unsolved. I refuse to consent to this figure being acceptable.

> in many states you can walk in walmarts and buy a shotgun without anything but a drivers' license.

That's not true. You still have to pass a NICS check.

> in Alaska, even that is not needed.

Wut? A government photo id not required to purchase a firearm? I find that hard to believe. Please disclose your source.
my ex-husband and his oldest son. same BTW was true in my home state, NH, but i have not lived there for some time. in my little village there was a country store - you could buy a shotgun with no quetions aske.d in neuwport, 40m min away, there was a ruger factory. there, they asked for id but tehre were no "checks" or anything. 1990s. dunno re now. texas ditto. 1990s
Early 1990s were different. NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) went online in 1998.

Ever since then, anybody purchasing from a licensed gun dealer is required to pass a NICS check. Which is not to say it's fool-proof, as the data is not always kept up to date (Texas church shooter, case in point). Ensuring that it is accurate is one of the things I mean by "better law enforcement".

So your info is a little dated. I am not aware of a single state not requiring a government-issued photo ID to purchase firearms.
yeah, i dated myself. i still would need hard data to believe that most mass shooters get their guns and ammo through some lapse of law enforcement... in my examples above, there was no law ready to stop any of those. even someone accumulating an arsenal can do it without arousing suspicions of a gun dealer. plus - how much is an arsenal? sre three guns an arsenal? one of our twins has maybe 40. he gets them in one of two places - Montana where the family is from, both his parents, or form rochester where he lives.
he is an ER nurse and model citizen and a golden soul. would someone rat on him saying HEY, HE IS PILING UP GINS AND AMMO? so what? he likes them!

so i really do not believe in policing gun use. the price to pay is terrible - those shootings - but they are for the most part unpreventable.
> in my examples above, there was no law ready to stop any of those

But let's not conveniently forget the cases where the law was there, but failed to prevent anything; the law without the law enforcement simply does not work.

I only suggest we try to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks in the existing walls before we decide to erect new ones.

> even someone accumulating an arsenal can do it without arousing suspicions of a gun dealer

And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with collecting guns. I own multiple firearms myself and carry a pistol every day; doesn't make me a mass murderer. Blaming the tools is counterproductive.

> so i really do not believe in policing gun use

I think we can be doing a much better job ensuring that NICS data is updated and not missing anything, for starters.

The sad part is that most murders involving firearms occur in poor neighborhoods. And, therefore, they are given a low priority since nobody cares. The only time Americans care is when a lot of white people or white kids die. Then, hell yeah, everybody wants to do something!!