12-10-2015, 02:55 PM
Stricter enforcement of existing gun laws/regulations is definitely needed to reduce gun violence overall, I agree.
The problem of general gun violence, and all violence, is multi-faceted though, in my opinion. Laws and enforcement of laws are two important factors in effectively addressing the problem, but there are several other factors that contribute to the problem as well. We've had a lot of exchanges to that effect in the GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY? thread, so I won't go into that here.
When it comes to mass public shooters, specifically, I don't think stricter enforcement of existing gun laws/regulations would have much of an impact. And, the "criminals don't respect laws anyway" argument is not really applicable to mass public shooters.
-Most of the shooters covered in this thread have no record of criminal activity prior to planning and carrying out their mass attacks.
-Many were juveniles or young adults who used guns legally purchased and owned by their family members.
-Others purchased their guns legally because they passed their background checks. Those who had a history of mental illness were not ineligible to purchase guns because they had not been declared mentally ill by a court and, thus, there was no record of their mental illness in the NICS database.
-The San Bernadino terrorists had no criminal records and weren't on the terror watch list. And, even if they had been on the terror watch list, the existing laws would not have prevented them from legally purchasing guns (they did however illegally possess modified semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines in California, which may have enabled them to wound/kill more people in a short amount of time).
Existing laws/regulations need to be tightened-up or expanded consistently across the states in order to effectively reduce all types of gun crimes, AND those laws/regulations need to be enforced strictly and consistently.
The problem of general gun violence, and all violence, is multi-faceted though, in my opinion. Laws and enforcement of laws are two important factors in effectively addressing the problem, but there are several other factors that contribute to the problem as well. We've had a lot of exchanges to that effect in the GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY? thread, so I won't go into that here.
When it comes to mass public shooters, specifically, I don't think stricter enforcement of existing gun laws/regulations would have much of an impact. And, the "criminals don't respect laws anyway" argument is not really applicable to mass public shooters.
-Most of the shooters covered in this thread have no record of criminal activity prior to planning and carrying out their mass attacks.
-Many were juveniles or young adults who used guns legally purchased and owned by their family members.
-Others purchased their guns legally because they passed their background checks. Those who had a history of mental illness were not ineligible to purchase guns because they had not been declared mentally ill by a court and, thus, there was no record of their mental illness in the NICS database.
-The San Bernadino terrorists had no criminal records and weren't on the terror watch list. And, even if they had been on the terror watch list, the existing laws would not have prevented them from legally purchasing guns (they did however illegally possess modified semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines in California, which may have enabled them to wound/kill more people in a short amount of time).
Existing laws/regulations need to be tightened-up or expanded consistently across the states in order to effectively reduce all types of gun crimes, AND those laws/regulations need to be enforced strictly and consistently.