What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

rootX

Cannot same people who determine whether a person is fit for punishment also determine who is unfit? There will be mistakes but ignoring the mental health issue just seems absurd to me after seeing a series of consecutive massacres all sharing the same root cause.

On positive side:
1) There will be more awareness among Americans about mental health
2) You would less likely to see a mad person shooting in public places
3) People who are not healthy will not live in denial but rather seek help than just ignoring and wasting all their life in dark

CAC1001

Sane people determine who is fit for punishment via a court system. I doubt the average person would become more knowledgable about mental health issues. As for people who need help, the sane ones go and get it. It's the nuts who are too nuts to realize how nuts they are, that are the problem.

Mech_Engineer

How do you propose choosing which people shouldn't have them? Currently, when a person purchases a firearm from an FFL dealer (a.k.a. a gun store) they have to fill out an ATF Form 4473:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Question 11.f asks:
Question 11.f's instructions:
So limitations for people deemed mentally unfit already exist, and the judgements can be assessed by several forms of "lawful authority." The release of medical records (psych records) to non-law enforcement agencies can get sticky though...

He's gotten life in prison, while it isn't a death penalty which I would have much preferred as well, he's out of society forever more. In his case, psychiatric "suspicions" were brought up by witnesses during the trial, but there were no official "judgements" against him thus he was allowed to purchase firearms. Hindsight is always 20-20...

It is definitely already a consideration as I've shown, but I agree there is room for improvement, perhaps in proactively getting court rulings against people who are dangers to themselves or society, and making those records easily accessible for the purpose of FBI background checks.

Mech_Engineer

Some other questions in ATF Form 4473:

edward

I just am amazed at the apples and oranges comparisons I am seeing posted here. In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.

The federal laws and State laws are a jungle of contradictions. Primarily it appears that one of two elements must be present in regards to mental illness.

1. The person has been adjudicated to be incompetent to manage his own affairs.

2. The person has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...e_Firearms.pdf

Pkruse

With all this interesting discussion, I guess the simple answer to the original question is:

“Nothing useful.”

Mech_Engineer

Did you read any of my above posts? What do you think needs to be done above and beyond what's already required when purchasing a firearm?

russ_watters

You are contradicting yourself. You can't know if someone shouldn't have a gun until they do something wrong. You're declaring: 'If we give you a gun, you might/will use it to commit a crime, so you can't have one.' That's deciding ahead of time to limit a right based on a crime that hasn't been committed yet.
You're suggesting we send everyone who tries to buy a gun to see a psychologist or take a test that includes mental competency prior to buying a gun; in order to try to predict if they might use the gun to commit a crime. How does that jive with your first sentence I quoted? Repeating it doesn't make it any more true or less nonsensical than the first time you said it. Again, you don't know if someone is a murderer until they commit a murder and what you are suggesting also limits the freedom of those innocents.
So you exaggerated because this issue upsets you. Fine. I'm glad you are self-aware enough to recognize that. But this is why I don't like changing policy based on a traumatic event. People have a tendency to not behave rationally after a traumatic event and the law needs to be rational.
Just for clarity, I do want increased gun control in the US. Why don't these mass shootings make me angry and want it even more? Simple: I'm less emotionally driven than you are so I recognize that these events don't change anything.

It is great that you are self-aware enough to know you've been emotionally compromised. Step two though would be to choose not to make decisions when in an emotionally compromised state. I know that's difficult, though.
As I said above, I do want increased gun control. What you are not getting is that recent events do not point to any additional need that wasn't already there three weeks ago and that taking quick action based on preventing specific crimes that already happened from happening again can lead to making rash decisions, such as additional compromises in freedom that may prove unnecessary with a more rational analysis.

Mech_Engineer

Note that the check boxes on the form are compared against the instant background check. Criminal records are pretty well handled, but I think psych records aren't as well managed by a central entity.


You forgot the most important one: anyone ruled "a danger to themselves or others" by a judicial entity.

russ_watters

Agreed:
Of the half dozen high profile incidents in the past few years, I don't think any involved/required lying on that form M_E linked.

skippy1729

Were the lives of the 50 million, or so, civilians in gun restricted nations who were slaughtered by their own governments priceless?

Who decides what groups are anti-social and violence prone?

Nazis? Klan? Black Panthers? Pro-life extermists? Greens? Communists? OWS vandals? "Militia" organizations? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Pkruse

Mech Engr: Yes I read the posts. Lots of good thinking and discussion. Certainly much has Ben done, but I'd argue that it is all non effective window dressing designed to make people feel good rather than address the problem. It is still easy for anyone to get a gun, and to use it in any way they desire.

I offer no solution regarding guns as I don't think there is one. To fix any problem, we need to get to the root. Guns are not the root.

As some of this current discussion addresses, I believe that the root is our completely broken mental health system. Several more competent than I have published articles on that recently. One on the Time site this morning is particularly good, but a quick search will turn up many more.

russ_watters

I'm working on a more detailed analysis, but real quick:

We had an assault weapons ban in effect for a few years that could have had a substantial impact on at least one case:

Jarrod Laughtner shot Rep. Giffords and 17 others with a legally purchased generic 9mm and a 33 round magazine. He was thwarted from further shooting by a failed attempt to reload that gave victims an opportunity to take him down. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if the assault weapons ban had still been in effect, its ban on magazines above 10 round capacity could have prevented 12 people from being shot.

Now while I think that law matters, I am fully aware that the resulting ~4 saved lives are statistically insignificant. I wouldn't call it window dressing, but it isn't that useful in the big picture.

ThinkToday

Or, the more reliable 10 round magazines wouldn't have jammed, like in the CO shooters drum magazine, and more would have died. I've been an NRA Life Member for more than 40 years. I started hunting/shooting at 8 and competitively as soon as I was old enough. IMO, the problem with most gun control relates to "punishing all" to catch a few. As was discussed above, cars kill more people and we don't ban cars and require mass transit. Alcohol kills by toxic effects, drunk drivers, rage events, etc., but we don't ban it for all because of some people. There isn't any redeeming factor for cigarettes, and they are far more deadly than guns at 444,000 deaths per year in the US ALONE. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm . Cigarettes aren't banded and you don't need a permit to buy or use them.

I would break with some of my fellow shooters on a few points. IMO, just as first time hunters are required to have hunter safety classes before getting a license to hunt, anyone owning a firearm for protection should be required training on the proper, safe, and legal use of the firearm weapon class (rifle, shootgun, pistol, muzzle loader, etc.) being purchased, with refresher courses as laws change. EXCEPT, the State should be barred from any actions which would limit training with the actual or intended purpose of limiting ownership to people that would otherwise qualify. IMO, such training should include reasonable skills assessments, since discharging a firearm at an intruder in your home can be dangerous. I think if someone wants to own a gun they should be able to handle it safely for its intended purpose (target shooting, hunting, security, collectors, etc.). I support the FBI Instant Check system http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ion/fact-sheet . I would also like to see the Eddie Eagle Safety Program http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ in the public school system as part of the generic health classes. We all know kids will likely come in contact with a weapon in their lifetime, and knowing the Eddie Eagle basics can’t do anything but help, IMO.

russ_watters

From what I read, the issue was that he dropped the new magazine, not that there was a jam.

Skrew

Some of this info is a bit out of date but I doubt that much has changed(I don't care for certain political slants but the info is cited).:

Edit: removed inappropriate link, there are valid sources of information available

Regardless of being against restrictions on mag capacity and any additional restrictions on firearms for ideological reasons(I would like to see the NFA machine gun registry reopened and SBRs removed from the NFA), according to this info for the years looked at the majority of criminal homicides involve less then 3 shots being fired. Also according to this info for the years looked at most of the non-suicide criminal deaths involving guns are actually criminals killing each other.

Magazine capacity limits would possibly only come into play for the occasional large shooting which doesn't make up the vast majority of gun homicides. Standard capacity and 100rd magazines are in wide circulation so even if a ban was passed, it's not going to prevent someone from purchasing them with the intent of going on a shooting spree.

Also as I wrote before bombs would be more effective in large crowds if the persons goal is maximum deaths.

EDIT:Well apparently Evo didn't think my link was a valid source of information, I happen to disagree but I will conform to the mods rules.

rootX

Yes, this was emotionally motivated thread, and that was the reason I put this thread in General Discussion initially and didn't have any references in my post. Otherwise, I can only have limited substantial discussion because I don't know much about America as I pointed out in my OP.

Related article from fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...-it-terrorism/