LA Times says 146 of 167 mass shootings preventable

[DaleA]

Guess it's time for us all to just bow our heads in shame.

The LA Times using a database from "The Violence Project" concludes that if all the "common sense" gun control laws had been in effect the vast majority of mass shootings (about 87%) since 1966 could have been prevented. They picked 167 mass shootings from 1966 to the present to study...don't know their criteria.

https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-laws-were-enacted/

They claim the following five laws would have done it.
1. Ban on straw purchases.
2. Safe storage laws.
3. Assault weapons ban-which would prohibit the sale of many high-powered rifles.
4. Mandatory background checks.
5. Red Flag (gun confiscation) laws.

Personally I pretty much read this stuff just to keep my blood pressure high enough to continue to pump the red stuff through my clogged veins and arteries.

 

[Bozz10mm]

They are counting Charles Whitman's UT tower rampage in August 1966 with shootings that could have been stopped with an assault weapons ban. He used a bolt action rifle. How many other things did they get wrong?

 

[HighDesert]

They are counting Charles Whitman's UT tower rampage in August 1966 with shootings that could have been stopped with an assault weapons ban. He used a bolt action rifle. How many other things did they get wrong?

Agendas require no facts. If they did, there would be far less barking about things that have proven failures everywhere else in the world. But, who cares about those stupid details anyway.

Absolute control over absolutely everything is the end goal and the left won’t stop till they have it and when it implodes on them, as it has everywhere else, they will still blame not enough control as the reason. At least children learn not to touch a hot stove after they burn themselves. The agenda driven bunch will just blame the stove, then fire and God for creating the fire.

 

[Hal]

Junk science and pure speculation is all that is.
They say Columbine would have been prevented if straw purchases were illegal.....
SAY WHAT?!?!?!

PHDs sucking down grant money is all they are...

In earlier times - they would have been known as selling "Snake oil".

 

[44 AMP]

They claim the following five laws would have done it.

If the laws against murder (which we have had as long as we have had laws) doesn't stop murder, how is it sensible that other laws will stop murders???

The LA Times using a database from "The Violence Project" concludes that if all the "common sense" gun control laws had been in effect the vast majority of mass shootings (about 87%) since 1966 could have been prevented.

Notice the "out" built in to the conclusion. "COULD have been prevented". Not would but could. Which means "might", which means literally, they are guessing.

What gun control law (current or proposed) COULD have prevented the largest mass murder in recent history? NONE. Because no guns were used!

Posting a list of wants and saying they COULD have done X is like saying we COULD prevent drunk driving and hit and run if only we had more speed limits and seatbelt laws...

We COULD also fly to the moon by flapping our arms really, really hard, but so far, no one has done it..

They seek to boggle the mind with numbers, seeming to create the impression of sense and reality but they have NO FACTS, and cannot have. Claiming that is simply LYING.

Do not accept their bovine excrement at face value, do not accept it at ANY value, because it has none. Sadly, far too many people will, and think they are right doing so.

 

[blackhawk45]

No law will ever prevent someone's intent to harm anyone, ever !

 

[Tom Servo]

They claim the following five laws would have done it.

OK. Let's go down the list.

1. Ban on straw purchases.

Already illegal. The problem is, they're never prosecuted. I reported several attempts during my time in the business, and I couldn't get anyone in law enforcement to take interest.

The Columbine example is completely bunk because Robyn Anderson didn't purchase the guns from a licensed dealer. Therefore, she didn't perjure herself on a 4473. Although she'd later admit she thought the boys were up to something nefarious and that she was buying guns for people who were disqualified, nobody ever prosecuted her.

2. Safe storage laws.

Unconstitutional as per DC vs. Heller.

3. Assault weapons ban-which would prohibit the sale of many high-powered rifles.

The last one didn't do a lick of good. I hate to fall back on "studies say" without providing sources, but the vast majority of research (including sources like the FBI) found no effect on violent crime, much less the massive declines advocates promised.

When gun-control advocates claim evidence that it had any effect, it's usually something along the lines of, "well, homicides with assault weapons declined by 0.002% for three months in a small town in Iowa, so the ban must work." It's their idea. They need to provide better proof than that.

4. Mandatory background checks.

Many of us are old enough to remember when the Brady Act passed. We were told it would just apply to sales through licensed dealers, it would never become a registry, and once they had that, they'd leave us alone. All of those things are lies. No thanks. Not playing.

Bonus points if you ask them for any proof that the Brady Act had any effect on violent crime.

5. Red Flag (gun confiscation) laws.

We'll see how this one hashes out in the courts, but it's overly broad on its face. The bigger problem is summed up by the very example they give:

The ​man who killed 17 people at ​Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in ​Parkland, Fla., had attempted suicide, and ​his threats to attack a school had been reported to the local sheriff. A red flag law could have given someone the opportunity to intervene.

Nobody needed a "red flag" law. The sheriff just had to do something on one of the 39 occasions they were called to the shooter's house. He gave plenty of actionable signs. So did the Columbine kids, the Virginia Tech shooter, and the vast majority of the others.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No law will ever prevent someone's intent to harm anyone, ever !

^^^ Quoted for truth.

Since Columbine was mentioned, let's discuss that. What the anti-gun advocates always conveniently overlook is the documented fact that the guns at Columbine were only the fall-back ... i.e. Plan B. The primary plan was bombs. The two perps had planted propane bombs (plural) around the school. The plan was to kill as many people as possible with the bombs, and then shoot survivors as they fled. Mercifully, the kids were lousy bomb makers and the bombs failed to detonate. Experts have opined that if the bombs had detonated, the death toll would have been in the hundreds.

The worst school massacre in the history of the United States was Bath Consolidated School, in 1927. If my memory is correct, 44 were killed and 58 injured. The weapon of choice was ... dynamite. The perp mined the school and then blew it up. Again, the perp wasn't a great bomb maker. The school had two wings, but only one wing blew up, or the casualty count would have been MUCH higher.

There was a case in Germany several years ago of a guy attacking a school using a home-made flamethrower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre

https://www.historyandheadlines.com...ce-lance-kill-people-cologne-school-massacre/

Guns are only tools. The problem isn't evil (or any other kind of) guns. The problem is evil people, and the anti-gunners with their hysterical rhetoric are diverting the discussion away from looking at useful solutions by focusing efforts on banning guns rather than treating sick, evil people.

Quote from the second link above (emphasis aded):

Once again, History and Headlines describes an incident where a dangerously mentally ill person does not receive the psychiatric attention needed to get better and keep society safe, causing innocent people to suffer and die. Plus, once again we see that killers do not have to have guns to do their terrible work, although of course in this case a gun was used to stop the murderer. Today school safety is a hot topic, fiercely debated. What do you think can be done to keep our schools safe?

The second article was written in June of 2016. It is now almost four years later, and "they" still haven't admitted that guns aren't the problem.

 

[HighDesert]

Guns are only tools. The problem isn't evil (or any other kind of) guns. The problem is evil people, and the anti-gunners with their hysterical rhetoric are diverting the discussion away from looking at useful solutions by focusing efforts on banning guns rather than treating sick, evil people.

That's because they believe people are inherently good. If people are inherently good, then it must be the gun. Funny, I've never heard any parent say "Johny! Stop being so nice to your sister!"

Their thinking is flawed, but that's because at least nowadays with social media, you can subscribe to only the things you want to hear and tune everything else out. That way, their belief systems are never challenged and evil becomes the opposition, instead of evil itself!

 

[44 AMP]

That's because they believe people are inherently good.

There's nothing wrong with believing people are inherently good. The flaw is when they refuse to recognize that bad/evil behavior is a conscious choice on the part of the individual.

there is no "the devil MADE me do it" in my world. If you do it, its because you CHOSE to do it. Even the theologians teach that the devil cannot make you sin, only lead you to it and "trick" you into to it. The actual choice is always the responsibility of the individual.

And, there's more in those deluded folks world view, that items, (inanimate object) can be "evil". This concept comes down to us from at least the Middle Ages when it was used to enrich and support the established power structure of the Church and the ruling nobility.

"Evil", "possessed" items had to be surrendered to the Crown or the Church, (or its local representatives) for the common good, of course. Just another way to legally steal used by those in power for their own gain. Its a bit more subtle today, but it is STILL practiced.

 

[Tom Servo]

That's because they believe people are inherently good.

Actually, I'd suggest quite the opposite. Gun control is the sort of meddling that says, "people lack self-control and good judgment, so we have to restrict any tools with which they might hurt someone."

One of the arguments I've heard from several advocates is that anybody could just snap at any time, and as such, we don't need weapons readily available. That's a really grim assessment of human nature, but it helps sell the idea that the average person just can't be trusted to know what's good for them.

 

[jmr40]

Mass shootings and mass killings aren't the same thing. Limiting the availability of guns might well have prevented some mass shootings

But history has shown that there are more efficient ways to kill lot of people and those who don't have access to guns choose other methods.

Home made bombs
Crashing planes
Driving trucks into crowds
Poison

 

[USNRet93]

The ​man who killed 17 people at ​Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in ​Parkland, Fla., had attempted suicide, and ​his threats to attack a school had been reported to the local sheriff.

Nobody needed a "red flag" law. The sheriff just had to do something on one of the 39 occasions they were called to the shooter's house. He gave plenty of actionable signs.

Without some sort of legal avenue, what was he going to do? Confiscate his weapons??

 

[4V50 Gary]

Psychotropic medications can do what to people and what do most mass shooters have in common?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Without some sort of legal avenue, what was he going to do? Confiscate his weapons??

It has been awhile since I read any of the articles, but my recollection is that many of the THIRTY NINE incidents were criminal acts that could (and, in hindsight, clearly should) have led to an arrest, followed by prosecution and possibly mental health evaluation. The kid was killing animals (which is against the law, thus a criminal act), and I'm sure there were at least some incidents involving threats.

As we have discussed previously, the Broward County school district was actively seeking to "cook the books" on the number of criminal incidents occurring in their schools, particularly by minorities. And, with a Hispanic last name, the shooter was classified as a minority. The Broward County Sheriff's Office was working with the school district in this boondoggle -- that's why former deputy Scott Peterson won awards as school resource officer. He supposedly played a part in "reducing crime" when, in fact, what he did was participate in under-reporting crime. Consequently, acts which in almost any other jurisdiction in the country would have resulted would have resulted in intervention were overlooked.

 

[HighDesert]

The only thing that could help IMO is how gun owner store their guns. A better lock when you know someone unstable lives in the same house. A determined mind could still break a safe even with biometric codes. But at least it will keep the crazies at arms length

Parents and loved ones would also have to admit there’s a crazy in the house. Doesn’t happen often enough!

 

[44 AMP]

But at least it will keep the crazies at arms length

No, it won't. it MIGHT, at best, slow them down a bit. There are instances of the killer breaking into a safe. One was a 16yr old who killed his grandparents, broke into the gunsafe and along with the guns, also stole their van, to get to the school where he did the shooting.

My personal point of view is that "safe storage" laws are just another not so subtle way to shift "blame" to the gun owner. Oh, the bad guy STOLE your gun because you didn't have it locked up to our satisfaction. You are responsible, not the bad guy! That's what they say to me. I say, I'm not responsible for someone else committing a criminal act, and neither are you.

HOW is it right to hold me responsible for what they do, UNLESS the bad guy has to do a certain amount of work? Are you responsible (bad) if they steal your car because the keys were in it, but ok if they had to hotwire it, first?

Do be aware that any "safe storage" requirement will, eventually, involve some kind of required periodic inspection, (which almost certainly will not involve a warrant) and one that you will be required to PAY FOR. Might not start out that way, but I don't see anything less happening, over time.

Right now there are some places with laws that REQUIRE the "appropriate enforcement agency" to review your medical records. Doctors and other medical professionals are required by law to supply them. This has, so far not been explained to the general medical community, nor yet enforced, but its in the law, and eventually I'm sure it will be. The court cases THAT will generate are going to be ...interesting to watch.

I think various "red flag" laws are so much BS, as well. IF a person is so dangerous that you must seize their firearms why the HELL do you leave them free to walk the streets and able to acquire others, or alternate means of causing harm? Just barking stupid, to me.

These things are "opiates for the masses", making the mass of people feel good without changing reality one bit.

Those "immigrants" taking pilot lessons (were actually illegal aliens, having overstayed their visas) didn't take any lessons on how to LAND planes, only fly them. 2,000+ people KILLED at one time on a single day, without a single gun involved. Somehow, that bothers me more than 1200 some odd shot by wackjobs over the last 54 YEARS.

 

[Tom Servo]

Without some sort of legal avenue, what was he going to do? Confiscate his weapons?

There were plenty of legal avenues. You can read the whole litany of his contacts with law enforcement on the Commission Report. Sheriff's deputies responded to an escalating series that involved him inflicting physical violence against his family members and peers. On several occasions, he made threats explicitly involving firearms. Those are actual crimes, and had he been charged, his firearms could have been confiscated under existing law.

He kept slipping through the net because of the inaction of law enforcement. That's the whole thing.

 

[RickB]

We've enacted thousands of gun control laws, but have somehow missed the "common sense" laws along the way?
I'd be for getting rid of all the gun laws we have now, and replacing them with one or two common sense laws.

 

[Spats McGee]

Without some sort of legal avenue, what was he going to do? Confiscate his weapons??

That presumes that there wasn't a legal avenue. As others have mentioned, the police were called out about that shooter dozens of times. The odds that he hadn't committed a crime on any of those dozens of times are extremely low. And even if he hadn't, I'm pretty sure FL has civil commitment laws.