What “existing laws?” IIRC most mass shootings in the US the shooter obtained the gun legally. Not always, but more often than not. And if they had the gun illegally it was a trivial step for them to get their hands on one and something the ATF could never catch in advance (e.g. a parent bought the gun legally and then their kid got the gun…not even sure that is illegal).
This is an outsider’s perspective, so take that FWIW.
I’m going to limit this to the affluent part of the world. ‘Western’ countries doesn’t really work any longer (if it ever did).
People are being bullied in other countries, mental health care is severely underfunded in many (most?) countries, quite a few of those countries have extensive amounts of handguns own by private citizens (e.g. Switzerland). We’re not talking gun control in this thread, but suffice to say the amount of gun control vary quite a lot.
I sure as hell don’t have an answer, but there must be some underlying causes in the U.S. What are those?
I mean, here in Sweden we’ve had a couple of years of gang violence. It seems very easy to get a gun, even though we have much, much more strict gun control than many countries. But we also have a fairly clear understanding what is at the very root of the problem.•
What is it in the U.S? Because no amount of GC, mental health care and enforcing existing laws are going to help if you don’t know what it is you are trying to fix, that really is uniquely American.
•
Poverty among young immigrants, very strict laws on illegal drugs that make dealing even cannabis very profitable, some outdated laws•• that are being amended. There’s of course the problem of getting people to testify and the fact that the gangs are very splintered into a lot of factions that keep changing and exchanging members and alliances.
•• One example- A gangbanger getting caught and charged with illegal possession of a firearm, would plead guilty upon arrest. Since that crime, by itself, carried a two year sentence, the guy would be set free the same day, waiting for trial. The law only allows for keeping people locked up pending trial for crimes with a penalty over two years.
Well, the fundamental problem with any “enforce the existing laws” plan is thus:
…under the existing laws, very few of these people were doing anything illegal (or that at least appeared to be illegal) until they started shooting. Even if the mythical “good guy with a gun” was there, there would be no way for that person to know there was a threat until the shooting started.
With legal open and concealed carry in many states, it’s considered perfectly normal to walk around with these weapons, and any proactive enforcement that might actually prevent a shooting is considered to be a violation of their rights. Hell, look at the mass shooting in Las Vegas several years ago. This guy had dufflebags full of guns in his room, and so far as the law was concerned, that was just fine.
The fundamental problem here is that US laws and culture are basically entirely fucked up when it comes to guns. Until that changes, nothing will change.
And we’re well past the point where anyone discussing this topic must admit this one fact: There is a significant percentage of the US population who have decided that these shooting are a sacrifice they’re willing to make in order to keep their guns. They may never say that out loud, but it’s plainly obvious to anyone who looks at the issue honestly.
I suppose we’d have to answer the following questions: What federal gun laws are there that would prevent these mass shootings that aren’t currently being enforced?
This is important to reiterate. The entire premise of the OP requires that we only talk about minor improvements on the margins. Would improved mental illness services reduce the number of shootings? Maybe by a percentage point or three. We need to have better mental health services simply because they are the right thing to do and would solve any number of serious issues beyond shootings, but if shootings are the political ammo you use to do this thing we should already do so be it.
The ATF’s charter is not to prevent shootings. Frankly, I think the ATF is an anachronism and they should be dissolved, and their responsibilities rolled into other law enforcement agencies. But that’s true regardless of how you feel about shootings, it’s just common sense administration. If we were able politically to regulate guns at a federal level with some degree of consistency, then perhaps a dedicated agency could reduce strawman purchases and illegal transfers of guns, but that’s not the world we live in. The politics around guns need to change if any federal agency is to accomplish anything. And again, more effectively regulating the illegal sale and transfer of guns might reduce gun deaths by single digits, but it’s not a sea change. School shooting in particular tend to happen with legally acquired guns.
There’s no will for that. Sad but true.
Unfortunately, I think the most practical tool to curb gun violence is to require liability insurance the way we do with cars. Hitting people in the pocketbook is the only way things tend to change around here. Maybe fewer idiots would own 75 ARs if ARs carried a high premium relative to a handgun or bolt action rifle. Will it solve everything, nope, but I’d pretty confident it’d make a difference.
I am not the one proposing that current gun laws as they stand do the job of preventing those tragedies. I am looking at their favored alternatives to gun control and wondering if anything more than lip service is being paid by them. I brought up the ATF because of the work they do regarding those federal laws and the humongous backlog they face due to lack of personnel. Perhaps if funded enough those background checks that need to be done would lessen the amount of gun violence…but we can’t know for certain because the legislators that put forth this alternate solution are the same ones undercutting the laws without proposing any alternative means of getting the job done.
Not fighting the hypothetical, so talking about things that should be done ideally, but aren’t being done, or aren’t being done well on the local and federal level most commonly due to funding.
- Failure on background checks due to private dealer exception.
Okay, this one is borderline on gun control, but I wanted to get it out of the way. This is actually one of those areas where ATF and similar groups have been going back and forth doing zero good to anyone. Changing definitions of a dealer, private sales, or ‘not a core part of business’ have been insane and arbitrary. Fuck it, if it’s legal to require a background check, do it for all sales and be done with it. And the slap on the wrists for the sellers who end up getting tracked to these sales needs to end as well. (that last point being fully in line with the OP of using existing laws to help).
- Failure on background checks due to insufficient resources / notation.
Another big one. Local entities do a lousy job of documenting the exceptions such as prior convictions, involuntary admission for mental treatment, domestic violence and similar reasons to disqualify a purchase. And that leaves out the “couldn’t get it done in time so it auto-passes” or the stupid 3 day law. Funding this is apparently not a big issue for conservatives, but it would be a big help. This is what happened in the Charleston shooting FTR.
- Actually enforcing the seizure of weapons from those who are no longer qualified to have them.
This is a two-parter, and is more general and less about mass shootings specifically, but it’s important to mention. In many cases, an individual loses the right to own / possess firearms (domestic violence, felony, or just missed information as noted directly above) and LEO is notified - but they just advise the party to turn over the weapon and never follow up. This was the case for Gary Martin (Illinois workplace mass shooting). There isn’t a mechanism by which to enforce these circumstances in many cases. Similarly, someone will lose qualifications, and local enforcement is ‘fine’ with the weapon being handed over to / sold to a family member, sometimes IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD or in town, with zero efforts other than good faith to prevent the prior owner from having access. It’s crazy making.
Okay, going to stop before I make myself more insane. As one of the rational gun owners (or so I think at least) who is in favor of much stricter measures than are currently supported, all the missed opportunities to work WITH what we’ve got rather than hope on a future perfect fix are especially galling. For a good resource that will go over some of the examples I mentioned previously, please consider:
My quote is blank because somehow your post disappeared and all that remained was a couple links. Could you re-post what you wrote?
Moderating:
@Joey_P, we expect posts in GD threads to include something more than just a couple links.
In future, please summarize your points you want to make. You may feel the links summarize it sufficiently, but please take some extra time to spell it out for those of us who may not see the issues as clearly.
Perhaps you can take a moment to do this now in this thread, even at this late juncture. Thanks.
ETA: Mod note recinded. I was given to understand this was the OP, and it isn’t. The links provided by @Joey_P are sufficiently responsive to the OP. Sorry about that.
This CNN video shows a question directed to Kevin McCarthy near the beginning of the clip: “should Congress take any action on gun violence?”. McCarthy’s answer is silence. He ignores the question, and runs away.
There, I think, is part of your answer. Republicans see either of those proposals – stronger enforcement or mental health requirements – as election-losing propositions. Indeed they see anything that even remotely creates obstacles to gun ownership as toxic to their political prospects. And Democrats are equally sensitive to the prevailing zeitgeist.
So, no, legislators in general are not motivated to any serious efforts that would offend the gun culture. The fact that neither of those proposals would do a damn bit of good anyway is beside the point – mental health assessments are little better than witchcraft in terms of their accuracy of predicting future behaviour.
I don’t know if this is something that’s been seriously pushed in recent times, but if we expanded the ATF’s charter to at least track every gun sale in the US we’d have something useful. Every car transfer gets run through the state’s secretary of state’s office. And while this could remain at the state level, I think we have plenty of evidence that this is not feasible in practice. When some states have dramatically different policies, the net effect is that it deteriorates to the lowest common denominator. Guns are easy to transport and people in regulated states just drive across the border.
If the ATF had a master database of serial numbers and we could easily track how each gun that gets used in a crime got there, we could start putting consequences on illicit transfers and use. That would be something anyways. It’s easier to transfer guns in secret than it is cars or money, which is crazy.
Of course the reactionary nutbags will rant and rave about the gummint having a database being step one towards mass confiscation.
I think the ATF is responsible for the tax stamps on tobacco and booze, we should have a comparable tax on guns and a secondary tax on sales above and beyond sales tax. Guns add costs to things like securing schools and paying for medical bills which tend to eventually get absorbed by the state. Raising taxes one guns and ammo seems perfectly reasonable.
Not that I disagree, but that would probably involve new legislation rather than dealing with existing means.
That’s why I have all my serial numbers on file with insurance and local LEO - if something happens and they break into my vault-style safe, I want to be able to show what was taken and no longer in my possession (and to make my insurance claim). Easy enough, but I also don’t suffer from paranoia that the government isn’t going to come take my guns.