Well, the rate of firearm deaths has been cut in half from the early 90s.
Potential causes of the decline include things like easy access to abortion and removal of lead from gasoline.
Mass shootings seem to be connected to domestic violence. However I’m not sure how this information can be used.
Lock up the violent. Agreeing with bump, upthread, certain groups are responsible for the vast majority of homicides committed with a firearm. The vast, vast majority of the individual offenders within those groups are not first time violent offenders. Make it a priority to prosecute those accused of crimes of violence, refuse to let those accused to plead to relatively minor non-violent crimes, and when found guilty, keep them locked up. Short-circuit the catch and release carousel, IOW. If this means fewer resources towards prosecuting drug offenses, so much the better.
When these violent people are released from prison, if they are found in possession of deadly weapons, lock them up again. I’ve mentioned the US Attorney’s Office’s Project Exile here before. As possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person is a strict liability crime, it’s very easy to prove.
For the insane, those people unable to care for themselves, and of whom a significant subset are violent towards others, bring back the asylums. This won’t be cheap, which is one of the reasons why de-institutionalization was so popular back in the day. Historically, it was also very overinclusive. Yet, it will bring down school shooting rates perpetrated by the insane, as it largely did in the pre Columbine era. Whether this cost is unacceptable, I leave to you.
Tl;DR: Incapacitate those who have proven a willingness to be unlawfully violent in our society, by incarcerating them until they are too old to misbehave.
I believe we do in Arkansas. “Possession of a firearm by certain persons” or something like that.
Pretty much every place has that law on the books. Priority enforcement OTOH…
Which was one reason why Exile worked so well. Even if local authorities downgraded their priority in dealing with the problem, the USA could step in and issue felon in possession charges. Then the offender would be dealing with Federal charges, and there really isn’t any parole in the federal system. A sentence of 120 months of prison is going to result in a pretty close to 120 month prison stay.
Further, Federal prisons were often far away from where the crimes occurred. State jail/prison, maybe an hour bus ride. Federal prison? Could be a several hour/most of the day excursion. Visits went down.
All of which became known in the criminal community, and (anecdotally, from talking to people in the criminal justice industry) it resulted in criminals talking about other crimes they’d done, or cutting deals to avoid having to do that kind of federal time. Or relocating from the area. Or just not carrying weapons at all.
You can have all of the laws on the books you want. It’s which ones are prioritized that make a difference.
A very large majority of gun background checks take minutes. Some cases are trickier and don’t produce those quick approvals or disapprovals.Something like a felony arrest but no record of the disposition of the case available might trigger a deeper look. By law there’s a three day window to complete those delayed background checks. If the result doesn’t come back the dealer can then legally sell the gun. It’s called a “default proceed.” There’s an 89 day total window to finish the background check before it’s dropped. Checks that show a sale that shouldn’t have been legal are referred to the ATF for follow up investigation to recover the firearm…which may or may not happen. A good chunk of those default sales are to people not legally allowed to own a firearm. Changing to a “default no” would be politically charged; the NRA opposes it and it would block more legal sales than illegal sales. Making the window to 4 or 5 days before a default proceed might be politically doable though.
States record keeping and reporting to the federal databases can be spotty. The background check is only as good as the data available. It’s illegal under federal law to sell to people with domestic violence convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, a history of substance abuse, and some mental illnesses. The data to make those determinations during the background check suffer from a host of reporting issues. The military went through a major check of court martial results for domestic violence after a shooting in 2017 using a gun that shouldn’t have been legal to purchase by a former airman. Some of the reporting fixes might cost money. Some might be relatively cheap or free with changes to laws/regulations driving the current errors. It’s relatively non-controversial though. The system is allowing gun sales to people that can’t legally have them. The fix is just about making sure the data on disqualifying factors is accurately reported. It’s not about creating new controls that impact those legally allowed to own guns.
I’ve bought at gun shows with no check. I’ve bought at gun stores with a five minute over the phone check.
I think there should be a license to buy. An extensive check would be required to obtain the license. Perhaps a safety course and shooting test. The license should be touted as an exclusive group, qualified to safely buy and use firearms, a mark of distinction among gun owners. You would flash the card and be able to buy with no check.
Writers of posts #42 through #46-Please reread the OP.
This is a popular misconception. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong.According to CNN, journalist Dave Cullen
Cullen found that the bullying myth began when the 24-hour news media, anxious for fresh angles to the story when the initial fascination wore off, aired such erroneous theories as bullying and the fictitious Trench Coat Mafia. Likewise, the story that Cassie Bernall, a Christian, was asked if she believed in God, replied, “Yes,” and was killed is also incorrect. The student who was asked that question was Valerie Schnurr, who replied yes and survived the shooting.
Bullying is common: 20% of all school children are bullied, yet a fraction of a percent commit school shootings. There have to be other causes.
That’s not going to work in this country. We could probably get American students to take up smoking and play hockey. But we’re never going to get them to learn a second language.
I don’t think your prediction is likely. Are the bullies going to claim they were being bullied by probably smaller weaker students?
I’m all for controlling the hand that uses the gun . . .
Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms; don’t use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges and never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors and no accelerated dispensation with expungement for gun offenses.
Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
Mandatory enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.
Absolutely, finally, mandate states and all federal agencies who adjudicate, to flag all 922(g) prohibited persons (including all qualifying mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be reported every other week to the FBI NICS and all states – with civil action exposure and criminal liability for dereliction of this duty.
Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
Increase funding for states / cities for FTA & fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
.
Czarcasm, nothing I wrote has anything to do with gun control or gun elimination. It has everything to do with controlling violent people. As well as re-incarcerating people who are statutorily unable to possess firearms, yet still continue to. My strategy would operate whether or not targeting prohibited persons was a goal of law enforcement.
I thought that was the point of your OP: to ameliorate violence caused with firearms without controlling or eliminating the firearms themselves?
EDIT: Reading above, post 51 by Abatis goes into more detail about what I meant. I don’t read any gun control in his/her list of ideas either.
If we’re staying away from gun control topics like registration, bans, smart guns or universal background checks, I’m thinking Gray Ghost’s stepped up enforcement and Ravenman’s mental health coverage / social service are the two ways to go.
I’m not thrilled about stepped up enforcement, because I don’t think it actually reduces the likelihood that a criminal will choose to arm himself with an illegal firearm. It reduces the amount of time a criminal is free, by keeping him in jail longer. So the benefits, while direct and real, are limited, and the cost, monetary and societal, is large. The plus to this method is that it doesn’t necessarily require any new laws or political capital, just the commitment to keep criminals in jail longer.
Mental Health and Social Services could be more effective at reducing suicides and domestic violence attacks, of all types, not just via firearm. The monetary cost is high, but the benefits are broad.
To prevent gun violence, first we would need data. A government agency, let’s say the CDC, should do a study. After they survey all the gun deaths they should be able to draw some broad categories as to the causes. Let’s say three of the main causes are: domestic partner violence, suicide, and street crime. From there we either take what we already know about how to address these problems, or gather more data. Let’s say stronger laws surrounding people who abuse their spouses, coupled with better counseling and education. For suicide prevention, the UK was able to lower their suicide rate by changing the packaging on ibuprofen, maybe put bullets in blister packs. For street crime, maybe a stronger social safety net, decriminalizing drugs, and increasing welfare.
After steps were taken, the CDC could do a follow-up study to see if any of their preventative measures worked.
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]
Maybe we should start enacting policy based on it then.
We need to keep doing what we have been doing the last 25 years that have seen the rates of gun violence plummet. The biggest public policy reason is data driven policing that puts police in the areas they are needed most and targets the most dangerous criminals.
I think that’s a lot more likely than expecting that bullies are going to confess that they were bullying and accept the consequences.
I have a lot of experience dealing with people breaking rules. And I’ve found that even in the face of clear evidence, they’ll generally offer wildly implausible stories rather than admit their guilt.
This reminds me of that post-credits scene in one of the Austin Powers movies where people are mourning all the anonymous henchmen who died during the heroic defeat of Dr. Evil.
Imagine a Bourne or Taken movie where, after an early shootout, we follow not the hero but a wounded bystander through the excruciating pain, heroic medical care and prolonged recovery resulting from a single bullet wound. Of course, that movie would tank at the box office so its influence would be negligible.
A question I have, and didn’t find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place?
That seems like the most pertinent question here- if it’s really a matter of certain demographics using illegal guns, then that’s a very different problem to solve than something more societally pervasive.
For example, it seems that targeting policies and education toward the black community, and in particular toward black men might pay dividends versus worrying about rednecks out in the country, according to this fact sheet. Not because there’s anything inherently problematic about black men (not trying to be racist here), but because something like 6% of the population accounts for nearly 40% of the murders in the country, while the other 94% accounts for the other 60%. That’s absolutely staggering, IMO, and I have a feeling that our collective hesitance to be perceived as racist is something that’s preventing this from being addressed effectively.