Another mass shooting...

[billvon 2,448]

>What's wrong with minor restrictions on free speech?

Nothing. We have them and they work. Likewise, minor restrictions on the Second Amendment work. This has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Yeah I guess your right. Maybe it was stupid for Canada to start locking the doors while class was in session.

Or, maybe it's stupid to think that alone will make schools (or movie theaters, or any other place) safe in an environment where every asshole with a grudge against society, seeking their 15 minutes of "fame" (famous and infamous being the same thing these days) has no problem at all accumulating the fire power to decimate a small city.

It has been many years since you could just walk into any school when class is in session.

This does raise an interesting issue, though, which is the balancing of freedoms. Essentially limitless access to guns is one form of freedom. The ability to go out in public, send your kids to school, and so on is also a form of freedom. When criminals and nut jobs have unimpeded access to guns, it forces people to restrict when they go out, hide behind locked doors, spend money (via taxes or other direct and indirect fees) on metal detectors and armed guards, and so on. Yet it seems we cannot discuss even the most obvious things, such as measures to make felons have a more difficult time than they currently do getting their hands on guns, without being attacked for wanting to disarm everybody. It almost seems as if some regard the 2nd amendment as the ONLY freedom worth defending.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>What's wrong with minor restrictions on free speech?

Nothing. We have them and they work. Likewise, minor restrictions on the Second Amendment work. This has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court.

All I keep hearing about is how current laws are toothless. Here is a broad overview of federal laws that are currently in effect, or have recently been in effect. As we know every state has their own laws in addition to the ones listed below.

National Firearms Act (NFA) (1934) - Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968) - Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (1968) - Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) (1986) - Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

Undetectable Firearms Act (1988) - Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) - Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) - Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) - Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) - Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

[normiss 634]

That's just the federal level.

Such as a felony for selling or transferring a gun to a felon.
Misdemeanor for smaller weapons.

So it would appear that most states have some restrictions on the Second as well.

[jbscout2002 1]

Yes, you most certainly have the freedom to, "go out in public, send your kids to school, and so on."

This is why SHOOTING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL.

This is why CRIMINALS AND NUT JOBS HAVING GUNS IS ILLEGAL.

This is why HELPING A FELON AQUIRE A GUN IS ILLEGAL.

[billvon 2,448]

>This is why CRIMINALS AND NUT JOBS HAVING GUNS IS ILLEGAL.

No, it's not. You can be crazy and still own guns. Specifically, a doctor can determine that you are such a danger to yourself and others that you can be held against your will - but once released, you can run back to your house and grab your gun with no worries that what you are doing is illegal.

You can even commit felonies and still own guns. For example, many convicted felons in Minnesota get their right to own a gun back as soon as they are released from prison.

If you want to change that, then good! I agree.

[jbscout2002 1]

Federal Firearms Offenses

Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms.

It is also illegal for a person to sell or otherwise distribute a firearm to another person when the person transferring the weapon knows that the buyer or taker does not live in the same state. Again, the exception is if the people making the transfer are licensed to deal in such weapons. There are also some other general exceptions, such as delivering a firearm to carry out a lawful bequest or to loan a firearm to someone for lawful sporting purposes.

Federal law also prohibits the transportation of certain types of weapons. For instance, it is illegal for a person to transport any device deemed to be destructive. This includes bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, and similar weapons. A person is also generally prohibited from transporting machineguns as well as rifles and shotguns with short barrels. Machine guns include any weapon that can automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. It may also include any part of the whole weapon such as the frame or receiver. It is also generally unlawful to convey or own a machinegun; however, some exceptions do apply.

Federal law prohibits straw purchasers of firearms. These laws make it illegal for a person acquiring a firearm from a dealer to use any false written or oral statements or to present any false identification intended to deceive the dealer about the legality of the transaction or the ultimate owner of the firearm.

The preservation of serial numbers is also a concern. A person violates federal law if he knowingly delivers, transports, or accepts any firearm with a serial number that has been changed, removed, or destroyed.

Certain classes of people are barred from possessing any firearms. These classes include: convicted felons (or people who are under indictment for a felony); people who are addicted to certain illegal drugs; people deemed to have certain mental impairments; people in the country illegally; anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from military service; and anyone restrained by a lawful court order.

Generally, a conviction under federal firearm laws may result in a sentence of 5 to 10 years and a fine, depending on the specific crime. A sentence may be greatly increased if the weapon is used in connection with certain crimes such as drug trafficking.

For convicted felons, a prior felony conviction is usually determined by the state or authority where the offense took place. Significantly, a conviction of “felon in possession” can be achieved even if the weapon was not on the convicted felon’s body. The mere intent and ability to control the weapon is enough for a conviction. Also, the government does not need to show that the firearm was working or capable of being fired for a conviction.

[jbscout2002 1]

jbscout2002

Federal Firearms Offenses

Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms.

It is also illegal for a person to sell or otherwise distribute a firearm to another person when the person transferring the weapon knows that the buyer or taker does not live in the same state. Again, the exception is if the people making the transfer are licensed to deal in such weapons. There are also some other general exceptions, such as delivering a firearm to carry out a lawful bequest or to loan a firearm to someone for lawful sporting purposes.

Federal law also prohibits the transportation of certain types of weapons. For instance, it is illegal for a person to transport any device deemed to be destructive. This includes bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, and similar weapons. A person is also generally prohibited from transporting machineguns as well as rifles and shotguns with short barrels. Machine guns include any weapon that can automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. It may also include any part of the whole weapon such as the frame or receiver. It is also generally unlawful to convey or own a machinegun; however, some exceptions do apply.

Federal law prohibits straw purchasers of firearms. These laws make it illegal for a person acquiring a firearm from a dealer to use any false written or oral statements or to present any false identification intended to deceive the dealer about the legality of the transaction or the ultimate owner of the firearm.

The preservation of serial numbers is also a concern. A person violates federal law if he knowingly delivers, transports, or accepts any firearm with a serial number that has been changed, removed, or destroyed.

Certain classes of people are barred from possessing any firearms. These classes include: convicted felons (or people who are under indictment for a felony); people who are addicted to certain illegal drugs; people deemed to have certain mental impairments; people in the country illegally; anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from military service; and anyone restrained by a lawful court order.

Generally, a conviction under federal firearm laws may result in a sentence of 5 to 10 years and a fine, depending on the specific crime. A sentence may be greatly increased if the weapon is used in connection with certain crimes such as drug trafficking.

For convicted felons, a prior felony conviction is usually determined by the state or authority where the offense took place. Significantly, a conviction of “felon in possession” can be achieved even if the weapon was not on the convicted felon’s body. The mere intent and ability to control the weapon is enough for a conviction. Also, the government does not need to show that the firearm was working or capable of being fired for a conviction.

Forgive me, this post, number 707, was copy/pasted from Pate Law Firm, LLC

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>This is why CRIMINALS AND NUT JOBS HAVING GUNS IS ILLEGAL.

No, it's not. You can be crazy and still own guns. Specifically, a doctor can determine that you are such a danger to yourself and others that you can be held against your will - but once released, you can run back to your house and grab your gun with no worries that what you are doing is illegal.

You can even commit felonies and still own guns. For example, many convicted felons in Minnesota get their right to own a gun back as soon as they are released from prison.

If you want to change that, then good! I agree.

My understanding is that with the latest executive action by Obama, if you are held against your will, the medical official who made that decision against you is compelled by law to send your info to the county sheriffs office. They manually put your name in the NICS system so that you cannot pass the background check.

Also, if you are known to possess any firearms, a deputy is sent to your house with a court order to seize them until you and your mental health provider can convince the judge you should get them back.

If that is not the case nationally, I know for a fact it is true under the SAFE act. I have a friend who is fighting the system right now because he was taken to the ER for alcohol overdose (moonshine pong, not as fun as beer pong).

[normiss 634]

Given the increase in penalties for minor crimes that has resulted in a serious increase increase the number of non violent felons, I'd support some non violent felons actually do get that right back.
They get other rights back. We used to accept that people paid their price and penalty and we give them another chance.
Some states make it almost impossible for someone having made a mistake to ever be a contributing member of society again.

[Amazon 7]

normiss

Someone should remind Texas of that last sentence.

I don't think it would do any good..... Texicans got lots of folks whats needs killin

[Bolas 5]

normiss

IIRC, it's a second degree felony to be caught in possession of a firearm in an establishment that serves alcohol or bar if you have a CWP.
Given that the new FL definition of "bar" is any place that makes 51% of the income from the sale of alcohol, and that bowling alleys are considered "bars", I'm unsure where to carry!
Outlaw biker buddies decided NOT having a CWP was safer as the penalty is lessened.

And this I have a problem with. They've essentially created additional gun free zones that aren't secured.

Hypothetical: If a CCW holder stopped an incident by using their firearm in a gun free zone, would they still be charged for possession in a gun free zone?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,448]

>Hypothetical: If a CCW holder stopped an incident by using their firearm in a
>gun free zone, would they still be charged for possession in a gun free zone?

Probably, although you'd probably get the lightest sentence possible. Similar to ramming a criminal with your car to stop him from shooting someone - while far too drunk to drive. Might be a mitigating circumstance, but you're still breaking the law.

[kallend 1,659]

Quote

Federal Firearms Offenses

Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms.

blah blah blah.

Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced.

We have a boatload of gun laws on the books that for a variety of reasons can't be enforced. In many cases they have been deliberately made unenforceable as a result of lobbying by the NRA and similar organizations.

THAT is what many of us are objecting to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tikl68 6]

I was replying to piisfishes post # 617 and just trying to shed a little light on his very good point/question. Try to keep up.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Hypothetical: If a CCW holder stopped an incident by using their firearm in a
>gun free zone, would they still be charged for possession in a gun free zone?

Probably, although you'd probably get the lightest sentence possible. Similar to ramming a criminal with your car to stop him from shooting someone - while far too drunk to drive. Might be a mitigating circumstance, but you're still breaking the law.

Considering mandatory minimums, that's still unacceptable.

That's the problem with possession charges. Intent isn't even a factor.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

Quote

Federal Firearms Offenses

Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms.

blah blah blah.

Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced.

We have a boatload of gun laws on the books that for a variety of reasons can't be enforced. In many cases they have been deliberately made unenforceable as a result of lobbying by the NRA and similar organizations.

THAT is what many of us are objecting to.

"Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced." - Exactly my point. Your gun laws restrict LAW ABIDING citizens. This is true. The criminal simply doesn't care that his gun is ILLEGAL.

Please provide one (1) example of a law (legal statute, ect) that is unenforceable.

Any example of a firearms related law that cannot be enforced by a court of law will shut me up for the remainder of this thread.

Whether by the NRA, any state gun lobby groups, or anything of that nature.

How can a law not be enforceable? Only if a judgement is appealed and the Supreme Court finds the law in violation of another law of a higher beach of government or the Constitution would the enforcement of that law be reversed. A law determined to be erroneous would be amended or repealed.

[kallend 1,659]

jbscout2002

***

Quote

Federal Firearms Offenses

Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms.

blah blah blah.

Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced.

We have a boatload of gun laws on the books that for a variety of reasons can't be enforced. In many cases they have been deliberately made unenforceable as a result of lobbying by the NRA and similar organizations.

THAT is what many of us are objecting to.

"Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced." - Exactly my point. Your gun laws

Not MY gun laws, OUR gun laws.

Quote

... restrict LAW ABIDING citizens. This is true. The criminal simply doesn't care that his gun is ILLEGAL.

Please provide one (1) example of a law (legal statute, ect) that is unenforceable.

Any example of a firearms related law that cannot be enforced by a court of law will shut me up for the remainder of this thread.

Whether by the NRA, any state gun lobby groups, or anything of that nature.

How can a law not be enforceable?

Think about it instead of firing off yet another knee-jerk response.

Think about how a disqualified mentally incompetent person can get a gun in a private sale, when no background check is required. Illegal, but unenforcable.

Just see if you can think of some other examples. I bet you can if you just try.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 634]

I think it's more of an alcohol and guns don't mix approach.
I'd have to agree actually.
Placing more responsibility on a CWP holder seems appropriate to me.

[jbscout2002 1]

Quote

Think about it instead of firing off yet another knee-jerk response.

Think about how a disqualified mentally incompetent person can get a gun in a private sale, when no background check is required. Illegal, but unenforcable.

Just see if you can think of some other examples. I bet you can if you just try.

All states require dealers who sell fires for profit to obtain an FFL. All FFL dealers are required to call in a NICS check with the FBI and get a call back with a order to proceed with the sale and a confirmation number before the sale can be initiated.

This same rule applies at all gun shows in the country. Many states now require that ALL private sales be made through a FFL mediator who conducts the NICS check for the seller. (You must enroll in NICS with your FFL number to use it)

Some states still allow unchecked private sales. In these states a person who is a customer at a gun show can bring in a firearm, have it inspected and tagged at the door, and then make a private sale to another party within the gun show (gun show "loop hole"). The gun show doesn't really have anything to do with it because the private sale in those states can happen anywhere.

BUT this is the important part about the private sale. Keep in mind that even with private sales, all local, state, and federal firearms laws apply, the biggest of these being that you cannot sell a firearm to felons, those who have been found guilty of domestic violence, or the mentally adjudicated. If you sell to somebody in one of those three categories and you are found out, then you will be punished in accordance with the law.

For making private sales, your friends and family will be your best and safest option. If you knowing sell to, or have reason to believe someone you are selling to is on the prohibited list, you are committed a fellony with mandatory minimum sentences and fines, and the possibility of being held responsible to some degree of any crimes committed by that person with the gun you sold them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

BUT this is the important part about the private sale. Keep in mind that even with private sales, all local, state, and federal firearms laws apply, the biggest of these being that you cannot sell a firearm to felons, those who have been found guilty of domestic violence, or the mentally adjudicated. If you sell to somebody in one of those three categories and you are found out, then you will be punished in accordance with the law.

Only if you do it knowingly. That's the unenforcible part. Making background checks mandatory for all sales takes the ignorance defense out of the equation.

- Dan G

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

No, it's not. You can be crazy and still own guns.

I'm going to regret even engaging on this subject...

Yep, you're right!
Someone can be crazy i.e. mentally ill and still own firearms. Until we have the psychiatric/medical and technological means that can test and diagnose someone mentally ill is highly predisposed to commit mass murder, then it is reasonably safe to state that in spite of all the innovations in pharmaceuticals, research, applications and diagnoses, psychiatry and psychology is crude.

In hindsight, the Oregon shooter displayed anti-social characteristics more than sufficient (sad to say) to mass murder. And yet, there are many more (statistically speaking) who have similar levels of mental illness yet wouldn't hurt a fly. Even if such tests were available, would everyone be required to undergo a week counseling session with a psychiatrist before being allowed to purchase a firearm. As far as the responded in this forum are concerned, I think it's safe to state that there is substantial division on this point.

The next point to offer is that even if mental health issues are broadly defined, there are many of these people who are not violent. We should not be using the criteria that while they may be difficult to handle, attend to, and can be incorrigible at times, they are not violent. Therefore, to deny those with "mental health issues" their constitutional right to own a gun runs smack dab into the constitutional problem of the law being vastly over-inclusive; screeing out those who are violent (being permissible) but also screening out a large number of non-violent people who've committed no crime.

Even in the best of all possibilities where a confirmatory mental health test or series of tests can identify those with a very high proclivity to violence and hence mass murder, such would be the basis for civil confinement and subsequent prevention of that individual ever legally owning a gun. Yet it cannot and should not be discounted that any level of prevention/intervention (even denial of gun rights) does not rule out the possibility that Person X will obtain a gun. However, success in the prevention of that person owning a gun will not prevent that person to make bombs, drive cars into a crowd of people crossing the street, set fire to a crowded building etc. etc.

Both sides of the issue do not trust the others motives or change each other's mid and 700+ posts here is evident testament of that. We have seen the disappearance of the phrase "gun control" only to be replaced by "stopping gun violence" or words to that effect. No matter what phrase is used, the agenda as perceived by those of us "bitter clingers" out there is total gun confiscation and the end of private ownership of guns. And there is legitimacy to that perception when one hears the words of such illustrious paragons of virtue such as Dianne (I used to pack heat too but I'm better than anyone else) Feinstein and Chuck (never met a camera he didn't like) Schumer. The President advocates for "reasonable" gun laws but is on record that he admires the "Australia Model" which is (almost) complete confiscation. I personally don't see any reasonability in the President's terms to me as a gun owner. Likewise, those here who believe in 2A limitations will not believe my words when I unequivocally state that the guns I possess are no threat to you when in my hands. The only threat these guns pose are to those who credibly threaten my life, the life of my family, an occasional deer of wild turkey, or if I'm out in public legally packing (I do have a CCW), I find myself in a situation where an armed criminal is threatening lives and I have a better than even chance of ending theirs. My guns were bought legally at guns stores and shows. In both settings, two forms of pictured ID were required, I had to fill out either the ATF Forms 4477 or 4473 and I had to wait while the dealer phoned in to verify I had no criminal record to finalize the purchase.

You may not trust me at my word. That's OK. I've been around; actively handled or owned firearms for over 30 years and no two legged life form has been shot by me. On the other hand, I've been listening to the rhetoric, agenda, and actions by the "gun control crowd and all of it speaks for itself. The tragedy of Oregon will not appreciably change hearts or minds on both sides of this issue. Many like myself hold fast to the position that our gun rights in the current state of affairs are now and never will be negotiable. Our sense, knowledge, and assessment of history and human behavior will not change this. If those who have so much dislike and/or fear of guns do not like the present situation, I would remind them that Cuba is close by, does not allow any private ownership of guns, has free health care AND a drop zone. U.S./Cuban diplomatic relations have been restored. Perhaps you'd be happier there. And I finally close with the fact that Ted Kennedy's Volkswagen has killed more people than any of my guns.
There, I'm done. I will now put on my flak vest and await the verbal incoming expected shortly.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Dan, not in reply to you directly, but for all:

I have been wondering, what do those, whom think there should be absolutely no gun-free zones, think of the following scenario:

Take the latest school shooting, but now put this in a scholl which is not a gun free zone. A shooting takes place in a class room and somebody responds, draws his weapon and standing in the door takes aim at the shooter inside the classroom.

At that point, somebody turns the corner, hears the shots and sees somebody standing in the doorway shooting into a classroom.

He draws his weapon and kills, what he thinks is the "bad guy" in the doorway shooting into the classroom.

Should that second person now be charged with murder or manslaughter, or should he/she be cleared of any wrongdoing?

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

TDan, not in reply to you directly, but for all:

I have been wondering, what does who think there should be absolutely no gun-free zones think of the following scenario:

Take the latest school shooting, but now put this in a scholl which is not a gun free zone. A shooting takes place in a class room and somebody responds, draws his weapon and standing in the door takes aim at the shooter inside the classroom.

At that point, somebody turns the corner, hears the shots and sees somebody standing in the doorway shooting into a classroom.

He draws his weapon and kills, what he thinks is the "bad guy" in the doorway shooting into the classroom.

Should that second person now be charged with murder or manslaughter, or should he/she be cleared of any wrongdoing?

Sounds like an unfortunate accident. Hopefully once they shot the one person, they were still able to shoot/disarm/detain the shooter so still limiting the number of victims.

Definitely no charges if cleared but that person most likely will be harder on themselves than any court of law ever could be.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I'm going to regret even engaging on this subject...

Thank you for your thoughtful post. You will be (perhaps) surprised to hear that I agree with everything you wrote.

"Mental health" has become the mirror to "gun control". The vast majority of people with mental health issues are no more likely to commit violent crimes than are people without such issues, and there is considerable evidence to suggest the seriously ill are more likely to be the victim of violence. It is no more feasible to lock up everyone with some form of "mental illness" than it is to confiscate all guns. Locking up someone with obsessive compulsive disorder (to give one example), or denying them their 2nd amendment rights, would no more keep us safe than taking guns from law abiding citizens would.

Almost always, people with actually dangerous mental health issues have a history of lesser violent acts long before they actually do something major. In a way, this is similar to criminals who generally have a history of lesser crimes before graduating to murder. Over and over, though, I read of tragic cases where families have sought treatment for years for their loved ones, only to be told there is no space available in the scarce treatment facilities, as the spaces are already filled with more violent patients. I can think of three such cases that have happened in my city (a city of about 120,000 people) in the last 10 years or so; in each case 3 or 4 family members were murdered by a son or brother. Often families have only one recourse, which is to pursue criminal charges when their mentally ill child or sibling "acts up" (before it escalates to murder of course), as the US seems to have decided to use the criminal justice system to deal with such problems instead of investing in medical approaches. What a choice to give families: put your loved one in jail, or risk being killed.

We should also recognize that other rights/freedoms are at play besides the 2nd amendment. In particular, we cannot force anyone to take medication or agree to medical treatment they don't want, unless they have been convicted of a crime and are under a court order. It is a characteristic of many forms of severe mental illness that the patient does not recognize their illness, and it is also true that many psychiatric medications have significant side effects that discourage their use.

An issue that should also be recognized is the distinction between preventing violent acts (with or without guns), and punishing such acts. There is no dispute about punishing such acts. However, some (and this is the NRA model) assume that harsh punishments will act as a deterrent and reduce incidence of violent acts. The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it assumes criminals and people with mental illnesses that result in violent impulses are "rational actors" who think things through, and weigh the pros and cons before deciding to act. History suggests this is not true. Of course we should not expect this of people with severe mental illness. Even criminals generally do not think they will get caught, or do not believe they will be punished harshly (perhaps because of prior history with the judicial system, mistaking being given a 2nd chance with "I can beat the system"), or because they weigh different things than law-abiding people do. For example, if everyone you associate with has been to jail, going to jail for a few years yourself may not be seen as a big deal. In some environments young men do not expect to outlive their 20s, and loss of "reputation" can be a ticket to an early exit from life, so life in prison may be seen as a viable option compared to the alternatives.

If we want to reduce the carnage that is inflicted on society by violent people, we should address both the factors that make violence acceptable behavior, and access to the most efficient tools preferred by such people, which is guns. A focus on eliminating (as much as possible) avenues that make it easy for people with violent histories to circumvent background checks is a logical step towards the latter. This should also include aggressive efforts to block importing of ghost guns from Mexico if that really is the major source of street guns, as some have said in this thread (although I don't believe it myself). Questions about violence as a way to get what you want in American society are more difficult, as they involve issues of economic disparity, the American culture of winner-take-all, and the general American notion that emphasizes individuality at the expense of recognition that we benefit from and have responsibilities towards society as a whole.

BTW there is no association between autism/Asperger's syndrome and violent behavior. On the other hand, in both this most recent school shooting and Sandy Hook we do see a situation in which children with (allegedly) Asperger's (which often impairs feelings of social belonging and connection/empathy towards others) were raised in households where they were taught by example to consider guns to be a preferable way of dealing with perceived threats.

It is disheartening that we have come to a point where we cannot even have a civil discussion about what to do about the level of violent behavior, often but not always involving guns, in American society.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)