- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,940
- Reaction score
- 12,338
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I think removing all guns, or all guns of a type ("assault weapons", which is nearly as vague as "gun control") appeals to those who are upset that people are getting wounded/maimed for life/killed by firearms in mass shootings and terrorist attacks, and who want a rapid answer.If we really want to deal with gun violence, we have to look analytically, rather than emotionally at the roots of gun violence. Is it the possession of a gun? millions of Americans own one or more guns yet less than 0.003% of them participate in a murder. Is it because there are no back ground checks? No, far from it a huge percentage of all gun sales are background checked. The FBI's NCIC processes hundreds of thousands of checks every year. Is it because of some mysterious "loophole" so far the answer, at least for the high profile mass shootings the answer is no; every weapons was legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer.
Ther
So, if background checks aren't catching these guys what do we do? A background check is only as good as the data it searches. IF a person who's had several run-ins with the law for exhibiting bizarre behavior isn't AT LEAST evaluated for danger to himself or others - he'll never pop on a BC. This is a common theme for most of shooters in these incidents - they past the BC because info was never submitted to NCIC.
So, IMHO, we can either find better ways to get data into NCIC or we can keep pissing into the wind with more "grab the guns" nonsense. Guess which one would work.
Because if it could be implemented, it would unquestionably make gun deaths less likely.
It's the "if it could be implemented" that is the stopping point, IMO.
Because it probably couldn't be.