Gun Free Zones and concealed carry permits have zero effect on mass shooters. They do not choose locations based on such criteria. More importantly since most are also suicidal as well as homicidal (The majority mass shootings are ended by the shooter offing themselves). Armed amateurs are more likely to use their weapons for illegal purposes than anything socially redeeming (menacing, escalating personal squabbles…)
http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun-free-zone-myth-no-relationship-between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/ Despite the fact that one-third of our nation’s schools have armed guards or officers, there is no evidence that these measures have deterred or de-escalated mass shootings. Denise C. Gottfredson,a criminologist at the University of Maryland renowned for her research on school violence argues that, “there is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety […] it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.” It’s no coincidence that in both the Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings there were armed guards who failed to mitigate the shooting spree.
Psychiatric evaluation may help prevent gun suicides by identifying a person who’s buying a gun to blow their own brains out because they’re depressed.
Psychiatric evaluation may also help prevent gun homicides by identifying a person who has anger management issues, or who has a psychological disorder that may lead to them lashing out at others, or who is under enough stress that they are likely to “snap” and become violent, etc.
But what would be the criteria rendering someone ineligible for a license? The DSM-V has retained antisocial personality disorder, which is the most actively antagonistic disorder I can think of. The problem is that, as with all personality disorders, it’s impossible to make such a diagnosis based on an initial intake. Even if the person had been previously diagnosed with ASPD, a responsible psychiatrist would require documentation saying so, and that requires the person to obtain these documents if they haven’t already and that’s assuming they’ve consented to share them in the first place.
Psychosis may be possible to diagnose within an intake but again, almost anyone who is experiencing psychosis is a much greater threat to themselves than to others. Ditto for mania and mixed states.
For the sort of person you’re describing—someone likely to ‘snap’—a psychiatric evaluation would be insufficient. A second evaluation by a social worker might illuminate those predictive factors. Might.
All of this, however, assumes that the now unhinged person (1) doesn’t already own a firearm, (2) is somehow unable to borrow a firearm, and (3) doesn’t have the connections (or cash) to buy one on the black market.
Maybe a psych eval isn’t the right solution. Maybe deeper background checks (to look for not just criminal records, but reported and documented medical/social issues), or interviews/reference letters from family/friends are a better way. I suggested a psych eval because I know police interviews are inherently problematic in this country for racial reasons. I just want to prevent someone like my cousin, who has a history of increasingly violent behavior and a serious temper problem, from being able to walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Right now there’s precious little standing in his way, but I know for a fact that he has no business owning a gun because he will use it on someone.
I’m not sure why it should matter whether someone will shoot themselves or someone else. I’m still happy to stop the mentally ill from being able to hurt themselves (and possibly others) with a gun by increasing the opportunity cost associated with getting one. Suicide attempts will still happen, to be sure, but a gun is a really easy, effective way of ensuring that an attempt is successful very quickly.
This is why there’s an annual re-licensing requirement, and a requirement for review and training with every additional firearm purchased. Granted, people will fall through the cracks when the system is first implemented because existing firearms owners may be impossible to track down, and you’ve only got one shot a year at catching any red flags, but that’s still more chances to stop “a bad guy with a gun” before they go out and do something atrocious than we have right now. Once again, just because we can’t stop every tragedy or crime doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to at least stop some of them.
This is why you also make someone criminally liable if their gun is used in the commission of a crime, regardless of who pulled the trigger. Would you loan a gun to someone if you were worried about them using it to shoot up a public place? IMO, the “responsible” in “responsible gun ownership” includes not giving your guns to unbalanced individuals, and safeguarding them from theft by the same. Even if a psych eval doesn’t catch the sort of red-flag anger management issue people we’re talking about, family and friends should be better at recognizing them, and expanding criminal liability to those family and friends will hopefully make them think twice about loaning their gun to that sort of person.
The +100% street value buy-back program I suggested was in part an attempt to tamp down on the black market by making it more desirable to sell guns back to the government than to potentially crazy people (and as an added benefit, reduce the volume of loose guns in the wild in the first place, thereby driving up the cost of the remaining supply). And, again, by tightening regulations and liability requirements for manufacturers, sellers, and owners, it increases the personal risk to selling a gun on the black market versus the essentially accountability-free system we have in place now. I’m sure there will always be people who find being charged as an accessory to 49 counts of murder an acceptable risk, but raising the bar also raises the opportunity cost of the transaction, hopefully high enough to dissuade most people from going through with it.
I know there are plenty of people having reasonable discourse. Unfortunately many folks are suffering from “Inflammatory Response Syndrome” a condition that causes people to back into their respective corners and scream their opinion on the matter (backed by studies) in the most hateful way possible.
Calling peoples feelings and opinions invalid {stupid, inane, crazy, insane, et cetera ad nauseam} because you (backed by studies) are of a different mind, does not produce an environment from which actual solutions will be cultivated.
This came from the article at http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html - I haven’t re-read through it to see if it identifies the source names in the table header - at a glance, I don’t think it does, although there is a list of references at the end of the article.
The number I’m remembering was cited as - I think - a CDC claim.
Well, it isn’t, of course. You don’t have to undergo a background check to buy a car or booze, you don’t have to get a special permit to “carry” a car or booze, etc. All you need for a car or booze is cash and possibly an ID verifying your age.
[quote=“alahmnat, post:90, topic:80156”][quote=“Snowlark, post:88, topic:80156”]
Psychosis may be possible to diagnose within an intake but again, almost anyone who is experiencing psychosis is a much greater threat to themselves than to others. Ditto for mania and mixed states.
[/quote]
I’m not sure why it should matter whether someone will shoot themselves or someone else. I’m still happy to stop the mentally ill from being able to hurt themselves (and possibly others) with a gun by increasing the opportunity cost associated with getting one. Suicide attempts will still happen, to be sure, but a gun is a really easy, effective way of ensuring that an attempt is successful very quickly.
[/quote]
Oh, absolutely. I think we agree completely on this, actually. When I wrote that, I had in mind the public’s mistaken association between mental illness and homicide. But yeah, I didn’t convey that very well.
I really like your idea of annual re-licensing and I think you’re right that, with proper implementation of this process, probability alone suggests this measure would result in avoided tragedies.
I also like the idea of buy-backs but they would have to be targeted to be financially feasible. A article published in today’s Guardian stated that buying back even just one-third of the firearms in the U.S—90 million—would costs billions. However, regionally selective buy-backs might get us 75% of the way there while costing far less money.
You’ve made some very sensible suggestions. I wish those with the power to write them into law would consider them.
If you want citations for mass shootings stopped by a bystander with a gun, look it up yourself. There are several web sites that track those incidents. As well as non-mass shootings stopped - there are even more web sites documenting those.
I appreciate that you just provided a citation that shows that the 2.5 million number is not only an estimate based on a survey, but also over 20 years old from a time when violent crime rates were twice as high as they are now. There are numerous flaws in that statistic that make it completely unreliable. The Wikipedia entry on Defensive Gun Use highlights some of the controversy and criticism among researchers in the field (Kleck is the researcher of the study you cited).
Both Kleck and Gertz’ and Lott’s research are highly controversial within the academic community. Hemenway has asserted that Kleck and Gertz’ methodology suffers from several biases leading them to overestimate the number of DGU, including telescoping, the social desirability bias, and the possibility that “some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards.”
Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it. He argues that there are too many “false positives” in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.
You have to have proof of proper identity from the government (a driver’s license and/or state ID) to buy either, plus proof of insurance IN PLACE in the case of the car, and unless you’ve walked in with a suitcase full of cash for the car they will need your government-issued social security number to check your credit rating.
The NCVS has known problems - primarily self-reporting a probably illegal event to a government representative.
From http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html :
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year
by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national
survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist
in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys
indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually.
However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to
conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of
DGU’s annually.
Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a
survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample
size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually. Why the huge
discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?"
