Say, How Often Are Background Checks, Red Flags, And Assault Rifles Involved In Mass Shootings?

Good on John Woolfolk of the Mercury News to do actual research

Mass shootings: How often were background checks, assault weapons and red flags a factor?

In the wake of three deadly shootings in Gilroy, Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, Congress is being pressured to consider a trio of gun laws — already used in California and other states — designed to keep weapons out of the hands of potential killers.

But would universal background checks, red flag laws and a ban of assault weapons reduce the bloodshed? This news organization looked at three years worth of recent active shooter incidents from 2016 through 2018 compiled by the FBI to see how often they involved background check loopholes, disturbing “red flag” signals from the shooter beforehand, and military-style assault weapons.

In more than two-thirds of the 75 cases reviewed, the shooters telegraphed their troubled state on social media, in remarks or messages to friends or family or with signs of mental illness or distress.

That raises the potential for them to have been disarmed beforehand through red flag laws like those in California and 16 other states. A recent study found 21 cases in which California’s red flag law appears to have headed off threatened mass shootings since it was enacted in 2016. Last week, a Long Beach hotel worker was arrested after a co-worker told police he threatened to shoot up the place, and a teenage girl in Orlando was arrested after her threats to shoot people at her sister’s school were reported.

But, do the people who are giving the ability to file a red flag see this information? The Dayton shooter’s mom did, but she did not report his actual name. Red Flag laws, if done properly could work, especially if they included the ability to charge someone who falsely reports it.

In nearly a third of the cases, military-style assault weapons banned in California and six other states were used, though the shooters often had other types of guns too. Most used ordinary pistols, shotguns and rifles.

So, even though banned in California, they were still used. But what of the other 2/3rds? Will the gun grabbers demand that they be banned, too?

The review found that guns were obtained in a variety of ways. Most of the shooters either legally bought weapons and passed background checks or used a gun that was stolen or belonged to a relative or friend.

Hmm, so enhanced background checks wouldn’t work? How about that? All they’d do would be create a database of who owns what, the easier to confiscate.

It’s a long read that delves into all three, worth the read.

Here’s an idea: go hard on people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Go hard on those who unlawfully possess one.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Say, How Often Are Background Checks, Red Flags, And Assault Rifles Involved In Mass Shootings?”

  1. formwiz says:

    IOW they’re nuts who need to be committed.

  2. Kye says:

    I can guarantee you “In nearly a third of the cases, military-style assault weapons banned in California and six other states were used,” is not true. In order to be an actual “military style assault weapon” they would need to be fully automatic and have bayonet mounts which unless a person had a special federal license they did not. We cannot continue to allow the radical left to manipulate the English language to achieve their nefarious, fascistic goals. They do the same thing with health care vs. health insurance and white supremacy vs white nationalism or global warming and climate change and many other topics all emotionally charged or twisted to direct the ignorant toward the leftists goal. Our own Fredo P. Dowd has proven his inability to logical thinking due to this leftist phenomenon. We need to demand truth in legislation. America can’t afford any more Fredo’s.

    Trump 2020 Keep the left speaking authentic English.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Forcing other people to use the archaic military definition of “Assault weapon” is pointless. Any jurisdiction can create a “legal definition” of any common thing (as California has done and as the Clinton era “Assault weapons ban has done) and that would become the valid definition in that jurisdiction. Further, calling something “military style” is a perfectly valid way to describe something by it’s visual characteristics. Of course, If the military changes it’s style, don’t expect the Leftist press to even notice or to correct their terminology.

      Where we should be arguing is: Repeal the NFA and let Americans buy and keep fully automatic weapons without a special permit from the government. Then it won’t matter if they are using the right definition or making up some other scary sounding definition.

      Arguing about the “true definition” of constantly shifting words is a losing game. That’s why the Democrats play that game. Our argument should be in the defense of liberty, human rights, and restricting the powers of the government to act against citizens.

      • Kye says:

        I agree with you 100% Professor, in theory. That said if “shifting words is a losing game” then we have absolutely no way of understanding each other. Words mean things. And while calling something “military style” may be “a perfectly valid way to describe something by it’s visual characteristics” it’s way too open ended for LAW. And that’s the reason they do it. It does matter if they are using the right definition or making up some other scary sounding definition because the right definition is truth whereas the “scary definition” is manipulative.

        Yes, we should be looking to repeal the NFA as well as dozens of other federal and state laws and even though our policy is to defend Liberty, human rights and restricting the power of governments we need to be talking about the same thing not some “made up” assault weapon. When Fredo says “assault weapon” he’s not picturing what I’m picturing in his mind. So we’re not talking about the same thing.

        • Professor Hale says:

          When the laws are actually written, the actually define what they mean. The California law and the Clinton Assault weapons ban were very specific about what constituted an “assault weapon”. Other states are also very specific in defining what terms mean in the law so things are not just arbitrary and open to interpretation. Laws that fail to be specific get struck down by the courts at every level. When Fredo says “assault weapon”, you know exactly what he means because you already know how difficult it is to get and own a weapon with automatic feed and select fire switch. You already know he is talking about AR-15’s and AK-47 -Style guns that are semi-automatic sporting versions. You know that because you are not a moron and you understand what guns are by their real names. You also know that guns are named by manufacturers and manufacturers can name their products anything they want, like the really popular M&P version of AR-15’s by Smith and Wesson. (M&P is for Military and Police, but really they will sell them to anyone). unless you are a museum curator, it’s all just marketing. The real issue is your liberty, not words.

          And that’s all I’m going to say about this. We understand each other well enough already.

        • Imagine what goes through Fredo’s head when he sees a picture of an FAL.

          • Kye says:

            I see where you’re coming from, Professor and I agree that our Liberty as human beings is far more important than nomenclature.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10581 access attempts in the last 7 days.