the crazy part about this is that the guns used in mass shootings in most cases were purchased legally and other than the person technically stealing the gun(s) from a household they had access to the purchase went thru a background check.
This seems to suggest that the Odessa shooter had failed a background check before and that the firearm used in the shooting on Saturday was allegedly not one purchased where a background check would be required (e.g. private sale). I don't know about you but this says to me that there are glaring holes in gun sale laws that aren't to do with background checks but more to do with private sales etc.
In fact, statistics say that more than 3 million applicants were denied between 1994 and 2015, with more than 40% failing for having a felony conviction and 19% failing for having a fugitive status. If the background checks can catch those people, why are they not catching all people?
Is it because of a disparity between gun purchasing laws state-to-state? Is it because some sales are exempt from background checks (e.g. private sales)? Is it because there are problems with corrupt licensed firearm dealers who knowingly supply firearms to buyers without performing the necessary checks to keep the public safe?
The Odessa article above, if the truth, suggests that it's not the background checks that failed this time.
ffs we are talking about 10ths of a percentage point, in the neighborhood of six sigma enforcement.
You are right. Mass shootings, while horribly tragic, don't make the majority of gun crimes in the US. I agree it doesn't even make up a significant minority. But you do have an excessively high amount of homicides including firearms. In 2017, gun-related killings made up 73% of your homicides for the year: https://www.bbc.com/...world-us-canada-41488081.
Suicides by firearms are higher than homicide deaths as well (outnumbering them 2:1), and yet there's some pretty solid research to suggest that reduced access to firearms would reduce the number of suicides a year: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...agazine/guns-and-suicide/
I mean seriously, when Britain is actually considering a knife ban, it should be a clear indicator banning or heavily regulating weapons is not going to stop rampage killing anytime soon. Does France need to ban trucks? After the Boston bombings should we be looking into banning or heavily regulating pressure cookers? Japan with Sarin gas, China with swords, Europe and the Middle East with bombs.
Let's take your Britain example.
2016 gun murders in the US were 34.03 per million of population. In the UK, that number was 0.48. But we're talking knife crimes? Because knives are the equivalent replacement for guns in the UK, right?
2016 knife murders in the UK was 3.26 per million of population. That's a lot more than their gun murder rate of 0.48. They clearly have a knife crime problem.
But the US knife murder rate in 2016, per million of population, was 4.96?
In the UK, certain types of knives are banned too: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives,
whereas knife ownership laws in the US (like gun laws) depend on the state you're in. They can be strict, or they can be lax.
Because of the heightened focus on terrorism post-9/11, global intelligence agencies have focused quite heavily on the detection and prevention of bomb attack plots. The possible reason for an increase in vehicle attacks, according to an FBI memo, is because they allow terrorists with “limited access to explosives or weapons” the ability to conduct an attack with “minimal prior training or experience." https://www.counterextremism.com/...cles-as-weapons-of-terror
There are much larger issues at play here than the weapons being used to carry out these atrocities. Mass/Rampage killing is not limited to the USA, the weapon(s) used are different based on country and region. Saying guns in the USA are the issue is misleading and obfuscating what is clearly a global problem.
Gun deaths are clearly a very American problem, however. For a developed, civilised nation, you constantly win the Gold, Silver and probably Bronze medals when it comes to gun deaths, either by suicide or homicide, and no other Western country has mass shootings as often as you do.
It's baffling to suggest that the US cannot do anything about it's gun issues until Britain tackles it's knife crime issue, France it's vehicular terrorism, and whatever other random China swords (lol whut?), Japan Sarin gas (happened in 1995), Middle East bombing (do US drone strikes count?) stuff you mentioned.
That's like America is standing in front of it's burning house and refusing to do anything about it until his British neighbour waters their dying plants, the French neighbour washes his car, and the Japanese guy down the road drowns himself in the sorrow a tragedy that befell him and his household more than 20 years ago.
Some random person on the planet wakes up one morning and decides to use whatever it is they have at their disposal to kill as many people as they can in the period of time it takes for someone else to stop them. <--- this is the actual issue we are looking at.
You wake up one morning, feeling cute, thinking about killing a bunch of people, and you've got three options in front of you:
1. A pile of bomb making ingredients
2. A knife
3. A semi automatic firearm
Obviously, time is of the essence. You don't want to spend too much time preparing to kill people otherwise you might talk yourself out of it. So that's the bomb discounted as an option, plus it's illegal to publish/obtain bomb making instructions.
The knife is a quiet option but, really, then you have to get up close to your victims and there's the possibility they might over power you. A knife still requires that you be decently strong and fit, otherwise you're stabbing one or two people max before you possibly get swarmed. Plus, good guys with guns might just shoot you.
Better take the gun. It's quick, you can kill from a distance, and it should scare most people away from you. If good guys show up, you have just as much opportunity to shoot them as they do you.
Now, if laws were to take one of those options away - which do you reckon would probably reduce the risk of a random going on a murder spree?