FBI: FixNICS, Red Flag Laws Will Have Almost No Effect on Number of Mass Shootings

FBI Mass Shooter Not Mentally Ill Bought Guns Legally

courtesy cnn.com

After every noteworthy mass shooting — and not all of them are worthy of mention…why isn’t David Hogg tweeting about Trenton? Who is he boycotting because of that one? — politicians, the media and the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex raise their collective voices in unified support of “common sense” “gun safety” measures.

The most frequently mentioned steps that Shannon Watts, Chris Murphy and the seven random people crammed into CNN’s studio at any particular moment demand most often these days are 1) bump fire stock bans, 2) universal background checks, and 3) gun violence restraining orders or so-called red flag laws.

Unfortunately for the anti-gunners’ long-game campaign aimed at restricting and eventually eliminating the right to keep and bear arms, the FBI’s latest study indicates that none of these steps will do anything to appreciably reduce the number of mass shootings in the US.

In a new report released Wednesday, the bureau shed light on behaviors of shooters before they acted out, finding most obtained a gun legally and did not have diagnosed mental health issues, points that run contrary to some popular beliefs.

Oops! By “most” the FBI means . . .

Forty percent of suspects purchased a firearm or multiple guns legally for the sole purpose of an attack. Another 35 percent already legally owned a gun before planning an attack, meaning 75 percent of active shooter incidents reviewed by the FBI legally owned the gun they used in the attack.

The remaining suspects stole, borrowed or purchased a weapon illegally.

Shannon Watts AR-15 Background Check Gun Show Loophole

courtesy twitter.com

That means mandating “universal background checks” and closing the so-called gun show loophole that our friends on the anti-gun left make sure to mention in every cable news sound bite would do virtually nothing to stop mass shootings.

What about gun violence restraining orders? Wouldn’t it help if family members, friends and physicians could ask a court to confiscate a gun owner’s firearms if they’re acting strangely?

The FBI could only verify that 25 percent of the gunmen examined in the study had any type of mental illness diagnoses, including disorders affecting mood, anxiety and personality.

The study noted, although, that a large portion of shooters, about 62 percent, were dealing with stressors in their lives such as depression, anxiety and paranoia before their attack.

Those symptoms don’t mean the suspect was necessarily dealing with a mental illness and the conclusion that all active shooters are mentally ill is both “misleading and unhelpful,” the bureau said.

So 75% of mass shooters had no diagnosed mental illnesses. Even in the cases in which the shooter was diagnosed with depression, that isn’t a disqualifier when purchasing a firearm. About seven percent of the population has been diagnosed at some point with depression and 16% take a psychiatric drug.

And even if if were — even if someone’s been involuntarily committed — it’s an easy matter to lie about it on a form 4473.

“In light of the very high lifetime prevalence of the symptoms of mental illness among the U.S. population, formally diagnosed mental illness is not a very specific predictor of violence of any type, let alone targeted violence,” the study says.

But what about those bump stocks? Surely we can agree to ban those, right?

Does it matter that a bump fire stock has been used in precisely one (admittedly horrible) crime ever (out of millions sold) since they were approved by the ATF? Of course not. Because as we’re repeatedly told by all of the most knowledgeable people on Twitter, no one needs a bump fire stock.

So let’s recap: universal background checks are useless, the vast majority of shooters weren’t diagnosed with a mental illness and bump fire stocks are virtually never used to commit crimes.

Will that stop the hoplophobic harridans and telegenic teenage moppets from laying down in grocery store aisles and campaigning for more #gunsense measures that will only inconvenience and restrict law-abiding gun owners?

No. No it won’t. Because guns. Because the anti-gun left operates in a carefully cultivated fact-free environment. And because, above all, we must do something. Whether what we do actually reduces mass shootings is utterly beside the point.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Mandatory “universal background checks” is for one purpose and *one* purpose only.

    Fulfillment of a Leftist dream of government registration of every gun in America. When they have that, the confiscation will begin. They will do that by seizing your guns upon your death.

    That way, they can claim “nobody is going to take your guns” (while you are alive)…

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Mandatory “universal background checks” is for one purpose and *one* purpose only.”

      THE MOTHERFvCKERS ARE GETTING PAID

      P A I D

      TO PUSH IT, BY FOREIGN GLOBALISTS THRU THE UN’S “SUSTAINABILITY AGENDAS”

      https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register

      FTW

    2. avatar surlycmd says:

      Universal background checks only work if there is full on mandatory registration of every firearm. Ofcouse registration leads to confiscation. Most informed people of the gun recognize this fact. Fudds are just naive. However, there is a step in between registration and confiscation: periodic re-registration with associated fees.

      The funds citizens spend to periodically re-register some 350 million firearms would be a helluva fund raising scheme to local, state and federal governments. I suspect most of the politicians involved in the anti-gun long con are aware of this.

      1. avatar aircooled says:

        They don’t need registration of firearms to achieve their intended purpose with UBC’s.
        Fast forward 10 years:
        Officer: says “oh, I see you have a shotgun.
        Victim: My granddad gave it to me 10 years ago.
        Officer: How old are you?
        Victim: 28
        Officer: You have to be 21 to receive a firearm in this state. Are you saying you possessed it illegally?
        Victim: Oh, I mean he gave it to me when I turned 21
        Officer: Unfortunately for you, I don’t see any UBC record on you in the last 7 years. Congratulations, you are now a felon.

        1. avatar CC says:

          Transferring, receiving, possessing are all different things. And we don’t do retroactive criminal law in the US so your example would not be a felon.

          Could you be forced to give up say an AR in a state that allowed them at 18 and switched possession to 21 years old minimum? yes. Bu the laws we’ve seen passed seem to be purchase laws raising age for purchase, not possession, which effectively excludes problem for a prior purchaser or possessor

        2. avatar L says:

          CC, here in Florida we have a retroactive criminal law just signed in recently. Oct 1st if you have a bump stock whether or not it was obtained legally you are automatically a felon…

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          L, as bad and dumb as this law is, it’s not retroactive. You can get into trouble for posession of the banned item after Oct. 1st. They can’t punish you for possessing it now or before the law went into effect.

  2. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Sadly, if anything, reports like this only embolden them to point out how these “Half-measures” don’t go far enough and embolden them to call for outright bans and confiscation.

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      That’s a good thing. Outing themselves as gun grabbers costs them elections.

  3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    No regulation in Texas on long guns…?

    I distinctly remember filing federal paperwork on my shotguns, hunting rifles, and ARs…

    I’ve been duped!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      To say nothing of the fact that the Texas church shooter bought his guns in Colorado through an FFL and lied on his 4473, which lie wasn’t picked up because the AF had failed to report his convictions to NICS.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    FixNics ? ? ? Ya, let’s have the tyrannical “in-it-for-themselves” “we do what we want” evil stupid POS (D) MFrs run sh_t.

    FU

    Fix the FBI first. That’ll hold ya.

  5. avatar FedUp says:

    “In light of the very high lifetime prevalence of the symptoms of mental illness among the U.S. population, formally diagnosed mental illness is not a very specific predictor of violence of any type, let alone targeted violence,” the study says.

    Even those who have been involuntarily committed might be statistically safer than the rest of the population, so what’s the legitimate government purpose in making them prohibited persons that is more important than their civil rights?

  6. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    he will chime in after he’s done playing Xbox….

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      I just did…Still farting around in Fallout 4 and Boarderlands 2 !

  7. avatar John Q Public says:

    The Problem with these self-proclaimed Safety DemoNAZI Authoritarians…Like Shannon Watts…Is for all her bluster, manifestos, her long line of SJW/Brownshirt Shills…She’s going to NEED a “Paramilitarized Police Commando force” to put forth her proclamations “Through Force of Arms!” Meaning “Unconstitutional arrests, search and seizure of an America citizens property, or death or maiming of a U.S. citizen…”

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    What happens if the GVRO and red flag laws end up applying to hundreds or even thousands of people at the same time because someone is afraid of certain people?
    Against 1 or 3 people it’s just something they do but against scores of people that would take a lot of manpower.
    Are the sissy boys calling for these laws going to cowboy up and knock on a door?

  9. avatar Ark says:

    Red flag laws aren’t about safety. They’re about legalizing swatting.

    1. avatar HEGEMON says:

      BINGO!

    2. avatar little horn says:

      its virtually the Cold War era all over again except this time its “gun owners” instead of “communists” that are being black booked.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        This is because communists are firmly in charge of the legacy news/entertainment industry, education, and the Democratic party (but I repeat myself), and have been for decades now.

        We won the economic Cold War but lost the ideological war.

  10. avatar SurfGW says:

    The FBI should stick to their legally mandated investigation and out of providing gun stats that can be misconstrued.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Background checks and “red flag” laws will do precisely ZERO to stop spree killers who acquire firearms in-spite of police efforts to confiscate their firearms. Also note that background checks and “red flag” laws will do precisely ZERO to stop spree killers who use arson, vehicles, and clever tactics* to kill masses of people.

    * Clever tactics include the likes of:
    (1) Archery
    Shooting dozens of arrows with broadheads into a crowded venue would be exceedingly easy to do and wildly successful since no one would hear anything and the bowman would be untraceable (until it was too late). And if the arrows caused a stampede, that stampede could kill far more people than the spree killer could ever accomplish with arrows or firearms.

    (2) Garrote wire
    Silently murdering one person at a time on a secluded walking path would also be exceedingly easy and untraceable (until it was too late).

    (3) Poison
    Need I even provide any detail for this option to illustrate how easy it would be? Again, the murderer releasing the poison would be untraceable until was too late.

    (4) Ice
    It would be exceedingly easy to create a substantial ice patch on a bitter-cold winter morning on a busy section of highway — which would lead to a substantial multi-car crash.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      To clarify my comment above:

      Evil doers will ALWAYS find a way to harm people. Trying to create laws in the vain hope of preventing evil people from acquiring destructive implements is a losing game of whack-a-mole. Even worse, it directs limited resources to a losing strategy. Finally, laws which are supposedly intended to limit access to destructive implements will undoubtedly cause grief to good people who have no evil intentions.

      We should be focusing our limited resources on three strategies:
      (1) Being able to respond effectively to protect ourselves from evil-doers.
      (2) Keeping convicted evil-doers locked up indefinitely.
      (3) Identifying and rehabilitating (when possible) evil-doers BEFORE they attack.

  12. avatar Rocketman says:

    It’s my understanding, and I don’t believe the law has changed, that once you have a dishonorable discharge from the military that you never again can purchase or own any firearm legally. So why wasn’t this brought up?

    1. You mean like the Sutherland Springs shooter?

  13. avatar Nanashi says:

    It’s almost like the NRA doesn’t support the second amendment and only wants to undermine it so they have a reason to exist…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Two questions:
      1. Where did the NRA come into this story?
      2. Do you ever talk about anything else?

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        The NRA supports red flag laws and supported FixNICS (getting it passed).

  14. avatar little horn says:

    “In a new report released Wednesday, the bureau shed light on behaviors of shooters before they acted out, finding most obtained a gun legally and did not have diagnosed mental health issues, points that run contrary to some popular beliefs.”

    namely most of the people and admins of THIS website are the sole propagators of such idiocy.
    i look forward to throwing this back in your face when you say “its only the mentally ill that shoot up schools”

    1. avatar ollie says:

      Many of the youthful school shooters were bullied into action.
      Treating everyone with dignity and respect might save your life.

      Dope ODs, texting while driving, doctors and intoxicated driving each kill way more teens than school mass shootings.

  15. avatar CC says:

    My own feeling is Fixnics is an excellent tactic. Say combined with reciprocity. And there are many definitions of UBC.

    Even in the cases in which the shooter was diagnosed with depression, that isn’t a disqualifier when purchasing a firearm. About seven percent of the population has been diagnosed at some point with depression and 16% take a psychiatric drug.

    Estimates of episodes of clinically detectable depression run way more than 50% of the population. Those diagnosed a some with it and those with it at some point are two very different things.

    Unfortunately, the gun control lobby seems hellbent on making sure that intelligent people never seek or agree to any counseling or treatment for common transient mental disorders. Even a marriage or job counselor or life coach may also be empowered in some of the schemes being put foreword to trigger your being put on a list.

  16. avatar Scoutino says:

    “Those symptoms don’t mean the suspect was necessarily dealing with a mental illness and the conclusion that all active shooters are mentally ill is both “misleading and unhelpful,” the bureau said.”

    The very decision to go and kill as many strangers/schoolmates as possible is not a sign of mental illness?
    Like: “This guy is mentally perfectly fine, he just murders bunch of people for some reason once in a while.”

  17. avatar dava golino says:

    The EU has its own constitution. that is why our sold out politicians and educators in the US want to destroy the Constitution, the 2nd amendment. WAKE UP AND KNOW YOUR ENEMY. THE EU is an enemy of the whole world. Tommy Robinson is a global call for a War against Brussels. I hope members of America’s NRA NOW WOULD JOIN WITH THE Visegrad group… the EU, using the UN Data collection is the engine driving SO CALLED GUN CONTROL IN the USA.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email