How many had a valid carry permit?

[Guest BCR#1]

This just crossed my mind as to how many of the mass shooters in this country possessed a valid open/concealed carry permit at the time they committed their crimes? I'll bet 0% did but is there any data out there to know for sure?

Bill

[Garufa]

If imagine if any of them we’d still be hearing about it.

While permit holders are not unknown for committing crimes or murder, it is a very small number, and none that I’ve ever heard of have committed atrocities on the level of what we’ve seen the past couple of days.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Garufa

[Erich]

Interesting question Bill. Or card carrying members of the NRA?  Given the age probably not, but how does that play with the sentiment of the NRA and its members being the problem.

[DaveTN]

29 according to Google. I’m not sure where you are headed with this, but my guess is; the wrong direction.

Probably the best know is Aaron Alexis, 34, who shot and killed 12 people at an office building at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC.

Quote

 

People with concealed carry permits have committed at least 29 mass shootings since 2007

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/26/people-with-concealed-carry-permits-have-committed-at-least-29-mass-shootings-since-2007/?utm_term=.4322ba02c089

 

also:

 http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

Your question would be hard to track. When someone murders someone else whether or not they have a carry, permit is irrelevant to the investigators. So, it’s not closely documented. It’s a political question.

Edited August 5, 2019 by DaveTN

[Erich]

Something that would be good is to drill further into that given not all carry are equal. That is to say some come with background checks and interviews by the issuing agency, and others are just at the local DMV with no checks (Georgia). Have you been bad or are you breathing.

I think that may have been Bill's thought, but the generalities maybe watered it down.

Would love a great way to sort out the whackadoodles. Some heuristics and predictive modeling of consumable data would be a great way to go. But once it identifies someone as a potential threat.....its starts bordering on sci fi movies like Minority Report.

With our touch on the legal vs justice system, there are downsides to having something that sounds good on the surface.

[DaveTN]

Carry permits aren’t an indicator of anything. Other than the person probably hasn’t been convicted of a felony.

Both sides try to use them as data; they are really meaningless.

Most of these mass shooters purchased their weapons legally. Although that’s really a non-issue also; in our state you don’t need a background check.

This is a mental health issue. These mass shooters aren’t people who killed someone in a robbery or drug deal, or killed someone in a moment of rage. They have planned out an attack and usually made a decision to die. That’s means they fear nothing; there isn’t anything to threaten them with; finding them and incarcerating them is the only answer. They are full of hate and have no morals.  If tomorrow the mental health folks came up with a way to identify a potential mass murderer; it would be stopped in the courts the day after.

Trump will be speaking in a few minutes. He has implied he will have some ideas; we will see.

[Erich]

Did not say they were, as pointed out they are not the same, offering why OP may have gone there as its typically asked. However TN does fingerprinting and background check. Or at least they claim to. They forced me to go do it last year when I got here. under the guise of background check. Not sure if you are talking years ago or it does not meet your definition of what a "real" background check is. 

Where is anyone saying the issue is not mental illness? Hence all the references whackos, whackadoodles or whatnot.

I fear the same, it will be impossible to get folks to submit or approve to any meaningful way to attempt to determine this. The gun buyers themselves will resist from an invasion of privacy standpoint irrespective of it precluding any whackos. In lieu of any teeth being offered for any meaningful way to identify mental problems, all one can do is look at past behavior patterns and public information, which is why that ends up being the misdirected focus.

All data can be spun. But you have to use some basis, calling everything meaningless just means one failed to sell it. There are correlations and simple numbers that put scope on it, but right now emotions are high and logic is taking a back seat to political agenda.

Not sure if folks saw Neil Tysons comments, folks hate the facts but love their emotions. Surprising since he is very liberal.

[DaveTN]

8 minutes ago, Erich said:

Did not say they were, as pointed out they are not the same, offering why OP may have gone there as its typically asked. However TN does fingerprinting and background check. Or at least they claim to. They forced me to go do it last year when I got here. under the guise of background check. Not sure if you are talking years ago or it does not meet your definition of what a "real" background check is. 

My comment was simply that you don't have to have a background check in this state to buy a gun; unless you buy it from an FFL. 

 

8 minutes ago, Erich said:

Where is anyone saying the issue is not mental illness? Hence all the references whackos, whackadoodles or whatnot.

No where 

8 minutes ago, Erich said:

I fear the same, it will be impossible to get folks to submit or approve to any meaningful way to attempt to determine this. The gun buyers themselves will resist from an invasion of privacy standpoint irrespective of it precluding any whackos. In lieu of any teeth being offered for any meaningful way to identify mental problems, all one can do is look at past behavior patterns and public information, which is why that ends up being the misdirected focus.

Neither side is going to want and medical or mental health information made available.

8 minutes ago, Erich said:

All data can be spun. But you have to use some basis, calling everything meaningless just means one failed to sell it. There are correlations and simple numbers that put scope on it, but right now emotions are high and logic is taking a back seat to political agenda.

Documented facts can’t be spun. If you make threats you are arrested. You are then either convicted or acquitted. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country and no matter how much some want to change that; I doubt it will change. I’m not suggesting there will be people interpreting what folks say, or that people need to go through a mental health evaluation to decide if they can buy a gun or not. I’m saying when people make threats; cuff them, stuff them, charge them and take them to trial. They will be tried by their peers. And that results in yes or no data. 

As you can probably tell I wasn’t the cop you would have wanted showing up at your house after you punched someone out or threatened them. 

[Guest BCR#1]

10 hours ago, DaveTN said:

29 according to Google. I’m not sure where you are headed with this, but my guess is; the wrong direction.

 

Hey bub, I ask a simple question and you want to turn it into something it's not.

Bill

[DaveTN]

6 minutes ago, BCR#1 said:

Hey bub, I ask a simple question and you want to turn it into something it's not.

Bill

You were willing to bet no mass shooters had carry permits. Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

Dave