That's right. I will research and present the data only after you commit to revising your view on gun control if I succeed. Are you ready to do that?
No, I'm saying we don't have laws banning people who arouse suspicion from buying guns. We do have laws that apply to convicted felons, but as I will show if you deem it significant, less that half of the mass murders were convicted felons before they went on their shooting spree.
How can I know your data will be convincing. I am not buying a pig in a poke.
Why aren’t you including misdemeanors in your analysis?
Well, first tell me what data you will trust. Then I will know if you will find it convincing. If I cite the most recent 10 mass murders and refer to news reports of prior convictions, will that do?
Because misdemeanors do not empower the police to do anything to the murderers until he does something more serious. The whole point was that with more than half the mass murderers, current law enforcement are not allowed to do anything to stop them.
We are supposed to be looking for indicators that mass murders were never on anyone’s radar. If they were convicted felons, there are laws in place in most states to deny them the right to buy a gun.
Why? What good does it do to know that a mass murder was on somebody's radar? If that is all it was - just being on someone's radar - that is not enough to take action. Only convicted felons may have their guns taken away. Those that are one someone's radar or aroused people's suspicion does not help because that darned 2nd amendment prevents anyone from doing anything about it until the actually commit a serious crime. That was vibise's point that you so casually dismissed as "vibise's double standard". Now I am offering to present evidence to back up vibise's claim once you agree that's is what we should be looking for and not just "indicators of who was on someone's radar".
What is your suggestion?
Are you actually admitted that a new suggestion is called for and that current laws are insufficient? If so, my suggestion is to do something new - anything. Like, for example, some kind of red flag law that allows law enforcement to take action based on troubling behavior. But for now all I want is admission that the laws we have now are insufficient.
Are the current laws being enforced?
It does not matter, because most mass murderers have not broken any laws that could be enforced.
There is a speedy judicial review. But where red flags are needed there isn't time for full legal representation. To compensate for that, the actions taken through the red flag laws are temporary - pending a full hearing with full legal representation. If at the end of that hearing the person is found not to be a danger, his guns are returned. All due process is limited only to the extent necessary to provide immediate protection. Obviously that would not be the case if the accused retained all his rights to a gun while waiting for the hearing because if the danger was imminent, it would be too late. There are various forms of red flag laws already implemented in some communities. You can research them and see for yourself if they provide a reasonable balance between due process rights and the prevention of imminent harm.
So are you proposing something akin to what they do with no contact orders? With a 30 day temporary order?
How do you know the guard will be competent when a shooter shows up?
In your imaginations.
Artificial "intelligence" Due to much googling that you rely on.
As I said many times before, most mass murderers have not broken any laws before becoming mass murders that might enable law enforcement to do something BEFORE they strike. Sure, you can prosecute them after they have done their killing, but that will not bring back the dead, and it will make a difference because many mass murderers take their own lives before police can arrest them or prosecute them. That's what's so nonsensical to the approach to gun violence. No action can be taken before there are dead bodies.