MaverickNH
NES Member
"Compared to legal handgun purchasers, shooters had more purchases of handguns in the year prior to the attack (OR = 5.58, 95% CI: 2.34, 13.33), greater odds of a history of purchase denials (OR = 23.43, 95% CI: 4.55, 120.59), and fewer years between the last recorded purchase and the end date (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.90). Among the broader set of mass and active shooters, mixed model results indicated that the firearms acquired close to the attack were more likely to be long guns, discharged during the attack, purchased out-of-state, and acquired by methods other than through a licensed dealer."
A very curious preprint summary - more than an abstract with quotable bits for the news media but not total access to allow an complete critique of the paper. UC Davis did a Press Release the day after it was published online. The academic title "Firearm acquisition patterns and characteristics of California mass and active shooters" morphed into a poorly disguised policy recommendation "Can records of firearm purchases help prevent mass shootings?"
Can records of firearm purchases help prevent mass shootings?
A first-of-its-kind study examining records of gun purchases in California found that mass and active shooters have distinct patterns of buying guns compared to
www.newswise.com
"The researchers identified several distinct patterns of gun purchases for buyers who went on to commit mass shootings. Compared to other legal gun purchasers, mass and active shooters who perpetrated an attack between 1996 and 2018 and had a history of authorized purchasing:
- purchased more handguns in the year before the attack
- purchased their first gun at an older age
- were more likely to have a history of purchase denials
- long guns
- used during the attack
- purchased out-of-state
- acquired in an unauthorized manner, even among some mass and active shooters who were not prohibited from buying guns at the time of purchase"
I think the senior author, Wintemute, is doubling down on his comeback to wrt why universal background checks in CA don't reduce violent crime. His first work found both firearm registration AND universal background checks were necessary, but now that that's failed, he's adding to the list: multiple firearms acquisitions, long guns (AR-15s), out-of-state purchases, non-FFL acquisitions, etc. The premise appears to be that algorithms should be able to identify those more likely to attempt to acquire guns outside the CA legal FFL/background check/registration process for criminal purposes of mass/active shootings. Sort of a pre-crime assessment that ChatGTP could do having been given access to the complete CA database collection?
I think Wintemute has decides more/new laws won't help - CA needs to round up likely suspects for confinement and interrogation.
