Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By what criteria do we decide who is crazy enough to be banned from owning firearms.
Remember, these people are not sane.
they are sane enough to plan their heinous crime. they need not be locked away in an insane asylum, prosecute them as any other murdering 
then "juice" them.., 
You obviously have no idea what would entail.Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.
Stop coddling and enabling crazy people and criminals.Reduce mass shootings?
You can start by getting the rightwing propaganda machine to stop glorifying conservative victimology. Stop telling people that conservatives are the victims of horrific persecution by society, by liberals, by the government.
Stop coddling and enabling the paranoia.
You obviously have no idea what would entail.Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.
You have any idea how many people would die, with the government trying an all gun confiscation.
Hashtag socialist bubble
Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.
-------------------------------------------------------
What IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?
No method is 100% perfect, of course, and never will be as long as we are a society of imperfect people.
But most of the methods being tried today, pretty much have no effect. Indeed, insane mass murderers seem to be drawn to the "Gun Free Zones" set up by naïve liberals. Where else can they be guaranteed a large collection of unarmed, vulnerable targets, with many uninterrupted minutes to blow away as many people as they like before the cops get there?
Is there a viable way to cut down the numbers of such shootings, and/or the body counts?
Many of the whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.
But what most of them want, is to go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.
But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hospital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.
And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, even after they are dead, that's mostly why they're doing it.
If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.
The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out. And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.
It's enough to often make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?
Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes.
Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?
1. Enact a 45 day waiting period before the acquisition of any new firearm.
2. Be sure the purchaser is sane
3. Any background of criminal activity should preclude ownership
4. Shut down all gun shows or any semblance of one
5. Hang mass shooters in the public square in front of the courthouse...by the scrotum
Last but not least....get politics and the NRA out of the thing completely. The NRA is nothing more than a political tool of the arms manufacturing industry
I will not send a child to a school that doesn't have armed guards on campus.
no need for armed guards, an extra tax payer burden, allow teachers want to be armed..., let them, no extra tax payers expense.
You have a serious comprehension issue. I would get it evaluated if I were you.You obviously have no idea what would entail.Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.
You have any idea how many people would die, with the government trying an all gun confiscation.
Hashtag socialist bubble
So you're saying law abiding folks will murder persons who are trying to enforce the law? Am I right?
How does that prevent them from wanting lurid headlines anyway?Some cogent thoughts. I don't really think it's got anything to do with publicity though. After all if they're on a suicide or suicide-by-cop mission as a conclusion, then by definition they're not going to be around to assess the coverage anyway.
I think they're in it for immediate sensory gratification, which is why the firearm is the preferred tool. It provides splatter of blood and guts and visible sensory feedback of fear from the targets, and that's what they're after -- everything in the moment. Moreover it provides the means to deliver from a 'safe' distance. It's the perfect tool for mass random slaughter. So perfect that if the gun did not exist but the conditions for mass slaying did, the slayers would find a way to invent it.
What we do about that has little to nothing to do with gun laws. We go to the root causes, which are a cultural value system that glorifies firearms, violence and death, coupled with individual crises of masculinity -- which means power. Virtually without exception every mass shooter is on some kind of power crisis trip, snaps, and takes this avenue to address it as a final act of desperation.
Address those, and we take away the fire's fuel. Ignore the fuel, and prepare to fight more fires forever.
Remember, these people are not sane.
Though they retain enough coherency to pick a venue and plan what they are going to do.
What would be the point of generating headlines ---- if you're going to be dead by the time they print?
There was more to that post yanno. {EDIT: I just replaced the missing content in the post above, though it's interesting to note which part was excised so it wouldn't have to be dealt with}
And btw I think "well they're just not sane" is a cop-out. Kind of a get-out-of-analysis free card. That's too easy. Gotta grok what's going on.
No, you just have to kill them before they can get too far along. You and your progressive mindset of "we have to understand why they do it" is bullshit. They do it because they are assholes. That's all you need to know.
Tough choice.
I say if they're crazy enough to be hospitalized once, they stay hospitalized.By what criteria do we decide who is crazy enough to be banned from owning firearms. Who gets to decide. It's a can of never ending worms filled with false claims and accusations.Allow armed civilians and keep crazy people locked up. Stop letting lunatics out.
Nope. Knowing there are armed people around will not stop a crazy person. Because...they are crazy!Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.
-------------------------------------------------------
What IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?
No method is 100% perfect, of course, and never will be as long as we are a society of imperfect people.
But most of the methods being tried today, pretty much have no effect. Indeed, insane mass murderers seem to be drawn to the "Gun Free Zones" set up by naïve liberals. Where else can they be guaranteed a large collection of unarmed, vulnerable targets, with many uninterrupted minutes to blow away as many people as they like before the cops get there?
Is there a viable way to cut down the numbers of such shootings, and/or the body counts?
Many of the whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.
But what most of them want, is to go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.
But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hospital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.
And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, even after they are dead, that's mostly why they're doing it.
If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.
The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out. And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.
It's enough to often make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?
Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes.
Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?
What a load if hooey. They do have mass shootings...as well as other issues. They don't have the same number of violent gun crimes because they don't have the same numbers Of BLACK THUGS shooting up the world in their progressive managed shanty towns in cities with strict gun control. Get rid of black inner city population and our high murder rate disappears.Europe and Australia don't have dick right. But if you feel safer there, you should move.Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.
Interestingly put, but I'd say if Europe and Australia don't have the same degree of the same issue, then they must have their collective dick righter than we do.
You can't separate mass shootings from masculinity issues. Can't do it. Time to wake up to that.
power of some wags....
That's not true.I say if they're crazy enough to be hospitalized once, they stay hospitalized.By what criteria do we decide who is crazy enough to be banned from owning firearms. Who gets to decide. It's a can of never ending worms filled with false claims and accusations.Allow armed civilians and keep crazy people locked up. Stop letting lunatics out.
Most crazy people just snap, without ever going to a mental health professional. Actually the reason they snap is usually because they never seek help. The only people who may or may not notice something are family, friends, neighbors, or coworkers. So how would this go? A coworker calls the police and says so and so is acting crazy, I'm wondering if he's got guns, he might do something. And you think the police will have the manpower, time and resources to actually investigate those types of calls?
That's not true.I say if they're crazy enough to be hospitalized once, they stay hospitalized.By what criteria do we decide who is crazy enough to be banned from owning firearms. Who gets to decide. It's a can of never ending worms filled with false claims and accusations.Allow armed civilians and keep crazy people locked up. Stop letting lunatics out.
Most crazy people just snap, without ever going to a mental health professional. Actually the reason they snap is usually because they never seek help. The only people who may or may not notice something are family, friends, neighbors, or coworkers. So how would this go? A coworker calls the police and says so and so is acting crazy, I'm wondering if he's got guns, he might do something. And you think the police will have the manpower, time and resources to actually investigate those types of calls?
Up to 60 percent of mass shooters have displayed symptoms including acute paranoia and delusions. Holmes was a schizophrenic, classmates reported Loughner scared the shit out of them because he was so loony, Lanza, Elliot Rodger, and the ucc shooter all were recognized, diagnosed psychos.
Crazy people should not be allowed to just roam around at will. If the family (who often are themselves struggling with mental illness issues) is not willing or capable of managing their crazy sons, then those sons need to be committed.
Mass shootings could be eliminated if schools had armed security. The left knows it but refuse to consider it because it would screw up their agenda of exploiting these shootings to push their gun control agenda. They don't want to talk about gang violence because THAT would not serve their agenda either. It would reflect poorly on the black community and the welfare state they also push.
Arm everyone or disarm everyone. There is no other way.
Mindless, ineffectual nonsense.1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.
