So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Little-Acorn]

How does that prevent them from wanting lurid headlines anyway?
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?

You can ask the next deranged mass murderer you meet, and maybe he'll tell you. But the fact remains that that's a major part of their reasons for doing what they do.

 

[koshergrl]

Allow armed civilians and keep crazy people locked up. Stop letting lunatics out.

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.

I say if they're crazy enough to be hospitalized once, they stay hospitalized.

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.

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.

I agree but there are plenty of disturbed people on anti depressants and other narcotics that aren't a danger to society, and never been diagnosed as mentally ill. My point is just making a blanket statement like lock up the crazy people is totally out of touch with reality of American society today.

If they aren't a danger and haven't been diagnosed, I'd say the risk of them being locked up is about nil.

American society today tries too hard to include lunatics and criminals in the fabric of our lives. Those people are dangerous. They should stay in jail when they break the law, and they should be locked up if they're crazy enough that people find them scary.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The "best" way to stop shootings is to take away the tool that shoots. Ban and confiscate all guns.

Check off one more liberal who admits this is his ultimate goal... plus the all-controlling Police State required to keep 300 million people disarmed.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

They do it because they're crazy. Armed guards could stop them. You want to try to find out why crazy people are crazy, go ahead. In the meantime, I'm more interested in stopping them.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I say if they're crazy enough to be hospitalized once, they stay hospitalized.

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.

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.

I agree but there are plenty of disturbed people on anti depressants and other narcotics that aren't a danger to society, and never been diagnosed as mentally ill. My point is just making a blanket statement like lock up the crazy people is totally out of touch with reality of American society today.

If they aren't a danger and haven't been diagnosed, I'd say the risk of them being locked up is about nil.

American society today tries too hard to include lunatics and criminals in the fabric of our lives. Those people are dangerous. They should stay in jail when they break the law, and they should be locked up if they're crazy enough that people find them scary.

You can analyze everybody 24/7, that doesn't help you. Analyzing patterns of who's gone psycho only tells you about those patterns in the past.

What you would need to know is who's going psycho in the future. And you can't do that.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Actually I've been doing that since the day I joined this site, on this very issue, and before.

And in response I get what you just did ---

Once again, the title of this thread asks for ways to "reduce or prevent". I'm addressing exactly that. You aren't.

Passive slugs....

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "best" way to stop shootings is to take away the tool that shoots. Ban and confiscate all guns.

Check off one more liberal who admits this is his ultimate goal... plus the all-controlling Police State required to keep 300 million people disarmed.

Nice to see one of them admits to it.

 

[Campbell]

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?

Buy more guns and ammo...

That is an idiotic statement and premise. Look at all the other industrialized nations in the world and they have strict gun laws and not 1/10 of this kind of shooting that we do. You people teach eight year olds how to shoot....then you seems shocked when he mows down a pre teen playmate.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Or, just let any law-abiding adult at the school, carry if he wants to? The way the 2nd amendment says we must. (Maybe the Framers had something there, do you think?)

 

[candycorn]

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Or, just let any law-abiding adult at the school, carry if he wants to? The way the 2nd amendment says we must. (Maybe the Framers had something there, do you think?)

They did. They intended gun ownership to be limited to Militia members....that is why it's in the amendment

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

When you identify them, lock them up.

That fixes the problem just fine.

 

[S.J.]

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Or, just let any law-abiding adult at the school, carry if he wants to? The way the 2nd amendment says we must. (Maybe the Framers had something there, do you think?)

Sure. I think we can all agree that the worst thing we can do is put up signs like this:

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is an idiotic statement and premise. Look at all the other industrialized nations in the world and they have strict gun laws and not 1/10 of this kind of shooting that we do.

Compare and contrast the gun laws in CA and VT
Compare and contrast gun-related crim in CA and VT
What does this tellyou?

You people teach eight year olds how to shoot

Not teaching your child age-appropriate gun safety is parental negligence, bordering on abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Or, just let any law-abiding adult at the school, carry if he wants to? The way the 2nd amendment says we must. (Maybe the Framers had something there, do you think?)

Sure. I think we can all agree that the worst thing we can do is put up signs like this:

The people who put those signs up should be tried as accomplices. That would put an end to it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

When you identify them, lock them up.

That fixes the problem just fine.

One word:
"Whack-a-mole".

 

[Sally Vater]

 

[S.J.]

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.

Again, trying to treat the symptom and ignore the disease. A blind philosophy of "overpower it, and when it grows, overpower some more" --- never asking the question "why is it happening in the first place?".

Some arsonist keeps setting forest fires. Do you just sit back and react every time he starts one --- or do you actually break a sweat to go out and stop the arsonist?

Intellectual cowardice.

You stop the arsonist by locking him up.
Then you figure out why he does it, if you can.

Guess I have to actually spell out the analogy then.

The point is not "figuring out why he does it". The issue here is you have (a) a string of forest fires, and (b) a cause. The fires (a) represent our "mass shootings", the arsonist (b) represents "why they're happening".

Now you can either sit back and put the fires out as they happen, which is what all this babble about gun control and locking up psychos and arming more people does --- or you can go a step further and find out where the fires are coming from. Finding the arsonist, you stop him doing it, and thus cut off the fuel of the problem. You literally starve it to death. No fuel, problem dies.

Which approach is more effective? Sit back passively and play whack-a-mole? Or finding out why you have moles in the first place?

Why don't you do that? In the meantime, let's put armed guards at schools so we can stop the psychos when they snap.

Actually I've been doing that since the day I joined this site, on this very issue, and before.

And in response I get what you just did ---

Once again, the title of this thread asks for ways to "reduce or prevent". I'm addressing exactly that. You aren't.

Passive slugs....

And how many lives have you saved?