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

[007]

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.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA....

 

[2aguy]

Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.

Europe and Australia don't have dick right. But if you feel safer there, you should move.

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.

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.

The race card is out. Scratch a conservative find a racist.

You have that wrong...the democrat party is the home of all racists...openly racist people...

 

[2aguy]

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

Worth a try. Hard part is determining who is and isn't sane, and who gets to make that call. Most mentally ill people don't ever see a professional. If anybody sees anything wrong it would be their friends or family. And there are plenty of people living on the verge.

and only a tiny, tiny number of mentally ill are outwardly violent.......but let's punish all the people who aren't dangerously mentally ill...yeah that makes sense...

 

[2aguy]

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?

Nope. Knowing there are armed people around will not stop a crazy person. Because...they are crazy!

Reagan was surrounded by well-trained expert marksmen armed to the teeth. That didn't stop Hinckley. We've had people shooting cops lately, too.

School shooters don't shoot up schools because the people there are unarmed. They shoot up schools because they were students at those schools and they know the terrain.

Familiarity with the terrain is the most common factor.

If more people carried guns, there would be more shootings. Most murders are crimes of passion. We don't need more hot-blooded people carrying guns.

The "best" way to stop shootings is to take away the tool that shoots. Ban and confiscate all guns. This would require the repeal of the Second Amendment, and that is never going to happen.

So we are going to have to find another way. Arming everyone is not the answer, though. It didn't work in the Wild West, and it won't work now.

wrong..these "crazy" people will choose another target if the one they really want has people with guns there...we know this because they say so in their journals and videos...they do not target places where people have guns and can shoot back...

since Britain took away tools that shoot, please explain how the 19 year old still got a glock19, ammo and pipe bombs to attack his former school...he said getting the gun was as easy as buying chocolates......

 

[2aguy]

Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.

Europe and Australia don't have dick right. But if you feel safer there, you should move.

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.

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.

"Gun control" is pretty much irrelevant. So is "black" or "white".
"Masculine" however, is the elephant in the room that can't be ignored.

Of course when I say "can't" I guess I may be underestimating the power of some wags....

No...black and white is not irrelvant.........more blacks come from broken homes with single, teenage mothers and no fathers to teach them how to be men........the majority of gun violence in the country is from blacks and hispanics...the stat show this....

 

[2aguy]

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?

Nope. Knowing there are armed people around will not stop a crazy person. Because...they are crazy!

Reagan was surrounded by well-trained expert marksmen armed to the teeth. That didn't stop Hinckley. We've had people shooting cops lately, too.

School shooters don't shoot up schools because the people there are unarmed. They shoot up schools because they were students at those schools and they know the terrain.

Familiarity with the terrain is the most common factor.

If more people carried guns, there would be more shootings. Most murders are crimes of passion. We don't need more hot-blooded people carrying guns.

The "best" way to stop shootings is to take away the tool that shoots. Ban and confiscate all guns. This would require the repeal of the Second Amendment, and that is never going to happen.

So we are going to have to find another way. Arming everyone is not the answer, though. It didn't work in the Wild West, and it won't work now.

Wrong.....the Santa barbara shooter, the colorado shooter the South Carolina church shooter..and the kid in minnesota...all chose targets,specifically because they were gun free and passed up their preferred target because they had people with guns their........

and you have no idea about the West...you have seen to many movies and listened to too many anti gunners........the west was not as violent as people believe it was...why....? because people were armed....

 

[2aguy]

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.

all of those ciuntries are experiencing growing gun crime problems....it is under reprted nere in the U.S. But gun crime is increasing those countries...

 

[2aguy]

I'll disagree with you here. The US has 330,000,000 people. In terms of the earth's population, that is about 1/15 or whatever. So 14/15's do not live under the 2nd Amendment's allowance for you to get a gun relatively easily.
Lets chop that number in half to 7/15's or 2.8 Billion folks that live in nations that are somewhat advanced and modernized. Undoubtedly there are males who have "crises of masculinity" as you so deftly put it in China, Japan, India, etc... Moreover, as women begin to ascend to higher social levels in these nations, you'll have scores more of these men who are being emasculated figuratively. While you could argue about the cultural value system, Hollywood would be the first to the tell you that it values much more what movies a Chinese teen is attending in Hong Kong more than what an American in Houston is attending. They launch the same movies worldwide and the teens are seeing the same scenes of James Bond, Tony Stark, Star Trek, Star Wars, Hunger Games, etc... Harry Potter was set in London!!! Books? They read the same books. Television shows are pretty much the same. Wars? Europe has seen combat hundreds of more times than the US. Australia was once a penal colony if you want to talk about deviant behavior.

Anyway,you have males who are frustrated simply by the law of big numbers. And you have the same influences by and large.

The only major difference is the 2nd Amendment and a Wal*Mart willing to sell you as many weapons as you can afford.

Utter nonsense.

There are a million differences that are completely unrelated to the existence of Wal-Mart weapons or the second amendment. This is why comparing homicide rates between nations is asinine - you cant control the thousands of variables from diversity and population density to cultural values.

The only difference between a jaded youth in Lisbon and the jaded youth in Littleton is the ability to acquire an Arsenal.

Tell that to the kid who in Britain who got the glock 19 and ammo as well as pipe bombs to attack his old school...I guess he doesn't know the pistol is banned in Britain...

 

[2aguy]

Look what Australia did in the late 90's

Banned all semi-automatics. Zero mass shootings since then.

That's,not true..they have had 3...... Britain had one Saturday night...in a place that has had previous gun crimes.....and there have been all kinds of apshootings in Austrlai, many in public places...and their gun crime is going up, not down...and this is after the confiscation...look up the stories...go to "list of mass murders in Australia" on wikipedia to see all their shootings since the ban...

 

[2aguy]

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Could the U.S. do the same? Due in part to the country's mostly decentralized government and more malleable legal code, pro-reform officials in Australia were able to act with unusual speed following their seminal national tragedy. As Howard noted in his New York Times piece, there is no constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms in Australia and the courts are a lighter check on legislative action. The influence of the Australian gun lobby, he wrote, is tiny compared to the loud and powerful National Rifle Association in the U.S.

Results count. This is what is going to happen here if we continue to have these senseless shootings. Either engage in constructive efforts to put an end to those, or see these kinds of laws enacted here.

and that article is a lie...look up "list of mass murder in Australia" on wikipedia and you will see all the shootings, 3 of which are mass shootings after the ban and of the rest? the criminals all had guns and could have committed a mass school shooting if they wanted to........


your link lied to you....

 

[Vigilante]

Answer...Deport all liberals!

 

[2aguy]

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Could the U.S. do the same? Due in part to the country's mostly decentralized government and more malleable legal code, pro-reform officials in Australia were able to act with unusual speed following their seminal national tragedy. As Howard noted in his New York Times piece, there is no constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms in Australia and the courts are a lighter check on legislative action. The influence of the Australian gun lobby, he wrote, is tiny compared to the loud and powerful National Rifle Association in the U.S.

Results count. This is what is going to happen here if we continue to have these senseless shootings. Either engage in constructive efforts to put an end to those, or see these kinds of laws enacted here.

here...this shows your link lied to you....notice the 3 mass shootings after the ban, all the other shootins and the other shootings that could have been mass public shootings....

Like the 15 year old immigrant kid who killed the police employee last week...he could just as easily have walked into his school...or the immigrant who used a gun to take hostages at the coffee shop this year...he also could have walked into a theater, a mall or a school...

the only thing stopping mass shootings in australia is that their nuts just didn't choose to do it....yet.....amd again...Australias gun crime is increasing, after the confiscation...and their gun levels are back up to whete they were before the confiscation...even with their extreme gun control..

Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

• 
  
• Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
• Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
• Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[5]
• Lin family murders - On July 2009, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie killed his sister, her husband and three members of their family (5 persons from the Lin family) with a hammer. The faces of the victims were so disfigured that forensics had to be used to identify them. The motivation for the family massacre were partly because Lin had criticised Xie for not having a job.
• 2011 Hectorville siege - A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[6]
• Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.[7]
• Hunt family murders - Geoff Hunt killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself on September 9, 2014.[8]
• Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on 19 December 2014. 7 of them were her own.[9]

The Hunt family murder was the only shooting that took over four lives, and that was a family affair, not something done randomly like the shootings in our schools.

However, in reality, the whole list sounds like a very quiet month for us. And most of the deaths in that file are from fire. I am sure that we can find equally bad fires for the US for the same period. No Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech for Australia.

 

[candycorn]

Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.

Biggest mass shooting in history occurred in Norway, so no, they haven't "got it right".

and Australia has hsd at least three mass shootings, and many more shootings that could have been mass shootings...but you guys keep telling yourselves that gun laws work.....

Stat don't lie.
Gun crazies do.

 

[Roudy]

Asking teachers and staff to carry arms would be unrealistic in an educational environment.

no need to ask, i would bet many would volunteer..., providing they all are not wimpy libertards.
that is a stupid reply, if you can, please elucidate. <--------<<<< with your intelligence level you will have to look it up

LOL most teachers and staff are radical leftist libertards. Sure those who volunteer let them be able to carry.

 

[Roudy]

Europe and Australia have it right. The answer is painfully obvious. Getting there is problematic.

Europe and Australia don't have dick right. But if you feel safer there, you should move.

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.

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.

The race card is out. Scratch a conservative find a racist.

You have that wrong...the democrat party is the home of all racists...openly racist people...

And intolerant, but they're really good at calling others things that most apply to them though.

 

[007]

Answer...Deport all liberals!

That's where to start, then go after gangs.

 

[Roudy]

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

Worth a try. Hard part is determining who is and isn't sane, and who gets to make that call. Most mentally ill people don't ever see a professional. If anybody sees anything wrong it would be their friends or family. And there are plenty of people living on the verge.

and only a tiny, tiny number of mentally ill are outwardly violent.......but let's punish all the people who aren't dangerously mentally ill...yeah that makes sense...

Exactly my point. Just imagine the huge bureaucracy that will be created between the mental health care professionals and law enforcement. There will be monitoring, spying, and invasion of privacy of individuals merely "suspected" of being mentally unstable. Then you have all the false accusations, and of course if your record shows that you are too mentally unstable to purchase a gun then there is no way you can get a job either. The trampling of people's civil rights under these conditions in my opinion is much worse than amending the constitution and the outright banning of guns.

 

[candycorn]

• 
  
• Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
• Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
• Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[5]
• Lin family murders - On July 2009, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie killed his sister, her husband and three members of their family (5 persons from the Lin family) with a hammer. The faces of the victims were so disfigured that forensics had to be used to identify them. The motivation for the family massacre were partly because Lin had criticised Xie for not having a job.
• 2011 Hectorville siege - A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[6]
• Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.[7]
• Hunt family murders - Geoff Hunt killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself on September 9, 2014.[8]
• Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on 19 December 2014. 7 of them were her own.[9]

The Hunt family murder was the only shooting that took over four lives, and that was a family affair, not something done randomly like the shootings in our schools.

However, in reality, the whole list sounds like a very quiet month for us. And most of the deaths in that file are from fire. I am sure that we can find equally bad fires for the US for the same period. No Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech for Australia.

Basically the entire list is an exercise in lameness. Not only in terms of the # of deaths but in terms of what it does to the society at large.

 

[Roudy]

Answer...Deport all liberals!

That's where to start, then go after gangs.

They should bring in the national guard to take control of the gang and crime infested neighborhoods, and clean them up for the law abiding citizens.