What methods for reducing mass shootings and murders, have actually worked?

[Little-Acorn]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The execution of terrorist Paul Jennings Hill drastically reduced the number of abortion doctors he might have murdered.

 

[bendog]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals in government don't care about gun violence, they're only interested in disarming patriots so they can put down any resistance to their tyranny.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work.

Is making a strawman always required in a Right wing OP?

The question I have is how have they not worked? And when you answer with something stupid like "People still shoot other people" then I'll know you're full of shit and believe there is a solution that exists where no one gets shot ever again.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unhandcuff our law enforcement to deal with criminals as criminals and not a protected group who needs coddling.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Unhandcuff our law enforcement to deal with criminals as criminals and not a protected group who needs coddling.

Yeah, because being number #1 in the amount of citizens locked up isnt enough

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work.

Is making a strawman always required in a Right wing OP?

The question I have is how have they not worked? And when you answer with something stupid like "People still shoot other people" then I'll know you're full of shit and believe there is a solution that exists where no one gets shot ever again.

Almost every mass shooting has been in a gun free zone and where we have notes and journals of shooters they specifically say they targeted gun free killing zones.

 

[2aguy]

These are how you stop mass shootings.

1) get rid of gun free zones.

2) increase public awareness about signs someone is planning a mass shooting…those signs are always present and when people see them they need to report them.

There you go.

 

[bendog]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

Security may tend to depress mass shootings. But I asked what supported the OP that the possibility of armed citizens depressed mass shootings. I'm not aware of any empirical data supporting that. The OP said there was such. So far, there's not been any posted. Just wondering.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Compare the number of mass shootings that have happened at office buildings, schools, post offices, shopping malls and other "gun free zones", to the number of mass shootings that have taken place as locations where armed people normally are (gun stores, police stations, practice ranges etc.).

 

[amrchaos]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

 

[g5000]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

You have not proven number 1. Your claims about the Santa Barbara shooter and the other shooters (with no links provided) only support that cops are a deterrent. That in no way supports "all law-abiding adults" carrying guns would reduce mass shootings.

 

[g5000]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

Yep. Even our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq were places of mass shootings even though our troops are armed to the teeth in those places.

This disproves postulate number 1 in the OP.

 

[g5000]

Banning all guns has definitively been proven to reduce gun homicides, not just mass shootings.

To do so would require the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Not gonna happen.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

They dont walk around with guns while on base.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

Yep. Even our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq were places of mass shootings even though our troops are armed to the teeth in those places.

This disproves postulate number 1 in the OP.

There's this thing called war...maybe you've heard of it?

 

[Little-Acorn]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

In most military bases (such as Ft. Hood) all guns are required to be locked up in a designated building, and their owners must sign them out when they want to use them. THis makes them useless for sudden, unexpected defense. Do yo suppose the shooters (like Maj. Hassan) knew that, when planning his shooting?

Basically the place was a "gun-free zone", with only the military police (who are usually far away) allowed to carry guns. Perfect for a mass murderer.

 

[g5000]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

They dont walk around with guns while on base.

In Afghanistan and Iraq they do. And they have had mass shootings.