Poll: Is there a solution to mass shootings?

[DeeWiz]

Not without recognizing the Inner Party's control over the Ministry of Truth, no.

Slight rant time: Part of the solution involves not allowing for gun-free zones. (Pretty much) Every. Single. Mass. Shooting. Ever. Has happened. In a 'Gun-free' zone. No mass shootings ever happen in areas where civilians are allowed to be armed. No mass shooting has ever happened in a shooting range. The mere fact that guns are not allowed in schools and colleges makes it a prime target for people that want to kill as many people as possible. This is particularly (or perhaps solely) true in the United States, which has a massive number of illegal gun carriers that other countries simply don't have to deal with.

The sole exception is the military shooter that killed several others at a fort, though even there there was no one armed nearby to stop him until he had already killed a good number of people.

End rant.

Actually on military bases on the MP's are allowed to carry, every1 else has to have their weapons checked in at the armory. That is the real way to stop mass shootings, mandatory gun education in school so people will no how to use one just as well as the fucking crazy person and looser gun laws so everyone can carry. Lots less victims that way.

To everyone who thinks that is nuts, two points. 1. Their is a reason we call it "that person just snapped" you cannot identify these crazys beforehand, it just will not happen until crazy future sci-fi tech comes about.
And 2,

 

[TheDutchin]

Background checks on people with guns.

Thats all we can do, its pretty hard to tell when someone has a pistol hidden in their boot or not. (Assuming they hid it right)

And NO gun control laws would NOT have stopped the Batman Shooting, at the end of the day, 70 something people would be injured and 14 people would be dead even with the fucking laws in place.

Actually no, no that's just incorrect. He used an assault rifle. If he only had pistols, there is no way in hell he would have gunned down that many people. Ban long guns and Americans can still have their precious "protection" but won't have (easy) access to the much more powerful Assault rifles, Sniper rifles, etc. Yes, people would still have been shot, yes people still would have been injured. But to propose that banning long guns wouldn't have helped at all is plain, old fashioned ignorance. Keep in mind, he got all of his guns through legal means.

Captcha: Funny Farm
Yes, this post was a barrel of laughs indeed!

 

[likalaruku]

Cut off their gun hands.

Oh nice, the Captcha wants me to give it a turkey sandwich....

 

[GTwander]

No, you can not "solve" mass shootings. The best you can hope for is to lower the incidence rate.

As the general population rises, as well as the media coverage thereof, there is nowhere to go but up (in terms of occurrences). Then again, it might solely be a cultural phenomenon, because China has like 4x the population of the states, while a fraction of the violent crime - but this might just be an altered figure.

~We all know how forthcoming their media tends to be. Can't take anything at face value.

In the end, there is just too many factors at hand. From ease of acquiring the 'tools' necessary (still easy enough to get guns if you know the right people), to the personal stigmas and/or mental illness behind the motive itself. Society is just doomed, and going back to a "village mentality" won't fix it, rather, it will just make the outcomes sting even worse in the public eye.

I for one just wish we could stop placing blame outside of the person at fault. People should know better, but it's easy enough to blame a book or movie that is based on such events. Regardless of whether it 'inspired' the killers or not, they should KNOW BETTER. It will come to the point where Big Brother will step in and tell us what we can and can't see, and it still won't change how often this shit happens... then once in a cultural dark age like that, who do we blame?

 

[fulano]

Who's talking about having criminals follow gun laws? Gun control is to restrict gun access via logical checks. It would also have the effect of minimizing the effects of potential madmen from carrying out high intensity insane acts. At least in that way, a potential nut would have to work way, way harder to get his hands on hardcore weaponry that a non-nut would not have a problem having access to.

And, since not all nuts are alike, some would just snap and start shooting at crowds with revolvers instead of with automatic rifles. Mind you, others, some actual motivated hard workers, would take longer and focus on planning and how to get shit done but, like with non-crazy persons, they would be the minority. The result would be much less disastrous.

 

[TheDutchin]

Snip

Snip
And 2,

Well a funny meme usually, it's inaccurate in this instance. THIS guy did follow all of the laws, he got all of his guns through legal means. Having laws in place may not stop all of them, but if there weren't gun shops, but rather gov't buildings where there was a process and the guns weren't easily accessible (on display and such) then stealing a gun would be much, much more difficult than it is now, and when one considers banning altogether things like assault rifles, then where would they steal those guns from in the first place? Keep in mind that these aren't well organized crime syndicates like you see in the movies, this is a single person.
So yes, gun control laws would slow down the rate of gun crimes. In America in 2010, there were 8,775 gun related murders. In a country that is close geologically and culturally, Canada, where there are more strict gun control laws in place, there was less than 500. The difference? Canada has a long gun registry, America does not. Even if you adjust for population, multiplying by 10, thats thousands of fewer deaths a year directly caused by a long gun registry. Here's some nice Canadian facts about guns.
1) The number and rates of firearm homicides,
suicides, and accidents have decreased with
stronger gun controls.
2) The rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns
has decreased by 62% since 1995. Homicides
with handguns have remained relatively stable,
as most illegal handguns are smuggled, and are
therefore not affected as much by domestic
controls.
3) When controls on rifles and shotguns were
strengthened in 1995, 1125 Canadians were
killed with guns; in 2007, the number was 723.
4) Studies have correlated the introduction of
Canada?s gun control law with a significant
reduction in gun-related suicide rates (-43%),
without evidence of displacement.

Here's the pdf I shamelessly ripped that from, there's a lot more information in there, but those were OT
http://abusehelplines.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MythsFacts.pdf

Captcha: yeah right
You doubt the legitimacy captcha???! How dare you! They have sources in there!

 

[Rack]

Yes, but you wouldn't like the cost of invoking that much security. There are sensible measures one could invoke to reducing the incidence and particularly the severity of mass shootings, but that looks like a Red Rag to a Bull in here.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Stop making guns. Seeing as how that's not going to happen, so long as people wish to kill each other, then there isn't really a solution. There are plenty of ways to decrease the number of incidents though.

 

[loc978]

Who's talking about having criminals follow gun laws? Gun control is to restrict gun access via logical checks. It would also have the effect of minimizing the effects of potential madmen from carrying out high intensity insane acts. At least in that way, a potential nut would have to work way, way harder to get his hands on hardcore weaponry that a non-nut would not have a problem having access to.

And, since not all nuts are alike, some would just snap and start shooting at crowds with revolvers instead of with automatic rifles. Mind you, others, some actual motivated hard workers, would take longer and focus on planning and how to get shit done but, like with non-crazy persons, they would be the minority. The result would be much less disastrous.

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides]

Spoiler: On topic

 

[Tilted_Logic]

I'm not sure. I've always felt that people with disturbing tendencies (i.e. small animal abuse) should be punished/monitored more closely in the hopes it could prevent criminal tendencies from developing further. I haven't a clue how something like that could be implemented however... I know countless cases of animal cruelty get ignored in favour of bigger crimes, just for said abuser to become a bigger criminal himself.

As for gun laws? I'm not American, but I always felt they were a fickle thing... Even if you tag huge restrictions on gun purchases, someone with the will, will find a way. Make it harder for honest people to obtain guns? Sure you keep them out of the general population, but the sickos aren't going to be honest people. There are black markets that you're never going to control by implementing some law.

 

[fulano]

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

We're barely getting started and you are already putting words in my mouth? *groan*

Look, nobody is talking about repossession? What kind of nutbag would even come up with that argument when talking about the country with the most guns per capita on planet Earth? Certainly not me, so calm down.

And yes, I am talking about fucking up your gun industry--Oh, woe them!--do not worry, they'll still turn a hefty profit.

Or, you could just, you know, give up and admit that you can't do it--even though other countries have managed to do so. That would be, in my humble opinion, rather counter intuitive but, hey, I guess that if it gets hard it gets hard so, fuckit, why not? The world is fucked as it is and if you feel there's nothing you can do other than, say, throw more guns into the fray and teach people how to use them then fine. Plus, you can't trust politicians to be sensible about the whole thing and they'll just go nuts with the legislation and start taking rights away from gun owners so let's not trust those guys.

If it floats your boat, it floats your boat, I guess.

 

[loc978]

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

We're barely getting started and you are already putting words in my mouth? *groan*

Look, nobody is talking about repossession? What kind of nutbag would even come up with that argument when talking about the country with the most guns per capita on planet Earth? Certainly not me, so calm down.

And yes, I am talking about fucking up your gun industry--Oh, woe them!--do not worry, they'll still turn a hefty profit.

Or, you could just, you know, give up and admit that you can't do it--even though other countries have managed to do so. That would be, in my humble opinion, rather counter intuitive but, hey, I guess that if it gets hard it gets hard so, fuckit, why not? The world is fucked as it is and if you feel there's nothing you can do other than, say, throw more guns into the fray and teach people how to use them then fine. Plus, you can't trust politicians to be sensible about the whole thing and they'll just go nuts with the legislation and start taking rights away from gun owners so let's not trust those guys.

If it floats your boat, it floats your boat, I guess.

With corporate culture (which currently quite directly controls the federal government) the way it is, absolutely not gonna happen. I agree that said culture is completely fucked and if there are any worthy targets for all of our guns, they reside at the top of said culture...

But I'm sorry, you're thinking with pure idealism. That tends to be the first thing crushed in the real world.

Also, an assault weapons ban implies repossession of assault weapons. Stealing someone's rifle is hardly a speedbump in the way of a mass shooting.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

snip

Well thanks for the replies, I had actually edited my post to get rid of it, hoping to avoid any pointlessly hostile confrontations (once again) about firearms.

But thankfully, your replies both actually are in response to my post and not just emotional drivel, and you both bring new info or observations into this.

So, yeah. Good stuff. I'm just going to back out now though, I hope you guys understand.

 

[Slayer_2]

Get a small SWAT team to monitor every public place round the clock? Except even then, smart shooters will just target the cops and then go after all the civvies they can. The fact is that NOTHING feasible could have stopped this. And that scares the shit out of Americans. So they play the blame game. What I find really ironic is the mindless fear over this, yet they still hop in their Hummer H2's to cross the street to McDonalds (while texting and exceeding the speed limit) on a daily basis. Never mind that almost 8 times more (93) people are killed daily in motor vehicle accidents in the US alone. Why bother looking at the bigger picture when you can let the media whip up a shit storm to get billions of views around the globe?

Also somewhat ironically, with all the gun control debates, I think that if there had been a few armed people in the theater, the toll might not have been so bad. The anti-gun brigade loves to say "oh, that would have been worse, the armed civilians would have just unloaded into the crowd". Sure, because even in a moment of terror, your first reflex is to fire into a crowd of fleeing teenagers and kids. Imagine lying between seats, you can see the gunman reloading his rifle. If you had a handgun, you could potentially get the courage to peek out and take a shot at him. Without a gun, you're stuck lying there praying to whatever deity you may believe in that you aren't next.

 

[fulano]

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

We're barely getting started and you are already putting words in my mouth? *groan*

Look, nobody is talking about repossession? What kind of nutbag would even come up with that argument when talking about the country with the most guns per capita on planet Earth? Certainly not me, so calm down.

And yes, I am talking about fucking up your gun industry--Oh, woe them!--do not worry, they'll still turn a hefty profit.

Or, you could just, you know, give up and admit that you can't do it--even though other countries have managed to do so. That would be, in my humble opinion, rather counter intuitive but, hey, I guess that if it gets hard it gets hard so, fuckit, why not? The world is fucked as it is and if you feel there's nothing you can do other than, say, throw more guns into the fray and teach people how to use them then fine. Plus, you can't trust politicians to be sensible about the whole thing and they'll just go nuts with the legislation and start taking rights away from gun owners so let's not trust those guys.

If it floats your boat, it floats your boat, I guess.

With corporate culture (which currently quite directly controls the federal government) the way it is, absolutely not gonna happen. I agree that said culture is completely fucked and if there are any worthy targets for all of our guns, they reside at the top of said culture...

But I'm sorry, you're thinking with pure idealism. That tends to be the first thing crushed in the real world.

Also, an assault weapons ban implies repossession of assault weapons. Stealing someone's rifle is hardly a speedbump in the way of a mass shooting.

I understand the whole "Aaaargh! Fuck this shit!" mentality but, again, nobody is talking about repossessing anything so let's not dwell on that 'cause even I admit that people may want to own automatic weapons.

Also, to you, what I say is idealism b/c you have never seen it happen and all you see are corrupt bureaucrats and corporatists, but there are countries in Europe where gun crime is considerably lower per capita than in the U.S. (way, way lower), so what that tells us is that somewhat sensible gun control can be done and that it is being done. So the issue of whether it works or not is mute because we already know that it does.

I mean, at some point most countries in the world happened to all be either monarchies or colonies until a bunch of the latter banded together in the new world and kinda decided on something different and go the way of an actual modern republic with presidents and shit--now, that was pretty fucking idealistic just considering when it happened.


Nobody is talking about ending gun crime but rather about diminishing the potential damage done by it. But, now, again, if you believe that Americans are utterly incapable to perform to the standards already set by considerable portions of the civilized world then, you know what, you win--because nothing ever gets done with that attitude and nothing ever will. You get to keep what you have, so that's that.

EDIT: On the idealism note: I am in my late twenties and hardly a sappy, idealistic person, especially considering that where I'm from your gun crime is fucking peanuts. All I'm trying to do is argue based on stuff we already know has been done and go from there.

 

[Olas]

Snip

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

If our economy is that heavily reliant on machines of death to stay functioning we fucking deserve to go under. That's why I'm leaving the US as soon as I can.

What exactly do all these people need assualt rifles for anyway? You don't hunt with an assualt rifle, they aren't exactly the go to weapon for home defense. They were designed for WAR: killing people efficiently. What conscionable reason could a domestic US citizen with no intent to break the law or cause harm have for buying an AR15 semi auto, like James Holmes did, legally, before his mass shooting?

It seems like we wouldn't even have to ban all guns, just the absurdly overpowered ones that nobody should have any use for to begin with. And this may come as a shock to some, but there are such things as NON-lethal weapons for protection as well.
You know, for when you just want subdue someone, not deliver your own brand of justice.

 

[renegade7]

If by solution, you mean a one-time cure all that will prevent any possibility of a shooting? o, there isn't. However, there are preventative measures. I would say not letting people into crowed public places that are carrying several weapons would be a start.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually no, no that's just incorrect. He used an assault rifle. If he only had pistols, there is no way in hell he would have gunned down that many people. Ban long guns and Americans can still have their precious "protection" but won't have (easy) access to the much more powerful Assault rifles, Sniper rifles, etc. Yes, people would still have been shot, yes people still would have been injured. But to propose that banning long guns wouldn't have helped at all is plain, old fashioned ignorance. Keep in mind, he got all of his guns through legal means.

What exactly do all these people need assualt rifles for anyway? You don't hunt with an assualt rifle, they aren't exactly the go to weapon for home defense. They were designed for WAR: killing people efficiently. What conscionable reason could a domestic US citizen with no intent to break the law or cause harm have for buying an AR15 semi auto, like James Holmes did, legally, before his mass shooting?

He did not use an assault rifle. Assault rifles are not permitted for civilian ownership in the US unless they have been registered before May 1986, and as such are very hard to come buy.

An AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire, they have not selective fire capacity which allows them to be be fired automatically, which is one of the defining features of an assault rifle.

AR-15s are used for, amongst other things, hunting.

In regards to sniper rifles, any decent hunting rifle is going to make a decent sniper rifle.