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

[JoeB131]

You guys operate under the myth that normal people are sociopathic killers just waiting to murder someone for the slightest insult…and that isn't true. Murderers, those who use guns as well, have long histories of violent, anti social behavior and criminal convictions….they are not normal people

I operate under that theory because you will fill every fucking gun thread with your "Shoot the Darkies" wank threads.

You illustrate my first argument- that the best argument for gun control is to let some gun nut with a tiny dick scream about all the people he just can't wait to shoot.

 

[2aguy]

The militaries of Europe disarmed after WW1 except for France who built their Line…..and after the militaries were defeated the people were helpless…..unarmed, and unable to resist….and gave their Jews to the Germans for murder…..

Uh, no, guy, they gave up their Jews for Murder because they fucking hated Jews.

People scaled back their military after WWI because they weren't actually fighting a war. You see, before you had a "military-industrial complex", that's what people did. When you were at peace, you didn't piss away a lot of money on armies you weren't using. When you were, you drafted a bunch of poor schlubs, put them in uniforms and let thousands of them die.

IN the years leading up to WWII, everyone was building up their militarizes. For instance, Italy's military leadership told Mussolini Italy wouldn't be ready for War until 1943. That's how long it would take to modernize to catch up with the UK and France. But Italy jumped into the war in 1940 because they thought it would be over in a few weeks and Italy wouldn't get any benefit. They pretty much got their asses kicked for the rest of the war.

Nope…the trauma of World War 1 paralyzed Europe….France was simply incompetent when they created the Maginot line and the Germans simply went around it…..and everyone in Europe disarmed….only hitler realized that if you just attacked, no one would stop Germany…he even had a hard time convincing the German Military….it was only after they began occupying other countries and no one responded that the German military gained faith in hitlers understanding of European governments….had someone stood up to Germany in Austria, or the other countries…the German military would have gotten rid of hitler…

The pacifism of the rest of Europe allowed world war 2 to happen……

And if it wasn't for Stanley Baldwin, Britain wouldn't have had fighters to deal with Germany…everyone believed strategic bombing was the future of war….

And the countries of Europe disarmed their citizens after World War 2 and the citizens went along with it because they trusted their governments to keep them safe….

And how did that work out for them?

 

[Bassman007]

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?

Give everyone a gun, this will not prevent shootings, but unless the shooter is in a tower like the one in Texas, someone in the room will shoot the shooter before he can kill all of his or her victims.

 

[Dan Daly]

How about we imprison each and every American and only allow them out and about under government supervision? Oh crap...what if government decides it wants to do the mass murdering...which history proves that it does far more than the criminals and loony-toons outside of government. Drat, foiled again!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact is, we don't have accurate statistics by design.

This is a lie; the FBI does a fine job at tracking guns used in crime.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Give everyone a gun, this will not prevent shootings, but unless the shooter is in a tower like the one in Texas, someone in the room will shoot the shooter before he can kill all of his or her victims.

Of course. Because as everybody knows, when a fire breaks out the thing to do is drown it in gasoline. That'll show it.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope…the trauma of World War 1 paralyzed Europe….France was simply incompetent when they created the Maginot line and the Germans simply went around it…..and everyone in Europe disarmed….

Military spending between the wars was a higher percentage of GDP than it is today. European countries had more men under arms than they do today.

For instance, on the eve of WWII, the POLISH Army had 950,000 men under arms. They were still defeated in six weeks, and only inflicted 16,000 deaths on the Germans.

Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, let's talk about France, shall we?

Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France had spent a higher percentage of its GNP from 1918 to 1935 on its military than other great powers, and the government had begun a large rearmament effort in 1936.[78] Due to a declining birthrate during the period of the First World War and Great Depression and the large number of men who died in World War I, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to its total population, which was barely half that of Germany. To compensate, France had mobilised about one-third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to 5,000,000.[79] Only 2,240,000 of these served in army units in the north. The British contributed a total strength of 897,000 men in 1939, rising to 1,650,000 by June 1940. .... Dutch and Belgian manpower reserves amounted to 400,000 and 650,000, respectively.[59]

So the allies had close to SEVEN MILLION men under arms, and the Germans STILL kicked their asses.


Let's look at this little stupidity...

he even had a hard time convincing the German Military….it was only after they began occupying other countries and no one responded that the German military gained faith in hitlers understanding of European governments….had someone stood up to Germany in Austria, or the other countries…the German military would have gotten rid of hitler…

A lot of misstatements here. The first was that the German military really ever wanted to get rid of Hitler. Even after Germany was LOSING, when von Stauffenberg attempted a coup, the German Military cracked down on anyone associated with him. They pretty much shot anyone who had lunch with him and the other conspirators.

Secondly, the main reason why no one stood up to Hitler over Austria was that most Austrians WANTED to join the Third Reich. Pan Germanism was a big thing before Hitler came along, and once Austria was rid of its Slavic Empire, they wanted to join greater Germany. Same thing with the Sudetenland? Why would Germans want to be ruled over by Bohemians? That was crazy. The Allies didn't have a leg to stand on arguing against that and they knew it.

And if it wasn't for Stanley Baldwin, Britain wouldn't have had fighters to deal with Germany…everyone believed strategic bombing was the future of war….

Well, the real thing that saved Britain was that Germany really didn't want to conquer it. Hitler spent most of the rest of the war trying to conclude a separate peace with the United Kingdom.

Oh, yeah, and Germany didn't have a Navy to speak of. What really saved the UK was that they had hundreds of warships, even after the Washington Naval Treaty.

And the countries of Europe disarmed their citizens after World War 2 and the citizens went along with it because they trusted their governments to keep them safe….

And how did that work out for them?

After WWII? Well, pretty well. They have very low crime rates, they don't have disaffected losers shooting up schools and theaters...

 

[JoeB131]

final point. The main reason why Hitler got away with murder?

Because those nice capitalists in the west and the politicians they owned were more scared of Stalin than they were of Hitler and Mussolini.

Stalin was threatening to take away their mansions, just like he did in Russia!!!

So all Hitler had to do was say, "I'm against the Communists!" and the west let him do pretty much whatever he wanted. Even after he invaded Poland, they did nothing. Until he turned on them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

Yes, it's always a "simple" overstepping of government power with you leftists. Just inject government into private enterprise, impose arbitrary price controls, and control people like a bunch of marionettes.

God forbid any solution that ever treats human beings as intelligent free agents ever be considered.

It must suck to go through life being afraid of everyone including yourself.

We've seen the society at play; nearly monthly bloodbaths. No thanks.

As for being afraid; I'm not the one arming myself to the teeth...the gun crazies are.

Ahh, yes. Because we can't be reminded too many times that all gun violence is committed by people who purchased their guns legally with a background check, and so we just need to make sure that doesn't happen anymore, and the world will be safe.

Kind of the way we can't be reminded too many times that all abortions are due to women being raped, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point wasn't that the American Indians were wronged, my point is that we took this wilderness and turned it into the greatest nation on earth. Lots of money, lots of work, lots of wars. Israel no different.

We created a racist state based on slavery and genocide, which just got lucky enough to be the only country standing when the rest of the world devastated itself in two world wars. Please stop patting yourself on the back for that.

Not to worry, what little "Great" that was accomplished by progressives are quickly being undone by the Koch Brothers. You should be proud. Look at Cleveland, that's the future the Koch Brothers have planned for the rest of the country.

Israel, on the other hand, is an apatheid state that simply won't last, mostly because the people who live there know they are in the wrong.

Israel has tried nearly everything to get along with the Palestinians, but you can't negotiate with people who's only desire is to see you and all your people dead. How do you meet half way with that?

You don't. YOu get the hell away from them and undo what you did to offend them to start with.

The way the Jews can get along with the Palestinians, is to get the fuck off their land and go back to Europe where they came form.

Racism is a human thing and existed long before we got here...we created the first country based on the principal that all men are created equal...and now that we have gotten rid of the slavery brought here by the europeans and Africans, and was already here with the indians.....we are moving forward on that belief....

Yes, but because we didn't completely eradicate all racism and injustice in one generation, that means it was all a lie, and the butthurt must therefore go on forever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

No proof gun control works in this country... Anyway gun violence is an nonissue.

Hashtag biggest fish to fry

Politically, it is a perfect topic for Hillary to bring up. The voting blocks she needs to energize are women and blacks. It speaks to both groups. Conversely, whomever her opponent is will be saddled with morons on the right who swear that there is no problem, we cannot do anything, or that common-sense legislation is a "slippery slope".

I swear, it's almost as if the Gods themselves are conspiring to put Hillary in the White House.

Well, you've certainly demonstrated how firmly your fingers are in your ears to prevent you ever hearing anything anyone else says. Opposing views? We don't need to hear no stinkin' opposing views. We'll just make them up ourselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I sell ar15's(bushmaster) for under $550 as an everyday price. And no, they are NOT assault rifles.
So as production catches up to demand, prices go down.

Buy more guns and ammo

Yeah, that is what we need to reverse; raise the prices, dry up the pool of easy-to-get killing machines.

And we'll just gloss past the part where it's Unconstitutional, not to mention amazingly hubristic, for the government to set prices for private industry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sate action to this affect creates an infringement on the right to arms.
But, you know that.

No part of the Constitution speaks to the price of weapons. This is a fact.

Also a fact:
No part of the constitution says that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"
No part of the constitution says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
So... what's your point?

Thanks. I'll accept your surrender that the Government can inflate the price of weapons artificially without violating the Constitution.

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

Yup. To clarify a reason for INDIVIDUALS to own guns other than the ones already evident.

It's basic grammar, which I assume is why it confused you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

Stunning how the law and other people both don't give a shit what "problems" you do or don't have.

If you like the idea of criminals and crazies being the only ones with weapons out in public, that's between you and your psychiatrist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also a fact:
No part of the constitution says that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"
No part of the constitution says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
So... what's your point?

Thanks. I'll accept your surrender that the Government can inflate the price of weapons artificially without violating the Constitution.

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

Do tell, where do people need the most self-defense? Their home or outside of their home?

Anywhere that leftists have been at work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

Good to see you understand that you're wrong, puppy.

Ducking the question? How pussy-ish of you. Not surprising but very pussy-ish still.

I guess your manhood ends where your holster stops there eh micro-dick.

"You gave me an answer I don't like! That means you're not answering!" Push those fingers in your ears a little farther, and you'll feel . . . the space where a normal person's brain would be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

most of those places ban guns...and most mass shootings happen in those places that ban guns.......and defending yourelf in public happens all the time...why should you be more vulnerable when you are most exposed to criminals?

There aren't "shoot outs" all the time between people defending themselves. There are shoot outs all the time between people angry with each other. We have more guns in this country than people. And we have very few states that have strict gun laws. Yet? We have lots of people getting shot with defensive guns.

Go figure.

Yeah, no one ever fires a gun in self-defense. And the answer to people breaking the law is . . . make more laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

most of those places ban guns...and most mass shootings happen in those places that ban guns.......and defending yourelf in public happens all the time...why should you be more vulnerable when you are most exposed to criminals?

There aren't "shoot outs" all the time between people defending themselves. There are shoot outs all the time between people angry with each other. We have more guns in this country than people. And we have very few states that have strict gun laws. Yet? We have lots of people getting shot with defensive guns.

Go figure.

Wrong, of the 8,124 gun murders most of those are criminals killing other criminals over turf…in our inner cities…studies show that upwards of 70% of shooters and victims have at least one prior arrest and just as many have more arrests and substantial criminal records.


You guys operate under the myth that normal people are sociopathic killers just waiting to murder someone for the slightest insult…and that isn't true. Murderers, those who use guns as well, have long histories of violent, anti social behavior and criminal convictions….they are not normal people

Normal people are the 13 million people carrying guns for self defense…they don't shoot people. Studies show that normal people shoot about 235 criminals a year….tops….most defensive uses of guns do not require the gun to be fired because the criminals run away or surrender. The others are shot and injured but not killed.

You really, really need to research this, you are making assumptions that are not true.

And each year, according to bill clinton, Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack and save lives1.5 million times a year.

Sometimes it's 2000000 times a year, other times it isn't....pick a lie and stick to it please.

The fact is, we don't have accurate statistics by design.

The Gun Lobby and the NRA have successfully lobbied to keep the government from doing comprehensive studies about gun violence.

Even then? The amount of data showing just how dangerous these things are is staggering.

Oh, God, now it's a huge conspiracy to hide millions of events that you just "know" are happening.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Give everyone a gun, this will not prevent shootings, but unless the shooter is in a tower like the one in Texas, someone in the room will shoot the shooter before he can kill all of his or her victims.

Of course. Because as everybody knows, when a fire breaks out the thing to do is drown it in gasoline. That'll show it.

You want to "prevent more violence" by standing still complacently while someone shoots you? You go on with your bad self. Bye.