The above points are the things that piss me off and exactly why these things keep being repeated IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
Printable View
The above points are the things that piss me off and exactly why these things keep being repeated IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
"How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”
Since we live in a (reasonably) "free society" where, by definition, nothing, not even our collective safety can be guaranteed, I would suggest that it is not possible to end mass shootings except through Draconian means (e.g. suspension of 4th amendment protections and door-to-door gun confiscations with summary executions for those unwilling to comply). Human behavior, both normal and abnormal, is incredibly complex and difficult to predict. While I am sure that there are efforts to do so they will be far from perfect in their predictions and predictive errors (misses, false positives, false negatives) will inevitably result, leading to the unintentional violation of constitutional rights as well as failing to predict future incidents.
Unless we are willing to give up a significant portion of our freedoms and live with those sacrifices knowing full well that they will never entirely prevent these tragedies, I do not know that there is a way to prevent these horrific events.
This-
- is probably the best that we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyGBiv
Of course, but, the (tiny) upside to that might be some pressure taken off "gun control". Then we might be able to have a conversation about real fixes (if they exist), instead of pointing to shiny black objects and "doing something" about them that won't fix anything except help bring about Socialism faster, which is probably the real goal anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
I hate to be a wet blanket but one has to be analytical.
1. I'm not sure his gun free zone analysis is correct. I'm not going to look it up now but I recall other figures. There are certainly enough shootings in gun allowing situations. The Karl Rehn study indicates that the lack of carry and training is probably more significant.
2.May issue - most of the country is shall issue. If you look at a map of mass shootings (note this has definitional problems, confounded with urban crime), there are many, many in shall issue areas. NY with its tough may issue - not that many at all.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...4690000004&z=5
So may issue is not a significant factor. Of course, may issue laws are clearly unconstitutional but SCOTUS won't touch that.
3. Teaching tactics and fighting in HS? Ok, do we propose that every urban school in a high crime area teach that? They will demand the same access. Is that a good idea? Who pays for this? School funding is really teetering on the brink. To do this for significant numbers of schools would be expensive. Of course, we could get rid of the sports emphasis that wastes money in the colleges. Sounds good with surface validity but useless in reality. So after training, affluent kids can afford a nice gun. We demand that poorer kids get Federally supported firearms.
4. Cut down the PR - criminologist and psychologists have said this for years. Fat chance that media will give up the bleeding edge newsreport or social media can be controlled.
5. Rewards for taking out active shooters. Well, let's be a tactical timmy, and go to WalMart after this passes. Seriously, I don't think this has motivational power to make folks engage in gun fights with rampagers. The reasons to avoid are much stronger than simple money for most. You might kick off unstable folks to be over-reactive.
6. Reciprocity - Hell, yes. Tell it to the cowards of the GOP who folded on that as soon as they could.
I wouldn't care to see everyone walking around with a carbine anyway. How is your average patrol officer going to ID someone bent on shooting up a crowd at a fair or a neighborhood soccer game?Quote:
If every swinging dick walked around with a carbine, we'll see more dickweeds with pressure cooker claymores and fuel truck bombs. It's not a hardware access issue. It's a society issue. I don't see it getting better, either. Too many people enjoy the divide.
I'm sure someone will say that's just plain AG and against someone's RKBA but I'm looking at it from LEO's perspective. No, I don't think LE can solve all of the problems but their job is becoming harder everyday just trying to make it home for dinner.
Excellent post.
The numbers do vary depending who you ask, but the latest from the CPRC (who I trust more than, say, Everytown) says 94%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/mo...ass-shootings/
To get that number, Lott excludes shootings that are related to gangs, drugs, domestic issues, robberies, etc (ie, not the typical "just going to try to kill as many people as I can" spree shootings.) It all depends on what you consider a "mass shooting."
Isn't it typically a good idea to identify a problem first before coming up with solutions? I mean the real root cause.
"How do we end mass shootings?" isn't the same question as "Why are mass shooting occurring?"
Anti gunners already think they answered the “why”. They think it’s because of guns. No guns- no shootings. Maybe the better question is do you really want to stop this? Let’s use common sense, the police can’t stop the import or sale of illicit drugs. The police can’t stop these shootings. We need more sheep dogs. Mandate armed security at large gatherings.
Ending mass shootings is impossible. Further- and I admit at the beginning this is a macabre and unhappy topic- if someone is disposed to attempt killing a lot of people at once we are better off with them using guns.
Victims attacked with a firearm have a much higher recovery probability versus alternatives, such as bombs or cars/trucks. Firearms also permit rapid response of the situation by armed citizens or LEO; an off duty LEO or civilian can’t do jack against an explosive attack.
No worries, brother!Quote:
Originally Posted by UniSol