“How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

[Bergeron]

As “gun people”, the topic of this thread is something that seems like a challenge that we frequently have tossed at us.

My current response is that mass shootings are prevented by the same way that our military plans to prevent missile attacks. That is, “break the chain” “left of launch”. An attack is, in my mind, best prevented before a person shows up in a crowded area intending to do harm.

I try to back to FBI guidance and data in these conversations, because it seems to generally be accepted as unbiased. So:

Don’t say the perp’s name, don’t show their picture, don’t mention their political affiliations or beliefs. Don’t say if they have a manifesto, don’t describe their life. They should become smaller, more inconsequential, and more obscure after the event than before. This can be done while focusing on the victims and communities.

I think that this approach gives an opportunity to beat on most forms of media for making the problem worse.

Is there a consistent message on addressing mass shooting from a pro-gun position that has been shown to be most effective with general audiences?

[the Schwartz]

"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-

Originally Posted by RoyGBiv:
An armed society is a polite society.

- is probably the best that we can do.

And as if right on cue:

O’Rourke Announces Support for Federal Confiscation of Assault-Style Weapons
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...style-weapons/

It will be interesting to see how the other 20+ Dem candidates in the field rush to "out-Left" him (not that he is really a serious contender for the nomination) in the next few days.

[Darth_Uno]

Anti gunners already think they answered the “why”. They think it’s because of guns. No guns- no shootings.

They're not strictly wrong - if you could Thanos snap all the guns away, you'd immediately end all gun violence.

Problem is, as you pointed out, there's more effective and even easier ways to rack up the numbers if that's all you wanted to do.

[Inspector71]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was some discussion concerning the creation of a national retired LE reserve force. Kinda of patterned after the military’s reserve components. I think FLEOA supported it at the time. The idea seems to have fizzled out. But, personally as a retiree now myself, I would donate some free protection duty to nearby schools if a well designed program were in place.

[the Schwartz]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was some discussion concerning the creation of a national retired LE reserve force. Kinda of patterned after the military’s reserve components. I think FLEOA supported it at the time. The idea seems to have fizzled out. But, personally as a retiree now myself, I would donate some free protection duty to nearby schools if a well designed program were in place.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but is that not what motivated (at least partially) LEOSA 2004?

[JohnO]

If it were possible to completely end mass shootings wouldn't some other method of killing people in mass quantities be utilized? Be careful of what you wish for for you may not be pleased with the new circumstances.

[GardoneVT]

As “gun people”, the topic of this thread is something that seems like a challenge that we frequently have tossed at us.

My current response is that mass shootings are prevented by the same way that our military plans to prevent missile attacks. That is, “break the chain” “left of launch”. An attack is, in my mind, best prevented before a person shows up in a crowded area intending to do harm.

I try to back to FBI guidance and data in these conversations, because it seems to generally be accepted as unbiased. So:

Don’t say the perp’s name, don’t show their picture, don’t mention their political affiliations or beliefs. Don’t say if they have a manifesto, don’t describe their life. They should become smaller, more inconsequential, and more obscure after the event than before. This can be done while focusing on the victims and communities.

I think that this approach gives an opportunity to beat on most forms of media for making the problem worse.

Is there a consistent message on addressing mass shooting from a pro-gun position that has been shown to be most effective with general audiences?

Blacklisting the perp will never happen. Media channels make too much $ with the status quo. “If it Bleeds, It Leads”.

Insofar as a pro gun advocacy position goes, that’s logistically unworkable. Any incident addressed by armed intervention (whether by LE or a private citizen) is by nature averted. So you can’t objectively claim a pro gun policy saved lives. Making the relevant point mass shootings are a human nature problem which can’t be solved by laws alone won’t work either. They’ll just argue taking away the guns just makes sense...followed by the knives, pencils, all the way until you need ID to buy a lighter.

The way to fix this unfortunately requires nonexistent technology; a time machine, followed by basic education about guns at the grade school level and up. Then ordinary people would know what we do; that there are more effective ways to commit mass murder then with firearms, and the subjects who seek to kill en masse won’t be deterred by a law.

[Pistol Pete 10]

You shoot the shooter is how you end mass shootings. Oh, you could pass a law against guns, it has worked in stopping DWI,
drug abuse, Prostitution, Child Abuse, Extortion, etc. You see see where I'm going with this????

[the Schwartz]

You shoot the shooter is how you end mass shootings. Oh, you could pass a law against guns, it has worked in stopping DWI,
drug abuse, Prostitution, Child Abuse, Extortion, etc. You see see where I'm going with this????

Yep.

Laws only describe prohibited acts; they prevent nothing.

Enforcement can only occur during or after violation of a law; not prior to (via confiscation of firearms) as the Left insists.

[Nephrology]

w/r/t AWBs, I always gently remind the person that I am talking to that Columbine happened under the 94 AWB, and was perpetrated with compliant weapons.