How do we reduce the number of mass shootings?

Jul 2014
14,243
8,665
massachusetts
#62
1870-1910 homicide rates were ~1/100,000 (almost every one during this period of our history carried a gun on their person.)

Since 48 states passed Shall Carry laws the homicide rate has declined from 10/100,000 to 4/100,000 (a 60% decline)

Today you can carry a gun in Tombstone Arizona, without a permit. In 1880, it was a gun free zone, much lower murder rate, too.
 
Nov 2012
40,545
11,692
Lebanon, TN
#64
I said mental health screenings, that's not a background check, but then again....

Yes mental health is in background checks.
now with the VA Tech and the Aurora CO shooters there therapists reported them to LEOs.. Those LEOS you say you want us to give up our arms and have them be our protections FAILED TO LOG the reports on their records... so it was not guns that failed us it was LAW ENFORCMENT.
 
Nov 2018
3,767
1,842
Inner Space
#65
No I answered it and my answer was based in fact, shown by shootings where armed citizens were present I gave a list of several in post 38..

so, I cannot help it if you are not capable to understand the correct answer. As I said it just takes 1 armed citizen to put an end to a mass shooting.

I can add to those listed in post

The Smyrna Church Shooting
Oregon Mall shooting

~20 cases where a shooter decided to start shooting in GUN PRESENT zone.
The question was, to repeat,
"So, what do you think would have happened if EVERYONE in that theater had a firearm and shooting started. Play that out for me. "
If you need more clarification, how do you tell who did the shooting?
 
Nov 2018
3,767
1,842
Inner Space
#66
1870-1910 homicide rates were ~1/100,000 (almost every one during this period of our history carried a gun on their person.)

Since 48 states passed Shall Carry laws the homicide rate has declined from 10/100,000 to 4/100,000 (a 60% decline)

Are we going to have that same old tired and fallacy-ridden argument?
What happened between 1930 and 1950? What happened between 1950 and 1980?
The real problem is that you have not showed a connection between homicide and CCP. You are not assuming that CCP holders stopped all that crime are you? If so, where is the evidence for all that crime stopping happening?

Many CCP do not carry. Surely you will have the data to show the connection.

You are playing with dangerous tools that you do not understand-- statistics.
 
Mar 2018
709
140
Grayson
#67
Not a bad plan. Not bad at all. But I have a coupe questions. While you're obviously focused on the mental health care of the minor in question, what about homes where weapons are present ?? At what point in this scenario do we consider removing weapons from the home ?? Not just firearms, but anything beyond a steak knife. If they are removed who keeps them ?? As you are probably aware, the Nashville Waffle House shooter had been deemed mentally unfit and the state of Illinois had quite correctly revoked his license to own, much less carry a weapon. The police gave those weapons to his father for safe keeping. I'm not sure of the time line but the father returned those weapons to his mentally ill son. So who should keep those weapons ? What should the penalty be for returning them. Personally I think the father should be charged with murder just like the shooter. How long do you think the state should require compliance and clean reports from the doctors before weapons could be returned ??

You're program would obviously catch the budding mass killers before they acted out. But what about those already over 18 ?? What about those that give few if any signs ?? I'm actually worried about my former boss who is in his 50s. He has always been conservative, down right prudish if you ask me. But he's gone through an extremely ugly divorced. He's trying to hang on to his job while I and many others have been let go. I have watched his facebook feed and he appears to be traveling the same road to radicalization as the Florida bomber Cesar Sayoc. As sad as it sounds I wouldn't be surprised to wake up to the news he had gone on a shooting spree. But until he does he has committed no overt actions that I could contact the police about. It's just a not so vague feeling I and a few others that have known him for years have. Should ultra-conservative and occasionally mean posts on facebook be sufficient for law enforcement to be called ??
This plan is a civil intervention. Removing firearms from homes is a constitutionally questionable approach. For that reason, the first time social workers come to a home and make recommendations, it gives the parents an opportunity to clean up their act. The second time authorities are compelled to act, they might be able to tell parents that drugs, alcohol, weapons or anything dangerous be stored off site (like in a storage building) where the child has no access. The second time that authorities are called to a home, they have more than enough probable cause to ask for a walk through and that should be enough to tell them if a house is safe, livable and nothing that would be dangerous or questionable accessible to minors.

People have a constitutionally protected to keep and bear Arms. But, if they allow their children to become a menace to society, then either the child must be taken from the home OR the parents be subject to a process much the same as when a foster child is placed into a home. In that case, the parents have options: they can comply and pick their current home condition, changes the home conditions, or take the issue to court. Since it don't involve criminal law, a permanent record for the child, and the Constitution is not called into question, it addresses the mental health aspect AND, more importantly, follow up is adhered to. It's not like punishing someone or making them go to rehab for a couple of months and saying the Hell with it.

Unfortunately, I don't have as well thought a plan for adults, but the few older people who DO act out give warning signs. Frazier Glenn Miller, a former Green Beret and white supremacist, was known to be dangerous and even had a felony record by the time he went on a mass shooting spree. With what was known, we should have had a process in place that would cause him to be evaluated, even put into a mental health facility, and give him the option to get court appointed counsel to challenge his being held. At the end of the day, if we did focus on making sure the system wasn't turning out potential killers, you would have fewer mass shootings, fewer career criminals, and even fewer drug addicts since the drug route would be the last option, not the first.
 
Nov 2012
40,545
11,692
Lebanon, TN
#68
Are we going to have that same old tired and fallacy-ridden argument?
What happened between 1930 and 1950? What happened between 1950 and 1980?
The real problem is that you have not showed a connection between homicide and CCP. You are not assuming that CCP holders stopped all that crime are you? If so, where is the evidence for all that crime stopping happening?

Many CCP do not carry. Surely you will have the data to show the connection.

You are playing with dangerous tools that you do not understand-- statistics.
What happened between 1930 and 1950 UNION LEAD GUN CONTROL LAWS WERE PASSED AND PROHABITION

notice the correlation between Gun Control laws and homicide rates the highest homicide rate was during the Clinton Assault weapons ban.

When that ban sunset, and 48 states passed Shall Carry CCL laws the homicide rate declined 60% from 10/100,000 to 4/100,000

 
Jul 2014
14,243
8,665
massachusetts
#69
Yes mental health is in background checks.
now with the VA Tech and the Aurora CO shooters there therapists reported them to LEOs.. Those LEOS you say you want us to give up our arms and have them be our protections FAILED TO LOG the reports on their records... so it was not guns that failed us it was LAW ENFORCMENT.
Still, if we confiscated all the guns there would be no shootings.
If we required mental health screening for firearm ownership, we'd probably catch a few would be mass shooters.
Or we could just do the free market approach, and make people responsible for all the damage their firearms caused.
Responsibility would follow ownership, so if a gun was used in a crime, the registered owner of that gun would be financially responsible for the damages caused.
 
Jul 2014
14,243
8,665
massachusetts
#70
the strongest correlation to murder rates is income inequality.
Work with that...
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions