How do we reduce the number of mass shootings?

Mar 2018
561
115
Grayson
#81
Why do you think none have done so?
After this past legislative year, my answer to that may be irrational. A friend of mine was elected to be Secretary of State. He and I personally know our state legislator and went to him with a prison reform bill that would require people in prison to earn their early release - such as get a GED to earn a quarter of their sentence taken off and another 20 percent if they got some transferable job skills. It had several options... time reduced for successful completion of a drug rehab program while incarcerated, etc.

Instead, our legislator (A Republican BTW) wasted time with submitting a "Hate Crime Bill" that is already covered by federal statutes. There are a lot of good ideas being presented to the elected officials, but rarely does anything get done unless the controlled news and entertainment media get involved.
 
Mar 2019
133
25
New Hampshire
#82
A deterrent to mass shootings would be to impose the death penalty nationwide, have armed guards in places prone for mass shooting. And should the mass shooter survive the incident, let the victims families torture the mass shooter before sending them to the firing squad. Simple enough?
 
Nov 2018
3,633
1,777
Inner Space
#83
Let’s start with a basic fact.

The US is the only industrialized nation that has an over abundance of firearms (more guns than people) and we are the only industrialized nation that has the problems with mass shootings at this scale.

The answer to this problem is not MORE guns. Other industrialized nations have less of a problem and fewer guns.

Now there is a choice that has to be made. Do we want to reduce the number of people killed by guns or do we accept the number of deaths as just the cost of having the “right to bear arms”?
Good luck on your pursuit of a rational argument. There is no real rational argument for the proliferation of firearms that is promoted by pro-gun groups because it is infused with a sort of angry, self-righteous, jingoistic white nationalism. Sometimes not obvious until you scratch the surface, but it is a definite undercurrent. Doesn't hurt to have very limited education or a learning disorder with anger management problems.
 
Nov 2018
3,633
1,777
Inner Space
#84
A deterrent to mass shootings would be to impose the death penalty nationwide, have armed guards in places prone for mass shooting. And should the mass shooter survive the incident, let the victims families torture the mass shooter before sending them to the firing squad. Simple enough?
You should learn a little about crime, deterrence, and cultural development in western civilizations since the sixth century.
 
Likes: Hollywood
Jul 2008
18,429
12,158
Virginia Beach, VA
#85
A deterrent to mass shootings would be to impose the death penalty nationwide, have armed guards in places prone for mass shooting. And should the mass shooter survive the incident, let the victims families torture the mass shooter before sending them to the firing squad. Simple enough?
Really? You think the death penalty is going to deter a mass shooter? Most of the time these guys take themselves out before they can be arrested. The death penalty means nothing to someone planning suicide.
 
Likes: Biff
Nov 2012
2,715
1,661
Rhondda
#86
How do we reduce the number of mass shootings?

Make the NFA co-defendant in any gun-killing case, for a start, and make it part of the law that anyone possessing a fire-arm may automatically presumed to have murderous intentions unless he/she is able to prove otherwise.
 
Jul 2008
18,429
12,158
Virginia Beach, VA
#87
And here I am - as promised.

Of 86 countries studied, the United States ranked 61st in the number of mass public shootings.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
The problem with statistics is that you can easily manipulate numbers to “show” conclusions that are not justified and this is a perfect example.

The study in question looked at all of the industrialized nations of the world and then took the number of mass shooting incidents and divided by the population.

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it doesn’t correct for small number of incidents or small population.

For example Norway had 1 incident and has a population of about 5.5 million (less than New York or Los Angeles). This means it’s 1 incident is magnified by the small population. Technically Norway has a worse “mass shooting per Capita rate” than the US. Do you honestly think that means Norway is less safe?

If you take the entire population of the industrialized nations studied and the total number of mass shooting incidents it will show that even though the US has about 1/3 of the total population they have over half of the mass shooting incidents.
 
Nov 2018
3,633
1,777
Inner Space
#88
The problem with statistics is that you can easily manipulate numbers to “show” conclusions that are not justified and this is a perfect example.

The study in question looked at all of the industrialized nations of the world and then took the number of mass shooting incidents and divided by the population.

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it doesn’t correct for small number of incidents or small population.

For example Norway had 1 incident and has a population of about 5.5 million (less than New York or Los Angeles). This means it’s 1 incident is magnified by the small population. Technically Norway has a worse “mass shooting per Capita rate” than the US. Do you honestly think that means Norway is less safe?

If you take the entire population of the industrialized nations studied and the total number of mass shooting incidents it will show that even though the US has about 1/3 of the total population they have over half of the mass shooting incidents.
The entire body of Lott's work has been to misrepresent and select data so that they are consistent with his predetermined conclusions. It is a perfect storm of bad data analysis and a group of people who do not seem too inclined to academic thinking that produces the rabid gun mob in America.
 
Jul 2014
14,119
8,573
massachusetts
#89
If we want a solution that is revenue neutral, the least intrusive for the average citizen, and addresses mental health, require mental health screenings to go along with the background check. Maybe 10 visits to a psychologist, paid for by the application fee for firearm ownership.
And its good for 5 years.
If you want to buy another gun after five years, you get checked out again.
This would catch a lot of the crazies, the suicides, etc.
It would cost the public nothing, it would not interfere with citizens just going about their business.
And it would save the lives of countless potential gun owners who would have used the gun on themselves or on their family.
 
Mar 2018
561
115
Grayson
#90
The problem with statistics is that you can easily manipulate numbers to “show” conclusions that are not justified and this is a perfect example.

The study in question looked at all of the industrialized nations of the world and then took the number of mass shooting incidents and divided by the population.

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it doesn’t correct for small number of incidents or small population.

For example Norway had 1 incident and has a population of about 5.5 million (less than New York or Los Angeles). This means it’s 1 incident is magnified by the small population. Technically Norway has a worse “mass shooting per Capita rate” than the US. Do you honestly think that means Norway is less safe?

If you take the entire population of the industrialized nations studied and the total number of mass shooting incidents it will show that even though the US has about 1/3 of the total population they have over half of the mass shooting incidents.
The point is, while you want to argue numbers, and only YOUR numbers matter, we have preventable mass shootings in the United States. So, do you want to argue numbers or propose a solution to a problem? Or maybe you aren't seeing the problem???
 

Similar Discussions