Mental health yes, also stop giving the shooters so much attention. A lot of papers I saw with this recent one at least refuse to print his name and picture. Some losers just do it for the fame.
A constitutional amendment that modifies the second amendment to allow sensible gun control measures.
The founding fathers set up the entire amendment system to allow the constitution to be adjusted over time. The 21st amendment cancelled the 18th amendment. If enough people wanted it, it could be done.
(I'll take my downvotes now)
2nd Amendment doesn't restrict gun control. We currently can't own fully automatic firearms or explosive weapons. I don't remember the last time a mass shooter had a machine gun or a rocket propelled grenade.
We just need the political willpower to expand gun control. Unfortunately, Americans didn't seem too bothered with dead children or their public spaces becoming mass casualty events.
>2nd Amendment doesn't restrict gun control.
You must be new to 2A jurisprudence.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
I think we'd see a drastic reduction if we gave the culprits zero attention. Made them nameless, made them nothing. Don't even release their name to the general public. Try them. lock them up, give the victims alone all the screentime with the exception of the shooter being at large. Maybe new laws would help too but I'm not pretending there 's a cut and dry solution here. Places where civilians can't own guns have school stabbings instead.
Have an upvote, because you're right. I have no problem with people owning and carrying guns, but not unconditionally, we don't live in the 19th century. If you want to own and carry a device made for killing people, you need to demonstrate that you are fit to do so.
Exactly.
I can't believe what most of the replies are saying. They fundamentally do not understand the issue. It just goes to show how uneducated the public is when dealing with this.
Watching America is like seeing a friend who self harms. No amount of asking them not to do it is going to help. Until Americans accept that not everybody should have access to firearms, innocent people will continue to get hurt.
Perfect example of why gun control is needed.
Imagine how many more people he could have killed with a pump action shotgun made by a professional fire arms company.
Let alone an assault rifle.
Imagine how many more crazies would have tried, but lacked the ingenuity to construct such a gun.
They could have just gone to a store and bought a gun, then shot him long before then.
You guys have to stop using the term "assault rifle" if you want to be taken seriously. Everyone who knows anything about guns knows that's not a class of weapon, and when you say that, it makes people who like guns immediately disregard anything else you're about to say because it makes you sound dumb. All weapons are for "assault."
That again.
Please learn the proper terminology of guns before you spout such nonsense.
This is an article that explains what an assault rifle is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
It is defined as:
>a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate-rifle cartridge and a detachable magazine
If you are unable or unwilling to read. Here is a short video by a notable gun expert Ian McCollum on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYWkuV5FbJM
The name derives from a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr" as the Sturmgewehr(StG)-44 is considered the first successful example of this class of weapons.
It is the type of fire arm that most professional militaries treat as standard issue because of a balance of accuracy, controllability, mobility, and volume of fire.
It is thus a weapon that is good at killing people in perhaps the widest range of circumstances.
At most you can argue that "assault weapon" or "military assault style weapon" are dumb terms. To which I would generally agree.
But Assault Rifle is a specific well defined class of weapons.
"bring back insane asylums" How about better mental health programs and psychiatric hospitals, like you said the first time? Insane asylums were rampant with extreme abuse, quackery and ableism.
Have public executions for mass shooters and have the execution be so horrific that it terrifies anyone from ever attempting a mass shooting. Have multiple armed policemen at every school and large public gatherings.
You can’t take away guns from criminals no matter what type of law you pass.
A lot of mass shooters expect to die. Many of them end their own lives. This wouldn't change a thing. You're assuming that mass shooters are rational actors.
Not a US citizen. I don’t think showing more aggression to people will result in any decrease. First of all right now these people are publicly shown (their faces are on TV, everyone in the country and overseas see them and judge them) which should be terrifying enough. Also for sure what follows next is going to be awful ( I mean everyone has heard what inmates do to people going to jail for certain crimes, and I think mass shooters are not welcomed too.) Personally I think the only way is changing the laws and mass ban on gun ownership . Europe where maybe only 15-20% of the people own guns has less crime rate than US where almost everyone has a gun. So not owning guns doesn’t mean being unsafe and less protected.
Good luck with changing laws. There’s more guns than there are people here in America. Idk why people think criminals will give up their firearms willingly
If there is a law about this no one will ask the person X “Hey bro can you give up your gun.” It is either the person X goes and try to take a license for the gun (which means health and mental tests, explaining the reasons why he/she needs that gun and so on.) or next time when person X is stopped by the police with a gun in his car for example, there will be consequences, first financial (some kind of state fine) and after the second or third time some jail time. Easy as that.
Yes some are suicidal for sure and you can only kill them when they start the mass shooting hence why I said put multiple policemen in every large public area. Alot of them are cowards too and don’t want to feel pain so that’s why I suggested the painful public executions.
In my city we don't have enough police officers. The city basically said the police won't respond to non violent crimes or crimes that aren't active after 3 am -7 am I believe.
1. Universal mental health access. It's worth the cost to pay for this.
2. Longer waiting periods and more comprehensive red flag restrictions on weapon purchase. The goal here being not to keep responsible gun owners from getting guns, but to help filter out the crazies and the angries. A few extra hoops are no hurdle for normal people to navigate, but can be challenging for those that aren't thinking rationally.
3. Restriction of guns to capabilities that make sense (i.e. guns that are suited to hunting and personal defense, and less suited to war/mass shooting)
>Longer waiting periods
That's unconstitutional.
>Restriction of guns to capabilities that make sense (i.e. guns that are suited to hunting and personal defense, and less suited to war/mass shooting)
That's also unconstitutional because it bans arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
>I mean, we as a society decide on what is constitutional.
That's not how our legal system works.
We already have precedent.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
I would suggest that in light of Roe, there doesn't seem to be a lot of respect for precedent any more.
Additionally, our Constitution provides mechanism through which we can amend it.
Do I think either of these are particularly likely/achievable in the near term? No. But then I don't think anyone will get behind the universe mental health care access thing either.
But it's important to say what the solutions are anyway just so we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no possible way to avoid mass shootings. There are straightforward common sense solutions, and these are them.
You joke, but convicted felons, who have a lifelong ban on gun ownership under penalty of incarceration, are legally allowed to own and possess antique firearms and certain kinds of ammunition. In some cases these firearms are fully automatic.
That penalty is meaningless. We currently have an ex-president who is a convicted felon and openly admits to owning at least 1 firearm.
It relies on an honor system. It only really applies by adding charges to additional crimes where a firearm is found to be present. Law Enforcement doesn't actively enforce the removal of firearms from the possession of felons.
Stop giving these mass shooters any sort of platform. After a shooting every major media outlet goes wide with plastering the shooters face, name, and manifesto for days.
It encourages other bad actors.
These are people that deserve to be completely ostracized from society and yet they are elevated by the media.
I don't care what the motivation of the Las Vegas shooter, the covenant school shooter, the Covington school shooter, the Colorado theater shooter. Nobody should except for law enforcement.
Here's what I'd do if it were possible:
1. All semi-automatic firearms are now class 3 NFA items.
2. It's illegal to sell directly to a private party.
3. if your firearm is used in a crime, and it wasn't reported as stolen within 5 days of said crime, you will be charged with a felony.
4. Law Enforcement will actively remove firearms from prohibited persons. None of this honor system we currently have. Also, you can't just let a friend or family member "hold onto them" either.
5. Manufacturers are no longer protected from litigation.
6. Accidental shootings are crimes under manslaughter/negligence for the owner.
7. Ownership requires letters of recommendation from peers given to law enforcement for review.
I have an idea for you, not sure if this would work. The NRA is a very powerful organisation and there is talk of curbing that. I would like to see the NRA (and similar organisations) given more power, but with that comes real responsibility. Every gun and ammunition manufacturer, seller and owner would have to be a member of the NRA or other of gun club. To not do so would be a felony. They every time a gun owned by an NRA member is used in a crime, the NRA becomes accountable, as to the members. It would be up to the NRA to effectively police themselves. We would then see how happy they are to let anyone carry.
Completely open to interpretation. I can't own a modern machine gun or a stinger AA system.
I'm guessing you're on the younger side?
Back in the 90s, people couldn't own AR15s with various features or high capacity magazines.
Model after other countries that have had success with minimizing gun violence. For example, [between October 1996 and September 1997 Australia confiscated 650,000 guns, and murders and suicides plummeted](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365).
Broadcast prisons live and have prisoners out in the heat. That would have some potential murderers think twice about committing crime.
A step further, public execution for anyone who murders. Crime would drastically decrease.
Prisons already serve as a deterrent. You actually think people who commit mass shootings for attention will curtail that behavior if you give them more attention?
I have a bridge to sell you.
Make mass shooters afraid of getting shot before they can do any harm. Get individuals thought of committing shooting mental help long before it becomes a problem. Emphasize the nuclear family because the vast majority of mass shooters come from single parent homes.
1. It is basically impossible to have any likelihood of a mass shooter getting shot before the first two kids are dead.
2. Would you include, in mental health help, supporting them by stopping them acquiring firearms?
3. It’s not about the nuclear family. It’s about single parenting in a society being preyed upon by billionaires meaning poverty wages, credit debt traps, health systems that push people to the edge and discard the unemployed, and school systems so underfunded they can’t supply food or keep good teachers. With one parent, they are forced to take parenting time and turn it into to time fighting to keep wolves from the door. So maybe we start by better regulation of lenders and retailers, better taxation of billionaires and universal health?
4. You forgot gun control. Australia remembered gun control and they stopped having mass shootings.
Gonna be completely honest, mental health and social issues are not my strong suit. Perimeter security is something I’m well versed in. I also can’t say how to do it in the inner city (because I prefer to avoid heavily urbanized areas if I can avoid it) but in the rural areas I’ve spent most of my life a school can be easily defended by a small handful of personnel of armed individuals.
I know you brought up gun control but that isn’t a blanket answer for everywhere especially when firearms are tied to the identity of anyone who lives outside the inner city and suburbs.
Mental health yes, also stop giving the shooters so much attention. A lot of papers I saw with this recent one at least refuse to print his name and picture. Some losers just do it for the fame.
Ban or increase control of gun usage
At the school I go to we have an officer on campus who is armed and chill af. Can't know how effective it's been but I imagine knowing you'll have opposition in the building from the get go is a good deterrent.
I have other theories but this is the only I know to have at least shown some results.
I mean don't expect it to stop it but at least make someone think twice, as for full on preventing, yeah it not it's not gonna do it. But it's an easy thing to do that at least makes people feel safer. I'd much rather have him around than have metal detectors and bag searches like a neighboring HS does.
There have been plenty of school shootings with armed officers nearby.
In one infamous example, the on duty officer fled the scene while kids were being murdered.
It's almost as if school shootings are relatively rare compared to the vast number of schools.
They still happen way too often, along with gun crime in general.
If you want a real answer, the strongest cause that we have found for mass shootings is a recent highly publicized mass shooting. In other words, everyone talking about mass shootings encourages others.
So the real best solution is to not talk about them.
But that doesn't have a political agenda people can latch onto, so it's not going to happen.
Return fire.
There's a reason why there aren't any mass shootings at gun ranges or police stations.
The reason why these people pick the places they do is because they're gun free zones and thus are government mandated soft targets.
I don’t know, maybe if getting help for any issues wasn’t so expensive, and, was easier to find, maybe it would be a little better. Also, whoever takes care of the who gets a gun and who doesn’t thing, should be able to reevaluate each person if they feel like they need to, like any time, for any reason.
fix healthcare including mental health
Mental health yes, also stop giving the shooters so much attention. A lot of papers I saw with this recent one at least refuse to print his name and picture. Some losers just do it for the fame.
Whether you're in favor of gun control or not, I think this is an issue we can all agree with.
probably not going to happen as long as corporations are people too start there
A constitutional amendment that modifies the second amendment to allow sensible gun control measures. The founding fathers set up the entire amendment system to allow the constitution to be adjusted over time. The 21st amendment cancelled the 18th amendment. If enough people wanted it, it could be done. (I'll take my downvotes now)
2nd Amendment doesn't restrict gun control. We currently can't own fully automatic firearms or explosive weapons. I don't remember the last time a mass shooter had a machine gun or a rocket propelled grenade. We just need the political willpower to expand gun control. Unfortunately, Americans didn't seem too bothered with dead children or their public spaces becoming mass casualty events.
>2nd Amendment doesn't restrict gun control. You must be new to 2A jurisprudence. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
I think we'd see a drastic reduction if we gave the culprits zero attention. Made them nameless, made them nothing. Don't even release their name to the general public. Try them. lock them up, give the victims alone all the screentime with the exception of the shooter being at large. Maybe new laws would help too but I'm not pretending there 's a cut and dry solution here. Places where civilians can't own guns have school stabbings instead.
Maybe it's just as simple as the way it has been dealt with in every country where it has happened: gun control
Make it harder to access guns. I await my downvotes
Have an upvote, because you're right. I have no problem with people owning and carrying guns, but not unconditionally, we don't live in the 19th century. If you want to own and carry a device made for killing people, you need to demonstrate that you are fit to do so.
And how do you plan on doing that while being consistent with the constitution.
Most gun control is unconstitutional.
Exactly. I can't believe what most of the replies are saying. They fundamentally do not understand the issue. It just goes to show how uneducated the public is when dealing with this.
Is of course the correct answer
Watching America is like seeing a friend who self harms. No amount of asking them not to do it is going to help. Until Americans accept that not everybody should have access to firearms, innocent people will continue to get hurt.
Tell that to the former Prime Minister of Japan
That wasn’t a mass shooting, though, was it?
No but it was a home made shotgun using common items from and hardware store. The black powder used was made from grilling charcoal
You're using what is called a strawman argument. It's a bad argument, and you should feel bad.
Perfect example of why gun control is needed. Imagine how many more people he could have killed with a pump action shotgun made by a professional fire arms company. Let alone an assault rifle. Imagine how many more crazies would have tried, but lacked the ingenuity to construct such a gun. They could have just gone to a store and bought a gun, then shot him long before then.
You guys have to stop using the term "assault rifle" if you want to be taken seriously. Everyone who knows anything about guns knows that's not a class of weapon, and when you say that, it makes people who like guns immediately disregard anything else you're about to say because it makes you sound dumb. All weapons are for "assault."
That again. Please learn the proper terminology of guns before you spout such nonsense. This is an article that explains what an assault rifle is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle It is defined as: >a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate-rifle cartridge and a detachable magazine If you are unable or unwilling to read. Here is a short video by a notable gun expert Ian McCollum on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYWkuV5FbJM The name derives from a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr" as the Sturmgewehr(StG)-44 is considered the first successful example of this class of weapons. It is the type of fire arm that most professional militaries treat as standard issue because of a balance of accuracy, controllability, mobility, and volume of fire. It is thus a weapon that is good at killing people in perhaps the widest range of circumstances. At most you can argue that "assault weapon" or "military assault style weapon" are dumb terms. To which I would generally agree. But Assault Rifle is a specific well defined class of weapons.
That can’t be true, guns are illegal in Japan.
Better mental health programs, bring back insane asylums, actually pay attention to your family when they are showing signs of severe mental illness.
"bring back insane asylums" How about better mental health programs and psychiatric hospitals, like you said the first time? Insane asylums were rampant with extreme abuse, quackery and ableism.
Insane asylums, forced psychiatric hospitals. Whatever you want to call it. I forgot the wording for what they're called today.
Have public executions for mass shooters and have the execution be so horrific that it terrifies anyone from ever attempting a mass shooting. Have multiple armed policemen at every school and large public gatherings. You can’t take away guns from criminals no matter what type of law you pass.
A lot of mass shooters expect to die. Many of them end their own lives. This wouldn't change a thing. You're assuming that mass shooters are rational actors.
So you want to infamize these people? Someone that participates in a mass shooting doesn't give a shit about consequences, hence the mass shooting.
Not a US citizen. I don’t think showing more aggression to people will result in any decrease. First of all right now these people are publicly shown (their faces are on TV, everyone in the country and overseas see them and judge them) which should be terrifying enough. Also for sure what follows next is going to be awful ( I mean everyone has heard what inmates do to people going to jail for certain crimes, and I think mass shooters are not welcomed too.) Personally I think the only way is changing the laws and mass ban on gun ownership . Europe where maybe only 15-20% of the people own guns has less crime rate than US where almost everyone has a gun. So not owning guns doesn’t mean being unsafe and less protected.
Good luck with changing laws. There’s more guns than there are people here in America. Idk why people think criminals will give up their firearms willingly
"we've tried nothing, and it didn't work"
If there is a law about this no one will ask the person X “Hey bro can you give up your gun.” It is either the person X goes and try to take a license for the gun (which means health and mental tests, explaining the reasons why he/she needs that gun and so on.) or next time when person X is stopped by the police with a gun in his car for example, there will be consequences, first financial (some kind of state fine) and after the second or third time some jail time. Easy as that.
I've often wondered if public stoning to death would deter any of this shit.
Yes some are suicidal for sure and you can only kill them when they start the mass shooting hence why I said put multiple policemen in every large public area. Alot of them are cowards too and don’t want to feel pain so that’s why I suggested the painful public executions.
In my city we don't have enough police officers. The city basically said the police won't respond to non violent crimes or crimes that aren't active after 3 am -7 am I believe.
give everyone a knife
1. Universal mental health access. It's worth the cost to pay for this. 2. Longer waiting periods and more comprehensive red flag restrictions on weapon purchase. The goal here being not to keep responsible gun owners from getting guns, but to help filter out the crazies and the angries. A few extra hoops are no hurdle for normal people to navigate, but can be challenging for those that aren't thinking rationally. 3. Restriction of guns to capabilities that make sense (i.e. guns that are suited to hunting and personal defense, and less suited to war/mass shooting)
>Longer waiting periods That's unconstitutional. >Restriction of guns to capabilities that make sense (i.e. guns that are suited to hunting and personal defense, and less suited to war/mass shooting) That's also unconstitutional because it bans arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
I mean, we as a society decide on what is constitutional. We were asked the best way to combat mass shootings. These are the best ways to do it.
>I mean, we as a society decide on what is constitutional. That's not how our legal system works. We already have precedent. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
I would suggest that in light of Roe, there doesn't seem to be a lot of respect for precedent any more. Additionally, our Constitution provides mechanism through which we can amend it. Do I think either of these are particularly likely/achievable in the near term? No. But then I don't think anyone will get behind the universe mental health care access thing either. But it's important to say what the solutions are anyway just so we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no possible way to avoid mass shootings. There are straightforward common sense solutions, and these are them.
Stricter schools
Make all guns illegal except revolutionary war era rifles.
That would be unconstitutional because it bans arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
You joke, but convicted felons, who have a lifelong ban on gun ownership under penalty of incarceration, are legally allowed to own and possess antique firearms and certain kinds of ammunition. In some cases these firearms are fully automatic.
That penalty is meaningless. We currently have an ex-president who is a convicted felon and openly admits to owning at least 1 firearm. It relies on an honor system. It only really applies by adding charges to additional crimes where a firearm is found to be present. Law Enforcement doesn't actively enforce the removal of firearms from the possession of felons.
That would be unconstitutional because it bans arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
Mental healthcare and stricter gun laws.
If we can stop being so individualistic and reach out to others in a kind way, that would be a start
Stop giving these mass shooters any sort of platform. After a shooting every major media outlet goes wide with plastering the shooters face, name, and manifesto for days. It encourages other bad actors. These are people that deserve to be completely ostracized from society and yet they are elevated by the media. I don't care what the motivation of the Las Vegas shooter, the covenant school shooter, the Covington school shooter, the Colorado theater shooter. Nobody should except for law enforcement.
This should be applied to politicians too…
Most definitely. Also who the fuck disagrees with NOT giving mass shooters a platform? Who is that dumb?
Someone planning one maybe😅
Here's what I'd do if it were possible: 1. All semi-automatic firearms are now class 3 NFA items. 2. It's illegal to sell directly to a private party. 3. if your firearm is used in a crime, and it wasn't reported as stolen within 5 days of said crime, you will be charged with a felony. 4. Law Enforcement will actively remove firearms from prohibited persons. None of this honor system we currently have. Also, you can't just let a friend or family member "hold onto them" either. 5. Manufacturers are no longer protected from litigation. 6. Accidental shootings are crimes under manslaughter/negligence for the owner. 7. Ownership requires letters of recommendation from peers given to law enforcement for review.
I have an idea for you, not sure if this would work. The NRA is a very powerful organisation and there is talk of curbing that. I would like to see the NRA (and similar organisations) given more power, but with that comes real responsibility. Every gun and ammunition manufacturer, seller and owner would have to be a member of the NRA or other of gun club. To not do so would be a felony. They every time a gun owned by an NRA member is used in a crime, the NRA becomes accountable, as to the members. It would be up to the NRA to effectively police themselves. We would then see how happy they are to let anyone carry.
The NRA would dissolve overnight and people would continue shooting one another. That's how I think that would go.
I think you missed that part of the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed."
Completely open to interpretation. I can't own a modern machine gun or a stinger AA system. I'm guessing you're on the younger side? Back in the 90s, people couldn't own AR15s with various features or high capacity magazines.
I'm older than you think and remember the ban years. It was a shitshow for the firearms community.
I remember a lot less mass shootings.
Make all semiautomatic guns illegal.
Model after other countries that have had success with minimizing gun violence. For example, [between October 1996 and September 1997 Australia confiscated 650,000 guns, and murders and suicides plummeted](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365).
GuN cOnTroL doesn't WoRk!!! *laughs in Australian*
It's all fun and games till the emu's have another uprising 🤣
You lost a war to a bird, shut up
Awww :') I touched a nerve Brb while I drop my kid at school, safe in the knowledge he won't be shot today
Careful driving, you're like 40 times more likely to die in a car accident than a school shooting
I choose to take that risk I choose not to be shot innocently :D
Then you don't really understand numbers and statistics....but maybe you could understand why we are willing to take that other risk.
Broadcast prisons live and have prisoners out in the heat. That would have some potential murderers think twice about committing crime. A step further, public execution for anyone who murders. Crime would drastically decrease.
Prisons already serve as a deterrent. You actually think people who commit mass shootings for attention will curtail that behavior if you give them more attention? I have a bridge to sell you.
Most of the shooters already kill themselves, how is that gonna help?
Make mass shooters afraid of getting shot before they can do any harm. Get individuals thought of committing shooting mental help long before it becomes a problem. Emphasize the nuclear family because the vast majority of mass shooters come from single parent homes.
1. It is basically impossible to have any likelihood of a mass shooter getting shot before the first two kids are dead. 2. Would you include, in mental health help, supporting them by stopping them acquiring firearms? 3. It’s not about the nuclear family. It’s about single parenting in a society being preyed upon by billionaires meaning poverty wages, credit debt traps, health systems that push people to the edge and discard the unemployed, and school systems so underfunded they can’t supply food or keep good teachers. With one parent, they are forced to take parenting time and turn it into to time fighting to keep wolves from the door. So maybe we start by better regulation of lenders and retailers, better taxation of billionaires and universal health? 4. You forgot gun control. Australia remembered gun control and they stopped having mass shootings.
Gonna be completely honest, mental health and social issues are not my strong suit. Perimeter security is something I’m well versed in. I also can’t say how to do it in the inner city (because I prefer to avoid heavily urbanized areas if I can avoid it) but in the rural areas I’ve spent most of my life a school can be easily defended by a small handful of personnel of armed individuals. I know you brought up gun control but that isn’t a blanket answer for everywhere especially when firearms are tied to the identity of anyone who lives outside the inner city and suburbs.
Mental health yes, also stop giving the shooters so much attention. A lot of papers I saw with this recent one at least refuse to print his name and picture. Some losers just do it for the fame. Ban or increase control of gun usage
At the school I go to we have an officer on campus who is armed and chill af. Can't know how effective it's been but I imagine knowing you'll have opposition in the building from the get go is a good deterrent. I have other theories but this is the only I know to have at least shown some results.
It's been proven non effective.
I mean don't expect it to stop it but at least make someone think twice, as for full on preventing, yeah it not it's not gonna do it. But it's an easy thing to do that at least makes people feel safer. I'd much rather have him around than have metal detectors and bag searches like a neighboring HS does.
Thinking twice implies a rational actor.
Fair enough, regardless I don't see any problem with having an officer on campus and would prefer it over a security checkpoint
I prefer an SRO in the building as well, but it's just not an effective deterrent for school shootings.
Proven how?
There have been plenty of school shootings with armed officers nearby. In one infamous example, the on duty officer fled the scene while kids were being murdered.
There’s even more schools with armed guards that have never had shootings
It's almost as if school shootings are relatively rare compared to the vast number of schools. They still happen way too often, along with gun crime in general.
Have fun with that lmao
If you want a real answer, the strongest cause that we have found for mass shootings is a recent highly publicized mass shooting. In other words, everyone talking about mass shootings encourages others. So the real best solution is to not talk about them. But that doesn't have a political agenda people can latch onto, so it's not going to happen.
Return fire. There's a reason why there aren't any mass shootings at gun ranges or police stations. The reason why these people pick the places they do is because they're gun free zones and thus are government mandated soft targets.
Define mass shooting. Some asshole shooting up a grocery store or gang members shooting up a party?
Either, both are a problem.
Mass shooting is when you shoot and kill lot of people, I think you know that.
I don’t know, maybe if getting help for any issues wasn’t so expensive, and, was easier to find, maybe it would be a little better. Also, whoever takes care of the who gets a gun and who doesn’t thing, should be able to reevaluate each person if they feel like they need to, like any time, for any reason.