How do we stop Mass Shootings? Gun Bans are in the air!

[Musketeer]

Lawyer Daggit also said

The second thing you must do is get serious about breaking down the 'hood' and integrating your black and south american into mainstream America. Until this happens you are not going to resolve this issue.Study your stats closely, in white ango saxo protestant areas your crime levels are akin to wasp areas throughout the world incl canada, all of your crime centres around 10% of the population, gang wars.

Rampage killers are generally not racially motivated (with a few notable exceptions like the Long Island Rail Road shooter).

In addition there is a huge problem integrating the black and latino communities because... THEY DON'T WANT TO INTEGRATE. Blacks who show promise in school and give the signs of integrating are often persecuted by fellow blacks. Those who reach notable levels of achievement are often attacked as "Uncle Toms" by their own race. Look at the treatment given to Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and even Bill Cosby (really a liberal) who took it on himself to point out the failings within the black community.

We can barely get the latino community to even speak English and everything possible is done by them to maintain a separation. You want to integrate, make English the official US language and eliminate all taxpayer funded signs in Spanish.

 

[famine]

I have to agree with not giving these people the media coverage that they are looking for. Looking back over the last few years it seems like after the Columbine HS shootings were given a lot of coverage many more popped up and now continue to go on as some sick person's way of giving the world the one finger salute. I find it kind of ironic that the media who seem to want nothing more than to demonize guns actually are the probable cause of a lot of the shootings by giving them the attention these people are willing to kill for.

Just my $0.02
Famine

 

[Deadduck]

I would also like to see newspapers begin limiting their coverage of these things, as they already do with suicides (it's well known that reporting on a suicide can cause more, so few are written about) but I don't know of a way to enforce that with laws. It has to be voluntary, and as long as the public wants to see every picture of a shooter and hear his angry video manifesto shooting innocents and committing suicide will be an effective way to get the limelight.

I think this is an EXCELLENT point. Ever notice how these types of shootings occur in bunches. You'll go a year with nothing, then suddenly there will be several in a row. Same thing happened during the 90's, with Jonesboro, AR, Pearl, MS, Columbine, etc. This isn't just a coincidence, it's because the media goes into a frenzy, showing the bloodstains on the sidewalks, delving into the possible motives, questioning family and friends of the shooters, tellilng about the bullies, etc. This inspires other psycho's to do the same thing. I mean, guns were much more prevalent and easier to obtain in the 40's and 50's, and we didn't have many of the mass shootings then. So what has changed? Mass media.

So I propose this: Instead of infringing on the 2nd ammendment, let's infringe on the 1st. The government should put a damper on TV and print media on how they can cover these stories. It's not without precedent, there was a lot of cencorship of the media during WWII. I think I'll start a group to promote safety in the media. The pen is mightier than the sword, is it not? The government really should put more limits on this powerful weapon...

I know, it's absurd, but once one ammendment starts being infringed, all are at risk.

 

[Musketeer]

One does not need to always report the name to report the story.

Examples include victims of sexual assault and minors. In both cases the media does not report names. Why not add rampage killers to the list?

 

[Garand Illusion]

There are some interesting posts above.

Although I'm generally 100% against any limitation on freedom of the press, if this truly is a time of national emergency, calling for limitations on the 2nd amendment, perhaps it's also a time for limitations on the 1st in the same vein. So no publishing of shooters pictures or names anywhere, just coverage of the incident in a factual way.

The problem, of course, is that the internet bloggers will take every picture they can and put it up, and the shooters themselves sometimes send out their own pictures do they can be seen looking tough holding their guns.

I think we need to be very, very careful about who we rule out for owning a firearm. Like as also been said ... someone seeking out help for themselves can mean a lot of things. most of them are not dangerous. to the point that I don't think it's a valid reason to deny a civil right, like gun ownership.

 

[Musketeer]

Yes, the bloggers will publish names and photos. The fame though comes from 60 Minutes, Time Magazine, and CNN. These killers want everyone to see their exploits and know it was they who did it. The whole reason for going after a large group of helpless people in as bold a way as possible is to make certain they become known to people outside their immediate circle. The bloggers are just not big enough for that.

 

[Garand Illusion]

The antics and scatter brained suggestions of the anti's just continue to amaze me:

gunguy.com suggestions

Firearms aren’t books, DVDs, or clothes. They are an especially dangerous product – and the notion that you can surf the net to find the most lethal firepower is a disturbing one, to say the least.

But ... as is noted earlier ... you can't buy directly across the internet. The gun has to go through a local gun dealer. So really the internet is just a way to look at what is available. Why are we inherently safer if someone is limited to what is in stock at the local gun store?

We don’t allow tobacco or hard liquor ads on television. Maybe it is time to think about prohibiting guns from being sold over the Internet.

Logic? First off ... there are hard liquor ads on television. But beyond that ... Because we don't allow advertisements of apples on television, we don't allow sales of oranges over the internet? Huh? There are also some gun advertisements on Television, though very few.

To gun enthusiasts that suggestion might seem like a “violation of their Second Amendment rights,” maybe even their First Amendment rights. But, as we have said again and again, guns are not sacred. As the horrifying events of the last few weeks have proven, they are an especially lethal threat to our society.

So since guns are not sacred ... they can attack BOTH our 2nd and 1st amendment rights? Makes sense -- many laws they push for take away our 4th and 5th amendment rights ...

 

[Freedom_1st]

Just some random thoughts. I don't think we should make it easy for dangerous people to get guns. Also don't think we should be stupid enough to think that is going to stop them.

I agree, but to often it seems the people who have been on these rampages, have had serious documented mental health issues before they go on the rampages and usually get their firearms legally.

My point is that even with our current laws we dont allow felons to buy firearms either, unless they have proven themselves responsible enough to have their rights reinstated through the court system.

Notice we dont restrict the rights of people convicted of misdomeanors.

Maybee we need a system that restricts the 2nd ammendment rights of people with serious mental health issues much the same way we restrict people with serious criminality issues (felons). However, just like felons, I believe these people should have a system of getting their 2nd ammendment rights back if they have proven themselves trustworthy over time.

I know the argument with felons is that they get the guns anyway, but that is usually because they involved with a criminal underworld whose very existance is based upon the dealing of illegal contraband, people with serious mental health issues are rarely involved in this type of criminal underworld, most are isolated loners.

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Maybee we need a system that restricts the 2nd ammendment rights of people with serious mental health issues much the same way we restrict people with serious criminality issues (felons). However, just like felons, I believe these people should have a system of getting their 2nd ammendment rights back if they have proven themselves trustworthy over time.

This is good in thoery but in practise where does one draw the line? From personal expierence I know this is a dangerous can of worms to open. I myself have been diagnosed with "high functioning" autism. My question is the same as it was then. If there is no "definitive" way of knowing if a person is autisic, normal or "insane" then the line can be moved to where ever best suits the person making the diagnosis. At what point does "obsession with firearms" become a red flag for the diagnoses. I have my suspicion that was the case with me. It was one of the questions asked by the interviewer. Along with other issues that were very political in nature.(story for another time guys)

 

[44capnball]

It was one of the questions asked by the interviewer. Along with other issues that were very political in nature.(story for another time guys)

Speaking of red flags, that's a bit of a red flag, no? Political questions on a psychological or health exam?

Stalinist tactic, doesn't belong in a civilized nation. That needs nipped in the bud while it still can be.

I think this is an EXCELLENT point. Ever notice how these types of shootings occur in bunches. You'll go a year with nothing, then suddenly there will be several in a row. Same thing happened during the 90's, with Jonesboro, AR, Pearl, MS, Columbine, etc. This isn't just a coincidence, it's because the media goes into a frenzy

When the media frenzy shows they're not interested in stopping copycat incidents by exercising restraint over their obvious power to influence the public, it becomes indistinguishable from them actually making the event happen and profiting from it. They are every bit as guilty as if they'd actually stood right there and encouraged someone to pull the trigger.

I think this should be the key to a legal strategy against them. They should be just as liable as if they'd yelled "fire" in a crowded theater and caused a fatal stampede.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

Musketeer confused my comment regarding the need for the US to get serious about the 'hood' as being one relevant to rampage shooting.

I am sorry I did not mean to give rise to this inference and agree that there is no connection between neighbourhood type violence and rampage shooting.

Statistically rampage shooting does not kill many people (unless you look at Australian figs where Port Arthur caused a big statistical blip because Aust figs for gun homicide are so low).

What rampage shooting does is kill a few people in one spot within a short period of time and create mass hysteria.

In the US, white neighbourhoods do not have high firearms crime rates- black neigbourhoods do. This is a feature not of the firearm but of something that is socio economically wrong with America.

Dont' ask me what that 'something' is- a lot more research is needed here- but the problem is not solved by 'getting tough on guns' or through administration of the death sentence.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Speaking of red flags, that's a bit of a red flag, no? Political questions on a psychological or health exam?

yeah think so huh(/sarcasm)

It is exactly this that DOES HAPPEN and is why I strongly oppose mental health screanings being used to determind if someone can o own a firearm. There is too much oppertunity for error or bias on the part of the interviewer.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

The problem with the use of mental health as grounds for prohibition is that it discourages people who need treatment from seeing a Doctor.

In Australia we have very high levels of suicide amongst farmers in Outback Australia, largely due to financial pressure caused by drought. Some therapy and treatment and these blokes would be fine, many will not however seek treatment because they are concerned that it will effect their licence.

I think there needs to be a discretion for a therapist to request removal of firearms, and a mechanism put into place to enable to enable shooters who have been effectively treated to get their licences back.

In Australia this situation is all to vague, and creates a situation where any individual who discloses that they have had therapy in the declaration on their gun application is in for a rough time with the firearms registry. (note failure to disclose is also ground for refusal).

One fellow I acted for was given a hard time by the Registry even although his treating psychiatrist, his former wife (a psych nurse) and another psychiatrist engaged for an opinion all considered him fit and well.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

I am not subscribing the integration of black and white communities. I do not think integration should be forced.

Most of your killings in America are not 'rampage killings' rather they are black on black killings that occur in black neighbourhoods. What I think is so shocking for most Americans (who are white) is not just the randomness of this type of killing, it is these killings effect them.

I think America would have got serious about its crime rate years ago if it largely effected whites and not mainly blacks in lower class areas.

It is for this reason I think that if there is any significant tightening of US gun laws it would result from random shootings and not black neighbourhood killings, because the larger community is largely not worried by the latter.

Shooting groups need to heavily campaign against media groups and make them accept some accountability in respect to the publicisation of this type of violence.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How do we stop Mass Shootings? Gun Bans are in the air!

That's rather odd. My impression was that there were more states considering allowed CCW on campus and some school considering policy changes in states where it may be legal to CCW on campus, but isn't allowed by the school.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

I think there needs to be a discretion for a therapist to request removal of firearms, and a mechanism put into place to enable to enable shooters who have been effectively treated to get their licences back.

So how do we go about this in a way which will hold up to trial lawyers yet is still simple enough for the "common man" to understand.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Australian Article

This article is really that bad, though it does end with some unchallenged anti-gun quotes. I just love this one:

But Mr Hamm (Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign) does not agree.

"I'd say that we all want James Bond or John Wayne to step forward when a bad guy shows up, but the real world doesn't operate that way," he said.

"In the real world, when a second person draws a weapon in a crowded classroom full of people, it ends up with more people being shot, not fewer people being shot."

Interesting ... if the above is true, then thank God there wasn't a cop in the room! And perhaps police should get as far away as possible from a shooting scene, rather than all running in that direction (then taking cover behind trees until the shooter has committed suicide).

In terms of gun bans being in the air ... I've heard a lot more rhetoric out there from the anti gun groups. Thankfully, some pro-gun people are getting some airtime as well.

I actually heard O'Reilly talking on it, saying it was the only option since the 2nd amendment makes it impossible to ban guns or people selling guns between themselves. He didn't make a strong stand, but at least he gave it some legitimate air time.

Perhaps anti-gun groups didn't get as much traction in pro-gun states as I thought they would, and that's good, but the anti-gun groups have definitely picked up the rhetoric a bit.

 

[Musketeer]

But Mr Hamm (Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign) does not agree.

"I'd say that we all want James Bond or John Wayne to step forward when a bad guy shows up, but the real world doesn't operate that way," he said.

"In the real world, when a second person draws a weapon in a crowded classroom full of people, it ends up with more people being shot, not fewer people being shot."

Like the church attack a month or two ago... oh, right. He was stopped by an armed citizen in a crowded church.

 

[MD_Willington]

hmmm..

ban one tool, people will use another...

 

[cannonballmount]

Mass shootings are occurring in countries with absolute bans.

Remember fire drills? Public places need to develop a common and established procedure when a shooter occurs. Every one has to have some idea what to do, and not to be an easy target.

First is lay down but keep moving or dig in. Or something.

Everyone throw something, anything at the shooter. Hard to aim when he has to keep ducking.

Those are the first two that come to my mind. But I didn't do all that well, when we were taking training villages down in Fort Benning Georgia.

Any experts?