Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can mass killings in the US ever be greatly reduced?
Is there a perfect solution? One that guarantees there will never be an illegal shooting ever again? Of course not.
But there is a solution that will cut such crimes way down. In fact, it has been on the books for hundreds of years... but gets violated all the time, so it hasn't had much effect.
One of the greatest benefits from having all law-abiding citizens able to own and carry guns, is deterrence.
Even if the laws conformed to the 2nd amendment (anyone can own and carry a gun if he wants), most people still wouldn't bother carrying. But a few would. And a criminal contemplating robbing or assaulting someone with a gun, would know there's likely someone in the crowd who has a gun and knows how to use it. He has no idea which direction a bullet might come from, but it's likely that one (or more) would.
And so he might decide not to commit his crime after all.
How many crimes would never get done in the first place, if everyone were allowed to carry, even if most didn't bother?
Study after study has shown that even with the laws restricting law-abiding people from carrying, there are still millions of incidents where a crime was stopped by the "victim" producing a gun, or even mentioning that he had one. There are no statistics for how many criminals decided NOT to commit a crime because the victim or a bystander might have a gun, but they are likely sizeable.
The people still demanding "gun control" laws know this. They have been shown repeatedly over many years, that the laws they demand, never work as advertised. They have even proved it themselves, by putting such laws in place, only to come back later and insist we need more, because they laws they made last year didn't work.
They know this... and yet they still keep asking for the same old "solutions" they know won't reduce crime. What, exactly, IS their purpose?
We The People remain the best defense against criminals intending us harm. Not cops, not government authority (so easily and frequently abused), not "gun control" laws. And yet the Gun Control advocates still demand such laws, despite knowing they will only restrict the law-abiding.
Why, exactly, do these people demand laws that only restrict the people they claim to want to "help"?
I don't think it's guns. It's society, culture, and mental health.
We need to re-evaluate where we're going as a nation and how technology is effecting us. We need to look at parenting and family ties, maybe even consider how dual income homes might play into this. Why do these criminals not value human life? Are they just born evil? Did they not learn societal norms? Were they raised in nurturing households with parents who were around, cared, and disciplined them? How does the media play into this. Rap music and violent video games. Lives are under microscopes with social media now. Bullying is more out in the open and kids seem more depressed. Why? That is the root of the issue, not guns.
Can mass killings in the US ever be greatly reduced?
Is there a perfect solution? One that guarantees there will never be an illegal shooting ever again? Of course not.
But there is a solution that will cut such crimes way down. In fact, it has been on the books for hundreds of years... but gets violated all the time, so it hasn't had much effect.
One of the greatest benefits from having all law-abiding citizens able to own and carry guns, is deterrence.
Even if the laws conformed to the 2nd amendment (anyone can own and carry a gun if he wants), most people still wouldn't bother carrying. But a few would. And a criminal contemplating robbing or assaulting someone with a gun, would know there's likely someone in the crowd who has a gun and knows how to use it. He has no idea which direction a bullet might come from, but it's likely that one (or more) would.
And so he might decide not to commit his crime after all.
How many crimes would never get done in the first place, if everyone were allowed to carry, even if most didn't bother?
Study after study has shown that even with the laws restricting law-abiding people from carrying, there are still millions of incidents where a crime was stopped by the "victim" producing a gun, or even mentioning that he had one. There are no statistics for how many criminals decided NOT to commit a crime because the victim or a bystander might have a gun, but they are likely sizeable.
The people still demanding "gun control" laws know this. They have been shown repeatedly over many years, that the laws they demand, never work as advertised. They have even proved it themselves, by putting such laws in place, only to come back later and insist we need more, because they laws they made last year didn't work.
They know this... and yet they still keep asking for the same old "solutions" they know won't reduce crime. What, exactly, IS their purpose?
We The People remain the best defense against criminals intending us harm. Not cops, not government authority (so easily and frequently abused), not "gun control" laws. And yet the Gun Control advocates still demand such laws, despite knowing they will only restrict the law-abiding.
Why, exactly, do these people demand laws that only restrict the people they claim to want to "help"?
This again? It's been said a thousand. Tighter controls will not prohibit law-abiding citizens from being able to own guns.
Are you thinking along the lines of what Switzerland does? Could you elaborate?
Militia duty:
“AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress;
at thirty, a senator; and
at thirty-five, he may be chosen president.
He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty- five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.”
- - - From Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856 ed.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL ABLE-BODIED MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States ...
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TITLE 51, PART II, CHAPTER 3
THE MILITIA
Sec. 301. Formation.
Enactment. Chapter 3 was added August 1, 1975, P.L.233, No.92, effective January 1, 1976.
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age
Whether you know it or not, volunteering to be a citizen is consent to be obligated to serve in the militia for most of your adult life. Which is why "Selective Service" (the draft) is not involuntary servitude.
Universal military training and widespread carrying of firearms would eliminate the inherent problems of "gun-free" zones (aka "Target rich environments"). However, this would impair the incremental implementation of socialism and its requisite totalitarian police state.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 02-22-2018 at 02:56 AM..
Personally, I'm convinced that the propensity for aggression and violence is more affected by our history and societal makeup than any other factor. Most of our forefathers came here to escape the stagnation and class-consciousness that characterized most of Europe; the only notable exception were the people brought here as slaves, and the structure under which they lived in the years following the Civil War brought about its own variation of this pattern. When you live in an area (or a society) in which the means of personal protection are further removed, you're inclined to develop your own resources, and the natural consequence was occasional mistrust and resultant casualties.
.
Our current national polarization revolves mostly around the amount of trust the two camps are willing to place in the power of a centralized state; "Progressives" seek to emulate the European model in which individual means of defense (or of lashing out) are restricted in the name of societal benefit, whereas those who live in more-rural neighborhoods, where sport hunting is more common and exposure to proper handling of a weapon while still in one's teens is likely, have a view somewhat removed from the "cowboy (or urban cowboy) culture" depicted by a mass media geared to an urban/suburban market.
But just as no member of the 15-or-so "tested" democracies -- where power has changed hands exclusively via free elections for a century or more -- has since taken up the sword against another member of the group, so should a post-industrial economy outgrow the need for personal protection, provided that a means to identify, counsel and (if necessary) restrain the alienated few on the fringes remains, and also provided that those far-removed from the ethos of Rural America refrain from writing their own values into "standards" used to overrule the strong beliefs of a substantial minority.
I amnow commenting briefly because I have to go to Court, but interesting analysis. I agree about the general propensity for violence. I am not sure about its impact on the severely mentally ill, however. I think that the Europeans have fewer compunctions about forced treatment, forced medication and/or restrictions on "civil liberties" of the severely mentally ill than we do.
If this is the case this is one of the few areas I think they have it right. The Europeans/progressives that is.
Can mass killings in the US ever be greatly reduced?
Is there a perfect solution? One that guarantees there will never be an illegal shooting ever again? Of course not.
But there is a solution that will cut such crimes way down. In fact, it has been on the books for hundreds of years... but gets violated all the time, so it hasn't had much effect.
One of the greatest benefits from having all law-abiding citizens able to own and carry guns, is deterrence.
<>
That was discussed last night at the CNN Town Talk. LEOs have in several incidents found it difficult to pick out the defenders from the shooters.
AFIK, we have not had a multiple shooter mass casualty event. The SWAT team comes in looking for others, so and armed defender is in a hazardous position. That does not invalidate you rpoint. It just makes things more complicated.
I don't think it's guns. It's society, culture, and mental health.
We need to re-evaluate where we're going as a nation and how technology is effecting us. We need to look at parenting and family ties, maybe even consider how dual income homes might play into this. Why do these criminals not value human life? Are they just born evil? Did they not learn societal norms? Were they raised in nurturing households with parents who were around, cared, and disciplined them? How does the media play into this. Rap music and violent video games. Lives are under microscopes with social media now. Bullying is more out in the open and kids seem more depressed. Why? That is the root of the issue, not guns.
I agree with the factors you stated; however, guns are a definite factor as they are to easily accessible. There is also no reason for one to be aloud to have semi automatic weapon. When the constitution was written these types of guns were not even invented yet. So I agree we should have the right to bear arms, but not the kind that can kill a dozen or more people within seconds. These should be reserved for military only for war purposes. The attachments to turn guns into these destructive weapons also need to be banned.
That’s just s start. In inner cities such as Chicago, one can go into any bad area and purchase a gun from someone off the street. So better hang control in large cities also needs to be addressed. Shootings in Chicago were at an all time high last year!
And finally, yes we need to look at mental health as this obviously plays a big role. I think that ties into healthcare reform. People can’t get the help they need if they can’t afford treatment!
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartGotts
I voted "yes, guns and other factors".
One idea for guns is to limit clips to 5 rounds. It's a start.
For an other factor, I believe political correctness is actually making things better.
It's not acceptable to pick on people like it used to be.
The ones picked on and isolated have often been the ones who picked up a gun.
California has a 10 round limit but that didn't stop the San bernandino massacre.
Political correctness is not making things better. if anything it seems that bullying is way more prevalent. When something bad happens, do people jump in and help? No they take out their cellphones and record it instead.
Mindsets need to be changed.
Haven't read all the responses here but seems more civil and rational than some of the discussions I have read on this topic.
First of all I would like to state that you are making one assumption - that everyone agrees that it is a priority to reduce mass killings. The reality is that there are a fair number of people that are apathetic or fatalist about this issue; it's not affecting them, so why should they care? So not everyone views this as a pressing issue.
But assuming that you do want to reduce the frequency of these shootings in any measurable way, there are multiple steps that must be taken (in a perfect world of course):
1) Rate of fire of gun technologies should be restricted by law, as this is the characteristic most directly associated with enabling mass lethality. As some gun experts have pointed out to me, even bolt-action weapons can have a high rate of fire. So rather than restricting specific classes of weapons, regulate the maximum rate of fire of the system.
2) Restrict the access of mentally ill and violent felons to guns. Far more difficult to enforce than restrictions of the source of the weapon.
3) Change the culture we live in. We have become a nation absorbed with violence and vengeance. This is the most difficult goal of all. Probably impossible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
