How do we reduce mass-shootings?

[Hercules56]

We can never prevent mass-shootings. But maybe there are practical steps we can take to reduce the number of mass-shootings in the USA.

Some ideas I have are:

-7 day waiting period for all firearms sales, unless you are a reported victim of a domestic abuse, stalking, etc.

-Registration of all semi-auto rifles, shotguns & handguns under the NFA. This requires a background check, paying a license fee.

or

-require all sales of semi-auto handguns, rifles & shotguns be with a state-issued permit that has a thorough background check that includes check for Rx of controlled substances.

Any other ideas? Any ideas about banning guns are futile as such an idea will literally never happen in the USA, at least for another 50 years.

[Venom]

I think the hardest treatments will be the ones that are less visible unless we observe it over large timescales. I believe mass shooting, which is most of the time a form of rampage killing, is a psycho-social phenomenon, so maybe cutting down our toxic gun culture and empowering young, lonely men is one way to reduce these sudden outbursts.

And though these attacks are becoming more frequent probably due to media coverage, the media can't not report them. We'd accuse them of covering it up, and we'd be right.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Venom

I think the hardest treatments will be the ones that are less visible unless we observe it over large timescales. I believe mass shooting, which is most of the time a form of rampage killing, is a psycho-social phenomenon, so maybe cutting down our toxic gun culture and empowering young, lonely men is one way to reduce these sudden outbursts.

And though these attacks are becoming more frequent probably due to media coverage, the media can't not report them. We'd accuse them of covering it up, and we'd be right.

I think never naming the mass-shooter might help. Make it network policy.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We can never prevent mass-shootings. But maybe there are practical steps we can take to reduce the number of mass-shootings in the USA.

Some ideas I have are:

-7 day waiting period for all firearms sales, unless you are a reported victim of a domestic abuse, stalking, etc.

-Registration of all semi-auto rifles, shotguns & handguns under the NFA. This requires a background check, paying a license fee.

or

-require all sales of semi-auto handguns, rifles & shotguns be with a state-issued permit that has a thorough background check that includes check for Rx of controlled substances.

Any other ideas? Any ideas about banning guns are futile as such an idea will literally never happen in the USA, at least for another 50 years.

Vastly increase funding for mental health services and social services.

[William Parcher]

There is the idea that mass shooters will talk about this desire to authorities before they get a gun. I don't know how well that would hold up in reality.

[JoeMorgue]

We do the thing that literally every other country has done.

Stop pretending it's a ******* mystery.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

We do the thing that literally every other country has done.

Stop pretending it's a ******* mystery.

To add to this, Australia has all but stopped mass-shootings. USA could do the same. Even mass murder in Australia is rare. Everything else is window dressing.

[Thermal]

Take the Chris Rock protocol: make bullets cost $5000 each.

Seriously. At a legit range, or for hunting, they cost a buck a piece of whatever the rate is. They are dispensed and counted going In and out. But the bullets you keep at home...the ones you intend to fire at people....5 large apiece. You'll never hear the phrase "hit by a stray shot" again.

In the practical sense, the bullet manufacturer doesn't get the $5k. It goes in escrow, and if you fire in legitimate self defense, your escrow is refunded. If you shoot into the air on New Years, escrow is forfeited to a fund for combatting gun violence.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I think never naming the mass-shooter might help. Make it network policy.

I agree with this, and stop giving the crimes (and criminals) 'sexy' names.

For example, instead of calling the murderer a mass murderer or serial killer, call them 'pitiful loser'. And as you say, never mention their name.

Even in court documents, refer to them as 'pitiful loser year/number.'

Gaol for any journalist/writer who tries to 'sex them up'.

Similarly for drug crimes, never, under any circumstances mention the 'street value' of the drugs seized.

My instinct is that it currently goes like this:

Media report: "Drugs were seized today with a street value of 1.5 million dollars."

Random set of viewers: "Oooooh 1.5 million dollars, that's what I should be doing to make money."

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah sure we could do all that.

Or we could do what is proven to work and has worked in literally every other country that wanted to reduce mass shootings to "statistically insignificant" instead of "literally every day. No scratch that more than every day."

[Armitage72]

Mass shootings are an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of maintaining our vital Second Amendment freedoms.

[Hercules56]

The only way to ban guns in the USA would be to first fight a civil war with everyone who believes that we have a right (even with good regulations) to own guns for home/self defense.

After that war is won we could remove the 2nd Amendment. And severely restrict or ban gun ownership.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by rjh01

To add to this, Australia has all but stopped mass-shootings. USA could do the same. Even mass murder in Australia is rare. Everything else is window dressing.

34 in Australia Port Arthur and 51 in New Zealand, Christchurch. These scale of numbers were needed ironically, to get insta bans by the public and farmers.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

The only way to ban guns in the USA would be to first fight a civil war with everyone who believes that we have a right (even with good regulations) to own guns for home/self defense.

After that war is won we could remove the 2nd Amendment. And severely restrict or ban gun ownership.

Yeah what the **** ever. "Roe Versus Wade" was settled constitutional law as well and the Right got rid of that without a Civil War. Only the Left is being held to what the Constitution says because it still has morals and standards.

Funny the Assault Weapon Ban WASN'T unconstitutional for 20 years.

[angrysoba]

Honestly, the sarcastic jokes and references to Chris Rock just aren’t funny any more. I get that they were never meant to be anything more than bitterly ironic, but it just seems more and more hopeless that anyone is going to do something about it. I think there may even be a game theoretical problem here as well wher the more that gun murders become a thing, the more people who might otherwise not wanted to be armed feel the need to be so. Like buying an air con to cool down the house that regularly heats up more than it used to because of climate change. Not surprisingly, there are literally climate change minimizes such as Bjorn Lombard, who argue that we need to use more fossil fuels to power the air conditioners, so there is a well-funded lobby of people who will argue more gun deaths require more guns.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Honestly, the sarcastic jokes and references to Chris Rock just aren’t funny any more.

Unfortunately, there are people who aren't sarcastic about it.

"It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment"
-- Charlie Kirk, Founder and President of Turning Points USA.

The sad thing is that he just said it in April. I'm pretty sure I remember another politician or pundit saying something similar a while ago, but when I went looking for it I found a comment from last month instead.

... ah, it was a satirical Twitter account impersonating Florida Republican Randy Fine last year. Another case of Poe's Law.

[JoeMorgue]

The cowards all say it with their silence.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Unfortunately, there are people who aren't sarcastic about it.

"It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment"
-- Charlie Kirk, Founder and President of Turning Points USA.

The sad thing is that he just said it in April. I'm pretty sure I remember another politician or pundit saying something similar a while ago, but when I went looking for it I found a comment from last month instead.

... ah, it was a satirical Twitter account impersonating Florida Republican Randy Fine last year. Another case of Poe's Law.

Yeah, I know that this is genuinely being pushed by right-wingers. They are anticipating the fall of civilization and hastening it along as fast as they can at the same time. This is also one of the reasons why they all but advocate open civil war as we see in this thread too. The psychopathic maniacs don’t seem interested in making society better and figuring out ways of reducing gun deaths or mass shootings. They tend to argue with mockery that it is hopelessly utopian to “perfect” society as if making it better wasn’t a worthwhile goal in itself. The fact that there has been a sharp rise in gun murders and masa shootings should be an indication that reversing the tread is possible. The argument that it’s human nature for people to kill each other is an excuse to do nothing.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah what the **** ever. "Roe Versus Wade" was settled constitutional law as well and the Right got rid of that without a Civil War. Only the Left is being held to what the Constitution says because it still has morals and standards.

Funny the Assault Weapon Ban WASN'T unconstitutional for 20 years.

Ok, try to ban guns. See what happens.

The AWB allowed existing guns to stay in possession and allowed many AWs to still be sold.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Ok, try to ban guns. See what happens.

And your argument is don’t try but have a civil war instead? Why be so bad faith about it? Just say you advocate guns.

[JoeMorgue]

We stood by while the Right made "the liberals are gonna come take our guns!" the opening chapter of their "Left Behind LARPing Fan Fiction" so now anything we do to make anything better will read to them as the opening shots (no pun intended) in the culture war they think they are fighting.

I love guns. I'm, for certain definitions of the term, a "gun guy" and I reserve the right to have minor disagreements in the details with the Left about how to deal with guns, but at the core nothing about guns is worth "the sound of children screaming has been removed."

And seriously the "Protection against tyranny" thing is just quaint at this point. Have you seen the United States military? The US isn't a country it's 50 wartribes in trench coat with a defense budget big enough to fight God. Farmer Cletus with his shotgun isn't going to stop an F-22. Trading the lives of innocent people against a maybe revolution is one thing, trading them against a revolution that you would never win anyway is another.

If the NWO Secret Jewish Cabal Rand Corporation Whatever Deepstate goes all "Plot of Captain American 2" on the American people to call it a slaughter would be making it sound too evenly matched, they would be farming the "Come and Take It!" bros for the XP.

[Norman Alexander]

An easier solution, given that it is impossible for the USA to give up both its belligerent attitudes and even the smallest iota of its gun-rights, is to identify which children are suitable targets and the order in which they can be killed. That way the status quo can be maintained, and the rest of the population can rest easy knowing they will not be targets of random shootings. You will need a published list of about 30,000 kids. That's the going annual rate.

[dirtywick]

i think david koresh is the closest example of what using the 2nd amendment to protect your rights from government tyranny looks like.

personally i'm a little tired of it. stricter gun control is literally the only idea anyone has, those opposed to it have been trying doing nothing for long enough.

[The Great Zaganza]

Nothing is going to happen if we implement stricter gun laws that actually reduce the number of firearms in America.
Some nutjobs will do something, but law enforcement is totally up for the job to deal with that.

The biggest danger will be cops and the like refusing to apply the laws and even sell arms themselves, as many do already.
If we could reform PDs to have fewer militant nutjobs we could enforce the laws we already have.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

And your argument is don’t try but have a civil war instead? Why be so bad faith about it? Just say you advocate guns.

Try to ban all guns and will cause a civil war. That's all Im saying. Better idea is to pass more gun rules.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i think david koresh is the closest example of what using the 2nd amendment to protect your rights from government tyranny looks like.

personally i'm a little tired of it. stricter gun control is literally the only idea anyone has, those opposed to it have been trying doing nothing for long enough.

Kill the Filibuster and win back control of the House.

Only way to pass stronger gun laws. But then GOP could pass nationwide concealed carry reciprocity when they win back control.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

The only way to ban guns in the USA would be to first fight a civil war with everyone who believes that we have a right (even with good regulations) to own guns for home/self defense.

After that war is won we could remove the 2nd Amendment. And severely restrict or ban gun ownership.

I think I see a flaw in your reasoning.

[TragicMonkey]

edited: never mind, that was a little dark and too open to misinterpretation.

[arthwollipot]

Australia never banned guns.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Unfortunately, there are people who aren't sarcastic about it.

"It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment"
-- Charlie Kirk, Founder and President of Turning Points USA.

The sad thing is that he just said it in April. I'm pretty sure I remember another politician or pundit saying something similar a while ago, but when I went looking for it I found a comment from last month instead.

... ah, it was a satirical Twitter account impersonating Florida Republican Randy Fine last year. Another case of Poe's Law.

Apparently this is from one of the guys who played Superman on TV.

Quote:

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

[Dr. Keith]

Have you tried thoughts and prayers?

Try harder.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Apparently this is from one of the guys who played Superman on TV.

I always wonder if people who say nonsense like that really believe the rest of us in the western countries secretly live in some kind of horrible dystopian slave states but are too afraid to speak up.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by novaphile

I agree with this, and stop giving the crimes (and criminals) 'sexy' names.

For example, instead of calling the murderer a mass murderer or serial killer, call them 'pitiful loser'. And as you say, never mention their name.

Even in court documents, refer to them as 'pitiful loser year/number.'

Gaol for any journalist/writer who tries to 'sex them up'.

Similarly for drug crimes, never, under any circumstances mention the 'street value' of the drugs seized.

My instinct is that it currently goes like this:

Media report: "Drugs were seized today with a street value of 1.5 million dollars."

Random set of viewers: "Oooooh 1.5 million dollars, that's what I should be doing to make money."

The "street value" of drugs thing is largely to big up all the work police forces are doing to stop drugs being sold for whole minutes at a time. The reported value often has no relation to actual value. Same thing is often done with "strength" values, especially with cannabis.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Try to ban all guns and will cause a civil war. That's all Im saying. Better idea is to pass more gun rules.

Start by banning AR-15s.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Try to ban all guns and will cause a civil war. That's all Im saying.

Who's suggesting that?

[BrettM]

I think one of the drivers for the existing gun culture in the USA is Hollywood. The other driver is slick marketing. Both of these conspire to maintain the interest inf gun ownership. Both of these need to be dialed back to reduce interest and make the transition easier

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I think one of the drivers for the existing gun culture in the USA is Hollywood. The other driver is slick marketing. Both of these conspire to maintain the interest inf gun ownership. Both of these need to be dialed back to reduce interest and make the transition easier

The other thing is a culture of misinformation. Like the idea that Australia banned guns.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And seriously the "Protection against tyranny" thing is just quaint at this point. Have you seen the United States military? The US isn't a country it's 50 wartribes in trench coat with a defense budget big enough to fight God. Farmer Cletus with his shotgun isn't going to stop an F-22.

So Cletus should have his own F-22. It's the only way to prevent tyranny.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Mojo

So Cletus should have his own F-22. It's the only way to prevent tyranny.

EVERY Cletus should be allowed AS MANY F-22's as he likes. And he should be able to carry them concealed anywhere he walks in freedom.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Or we could do what is proven to work and has worked in literally every other country that wanted to reduce mass shootings to "statistically insignificant" instead of "literally every day. No scratch that more than every day."

You keep saying it, and it keeps being ignored, despite the enormous body of evidence that says you're right.

The thread should have lasted exactly two posts - one asking and the second answering.