# Stopping would-be mass shooters who have clean backgrounds **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2020, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929 "2020-03-04T17:11:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/61 "2020-03-06T03:36:37Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > It is a good point in my opinion. If more people are killed in auto accidents than shootings, perhaps we should spend more effort on auto accidents. Please go and start a thread about that then. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/62 "2020-03-06T03:50:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s the PERSON shooting the gun. Take away the gun and the PERSON uses something else. The problem is the PERSON. Not the gun, or the car, or the bomb. Right. So then countries with really strict gun control should have pretty much the same rate of mass killings (and suicides, and armed robberies, and everything else that’s done here with a gun) as the US, right? Since the gun is irrelevant, and regulating them won’t make any difference. I’m sure the stats will bear that out. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/63 "2020-03-06T03:52:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > … > > The number of false positives will be driven by the cutoff point for checking up on the purchase. I suspect there is a distribution of ammo sales, and we’d only be interested in the tail. > You might collect data on sales of a box or two, but you wouldn’t do anything about it unless this was done every day for a period of weeks. This would be totally useless, except for stopping the Las vegas shooter, and he was a one off. This is a great example of a law that would increase paperwork, harass gun owners, and _do nothing whatsoever to prevent crimes._ ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/64 "2020-03-06T04:02:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Of course a gun can be an effective tool for killing. that’s not the argument. It’s the PERSON shooting the gun. Take away the gun and the PERSON uses something else. The problem is the PERSON. Not the gun, or the car, or the bomb. > > the wackjob who shot up Las Vegas was a pilot. He could have flown 100 gallons of avgas into a school building at 150 mph. He would have easily killed more than the 58 he killed with a gun. That kinda makes the point. He didn’t want to kill the maximum number of people; he specifically wanted to _shoot_ people. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/65 "2020-03-06T04:27:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > This would be totally useless, except for stopping the Las vegas shooter, and he was a one off. > > This is a great example of a law that would increase paperwork, harass gun owners, and _do nothing whatsoever to prevent crimes._ I guess you didn’t read my link about a guy who threatened to shoot up his workplace. When the police came, they found 20,000 rounds. No he didn’t do it, but if he hadn’t announced it, or his co-workers didn’t believe him, he could have become a shooter. As for paperwork, Safeway does a lot more sophisticated analysis of my grocery purchases than I’m advocating here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/66 "2020-03-06T04:31:54Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If I may junior-mod a bit, I would prefer for this thread to be about the specific topic of mass shooters with clean backgrounds, not morphing into a general topic of gun control and gun violence (which we have had dozens of threads about.) I seem to be the only one who has made a proposal, and the gun lovers clearly think the slightest bit of inconvenience to anything in the system is unacceptable. Without any counter proposals, of course. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/67 "2020-03-06T04:55:10Z")
A bomb-laden truck isn’t nearly as phallic as a good rifle. It’s not the bullet that kills you, it’s the hole. Outlaw holes. You have the right to shoot or be shot. Nothing else matters. Beware blade-throwers than can fling clips of fourteen knives. My background can be clean if my foreground is full of targets. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/68 "2020-03-06T05:17:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I guess you didn’t read my link about a guy who threatened to shoot up his workplace. When the police came, they found 20,000 rounds. No he didn’t do it, but if he hadn’t announced it, or his co-workers didn’t believe him, he could have become a shooter. > … Sure. And over how long a period and from what sources did he buy the ammo? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/69 "2020-03-06T10:15:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Of course a gun can be an effective tool for killing. that’s not the argument. It’s the PERSON shooting the gun. Take away the gun and the PERSON uses something else. The problem is the PERSON. Not the gun, or the car, or the bomb. > > the wackjob who shot up Las Vegas was a pilot. He could have flown 100 gallons of avgas into a school building at 150 mph. He would have easily killed more than the 58 he killed with a gun. > > I’m not dismissing the gun. You’re dismissing the person intent on killing who doesn’t need a gun. If a gun isn’t needed, it’s not the problem. Unadulterated bullshit. Guns are the most convenient and efficient tool, period. The Vegas shooter doubtlessly lacked the guts it would take to deliberately crash an airplane. I think mass shooters usually kill themselves because the horror of what they have done comes to make dying easier than living. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/70 "2020-03-06T10:40:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Of course a gun can be an effective tool for killing. that’s not the argument. It’s the PERSON shooting the gun. Take away the gun and the PERSON uses something else. The problem is the PERSON. Not the gun, or the car, or the bomb. > > the wackjob who shot up Las Vegas was a pilot. He could have flown 100 gallons of avgas into a school building at 150 mph. He would have easily killed more than the 58 he killed with a gun. > > I’m not dismissing the gun. You’re dismissing the person intent on killing who doesn’t need a gun. If a gun isn’t needed, it’s not the problem. I’m not dismissing anything. I’m just saying that guns are part of the picture. Not the whole picture, but part of it. Most Americans who want to kill someone choose a gun. This isn’t some random coincidence - it’s because they think a gun is the easiest way to do it. No need to worry about concrete pillars and barriers. No need to get up close and personal. They can bring it inside a building instead of having to stay on the street. And guns and gunshots bring a unique terror in the US because if our history and culture. And some guns are even more deadly than others. Some features are particularly useful for mass shootings. Short barrel carbines, rifle caliber ammunition, semi auto action, and large magazine size, for example, for shootings in interior spaces, like offices or schools. Bump stocks increase rate of fire if one is shooting into a crowd. I’m saying that all of these facts can and should be taken into account when trying to fight against mass shootings. It wouldn’t solve them - the ultimate problem is our culture and society that worships violence - but it might reduce the body counts for some. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/71 "2020-03-06T11:53:28Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Are we just required to accept a mass shooting by a clean shooter every few years or so? It doesn’t even register on the list of things I worry about enough to warrant a policy solution. So yes. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/72 "2020-03-06T15:22:05Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I really don’t understand this right wing trope about not reporting on bad things meaning that bad things won’t happen. How does anyone believe this? Sticking our collective heads in the sand isn’t going to make any problems go away. Do those on the right really think that the media has the power to create reality like this? That if they collectively all agree to not report on a particular crime then that means that crime will go away? It’s just self delusion, on a societal level. Makes zero sense unless you think you can just control reality by essentially bullying it to your will. They put the Boston Marathon bomber on [the cover of Rolling Stone magazine](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/17/article-0-1AD8F102000005DC-870_634x817.jpg), like he was a rock star or teen idol, with soft light and tousled hair. That’s just wrong. I think we can all agree it’s wrong, and _not_ doing that is not the same as sticking our heads in the sand. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/73 "2020-03-06T15:39:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I seem to be the only one who has made a proposal, and the gun lovers clearly think the slightest bit of inconvenience to anything in the system is unacceptable. > Without any counter proposals, of course. I don’t object to a limit on ammunition purchase, requiring a license to own a firearm, magazine size or even an assault ban. I believe that firearm advocates would see any of these as a foot in the door, a legal precedent for other laws. “We banned large ammunition purchases, we should also ban semi automatic weapons.” That would include the Colt .45 semiautomatic pistol, which is 109 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/74 "2020-03-06T16:36:49Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > They put the Boston Marathon bomber on [the cover of Rolling Stone magazine](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/17/article-0-1AD8F102000005DC-870_634x817.jpg), like he was a rock star or teen idol, with soft light and tousled hair. That’s just wrong. I think we can all agree it’s wrong, and _not_ doing that is not the same as sticking our heads in the sand. I still don’t get the magic step that goes, stop talking about bad things, then bad things will no longer happen. Is there fairy dust involved? Do we all have to close our eyes and wish real hard too? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/75 "2020-03-06T17:02:29Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I still don’t get the magic step that goes, stop talking about bad things, then bad things will no longer happen. Is there fairy dust involved? Do we all have to close our eyes and wish real hard too? Not fairy dust, psychology. [Social contagion](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-shootings-are-contagious/) is the idea that people are inspired by other people’s action. It is well known that [suicides](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/) can trigger social contagion. For example, suicides went up 12% the month of Marilyn Monroe’s suicide. For this reason many countries have journalistic codes regarding suicide reporting and the CDC has [guidelines](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm)about best practices in covering suicides. If you look at the guidelines for suicide coverage, most coverage of mass shootings violate the guidelines. They are sensationalized and detail how they were accomplished, and give publicity to the shooter’s goals. This spreads the social contagion. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/76 "2020-03-06T17:13:33Z")
It’s sticking our fingers in our ears and trying to manifest reality to our will. If we forbid the media from covering bad things, then we can delude ourselves into thinking bad things don’t happen. That is what this suggestion boils down to. Yes I understand psychology is a thing. But I also understand that reality is a thing and pretending something doesn’t exist is not a solution. ---
**Author:** ![Kovitlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kovitlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kovitlac)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/77 "2020-03-06T17:27:50Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I really don’t understand this right wing trope about not reporting on bad things meaning that bad things won’t happen. How does anyone believe this? Sticking our collective heads in the sand isn’t going to make any problems go away. Do those on the right really think that the media has the power to create reality like this? That if they collectively all agree to not report on a particular crime then that means that crime will go away? It’s just self delusion, on a societal level. Makes zero sense unless you think you can just control reality by essentially bullying it to your will. I don’t feel it would fix everything, but I also don’t see how anyone could argue that refusing to glorify mass murderers (as they currently are) wouldn’t at least cut down on some of them. The ones who are angry and just want to cause pain and suffering - no, a lack of attention would not stop them. Others, though? The ones who want to make a name for themselves and live on in infamy? I could absolutely see them deciding not to go through with it. I think about how uncommon school shootings and attempted school shootings (I realize there are mass shootings that aren’t in schools - just looking at one slice of the pie, here) used to be. Not non-existent, but certainly far less common than today. What’s changed? I don’t think Americans are inherently more violent than we were 30, 40, 50 years ago. I don’t think guns are really easier to get - if anything, I think they’re harder to get legally (maybe easier to get illegally though? Can’t say I know for sure). What’s changed immensely is the media. It’s grown and evolved and now the whole world can know about a shooting in minutes. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to change that, since people tend to place so much value on getting news quickly. And it isn’t a bad thing either, until it comes to fame-seekers with a serious bone to pick. I’d say don’t publish the names or creeds/manifestos of mass killers, but can not knowing that information be considered harmful? I’d like to see mental health being far less of a stigma and more accessible. I can think of two infamous cases off the top of my head of killers who initially sought help, didn’t really receive it, and go on to kill. Obviously we have no way of knowing if they would have killed anyway, but it’s very possible that psychological help could have prevented needless deaths. Neither a lack of media coverage nor an increase in mental health awareness will 100% prevent mass killings. As far as I’m concerned, nothing ever will. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/78 "2020-03-06T17:33:27Z")
I’m not sure if the media even matters any more, if the idea is preventing the spread if information. With the internet and camera-phones, the details of mass shootings will become public knowledge, period. There’s nothing we can do about that. It won’t even take very long. Pretending that changing the media strategy will prevent this info from spreading is a fool’s errand. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/79 "2020-03-06T17:47:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Has this strategy been successful anywhere in the world at any time in history? Is there any objective evidence that this works, at all, even the tiniest little bit, in the real world we inhabit? > > I only ask because earlier in your post you described something as “impossible” and it’s something that has actually been done, by actual human beings, living on our planet. I’m just attempting to gauge your reaction to evidence that certain attempts to cut down on mass shootings have actually worked in the real world, compared to your recommendation which I don’t believe has a shred of evidence to support it. What country in the world had a problem with mass shootings and then solved it with gun restrictions? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929/80 "2020-03-06T19:22:50Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What country in the world had a problem with mass shootings and then solved it with gun restrictions? Australia. United Kingdom. They decided mass shootings were a problem, in response to those shootings they restricted guns, and the mass shooting problem basically went away. The fact that they needed only one horrible mass shooting to decide they’d had enough, and we are apparently fine with mass shootings every few months, is just a statement on how much carnage we are willing to accept before we admit we have a problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stopping-would-be-mass-shooters-who-have-clean-backgrounds/848929.md?page=5)