Strict gun restrictions in other countries demonstrably reduce the number of mass shooters with both clean and dirty backgrounds.
Might be some gals around too.
Nearly all of us have clean backgrounds till we go bad, which needn’t take very long. And if everyone around you could be carrying, do you assume they’re all “clean” and won’t go homicidal bezonkers? Misjudge once and bang, you’re dead. Sad.
More personal firearms in public usually correlate with more people shooting themselves or others. The SCOTUS interpretation I suggested would reduce personal firearms in public, limiting them to “well-regulated” i.e. monitored individuals. Media depictions of suicide do seem to incite more suicides. Draw a conclusion. And tight firearms controls in other lands have curtailed shootings by “clean” and “dirty” alike. Thus is your question answered.
Frankly, Velocity, beyond a major turnaround in how we deal with mental health issues, so that people get help and care, and in high quality and quantity, early on, I think there may be little we can do about the “clean” mass shooter w/o getting into regulating other things beyond his mindset.
For every mass shooter who, when we reconstruct their backstory, we think we notice gave out “obvious signs”, there may be a thousand other guys giving out “this boy’s just not right” signs (or plain old “good Og, what an asshole” signs) who go no further than ruining your favorite chat room and getting serially banned/fired/dumped. How do we tell one from the others? I wish I had an answer.
How about two more counselors?
Keeping firearms far from any school is more proactive. Armed guards and teachers have misused weapons or had them taken. Oops. IMHO carrying at or near a school by any but a sworn LEO should be a capital offense. Oh, you want at least two full-time police stationed at every public and private nursery, primary, secondary, and post-secondary campus in the US? Lots more for big and scattered campuses. You’ll pay their wages, of course. How generous!
Them too. Especially them. And paid adequately.
I do not understand this post. The cite is from 2 years ago, and do you consider the PRC something to emulate?
I’m not opposed to that. I think the concept of “gun free zones” is completely idiotic. A murderer isn’t going to respect that. Many, many schools do employ at least one “resource officer” right now. Of course that doesn’t mean they’re going to actually do anything like that cop at Parkland, but I digress.
In fact, I would advocate them carrying rifles. A cop with a pistol is no match for somebody with a rifle (other than likely being more skilled in firearm use).
Nobody thinks murderers will somehow “respect” gun-free zones. That’s so ludicrous it’s a strawman with a dunce cap on.
However, in a scenario where armed security staff (or, worse, armed teachers) are constantly onsite, the likelihood that someone will be harmed due to a firearm being mishandled or lost increases far more in that scenario than the likelihood that that firearm will stop a potential murderer does. Which is entirely the point of gun-free zones in the first place.
Well, I’m pretty sure these parishioners were glad their church wasn’t a “gun free zone.”
Interestingly enough, “if it only saves ONE life…” arguments seem to only apply to prevent crazy white guys from bringing in a rifle and randomly shooting up the place, which almost invariably happens in gun-free zones (since there will be no chance of retaliation). School shootings are very rare. Rifle homicides are even rarer. Yet those are the only ones people really care about, and I would argue that’s because those are the most sensationalized.
Australia has had mass shootings since they changed the law. The Wright Street Bike Murders, the Monash University Shooting, the Wedderburn shooting, the Darwin shootings.
In the UK the Cumbria shootings happened after the laws changed, as did the Moss Side shooting.
No one is advocating disarming the police, so saying that there are armed police in Hong Kong is irrelevant. The death toll from the protests was small - I wonder what it would have been if the more extreme protesters were armed.
Anyhow, the protests have ended, the last being an attempt to get the border closed.
Yes, the cite was from a few years ago - but it shows how much strict gun control cut gun violence. If there has been any increase in gun violence since, I’ve missed it, and I monitor Hong Kong news since my daughter used to live there and a friend is now at a high position at a university there.
The Darwin shootings were with a “prohibited pump 12 gauge shotgun.”
Wright street was with “six handguns”.
I couldn’t find the type of weapons in the other.
I believe that anyone who begins shooting a number of people is insane. I do wish we could determine when people become crazy.
Great. You’ve got an anecdote. I’ve got a long, long list of them. Do you think all the students and teachers in those schools feel safer having guns around?
I note, by the way, you have entirely ignored my point in favor of repeating the “good guy with a gun” story again.
That’s 4 mass shootings over a 20 year period for Australia, and 2 for the UK. 6 shootings over 20 years.
You’re illustrating exactly what the difference is between a place that has cracked down on mass shootings and a place that hasn’t.
How many mass shootings have happened in the United States in the last 20 years? Using the same methodology you have suggested above, to tally up 6 mass shootings, we need to go back to March 4.
6 days.
6 days vs. 7,300 days. That’s the difference between a place with a problem and a place that has their problems under control.
That was not an exhaustive list of Australian mass shootings. However, the point is that they still happen but are rare. They were rare before they changed the gun laws as well. The murder rate in Australia was 1.7 before they changed the gun laws. In the US that year it was 7.4 which was the lowest rate in 28 years.
Australia and the UK never had a mass shooting or gun violence problem and so can not be said to have solved it.
Or they solved it pre-emptively.
Guys…"how to stop mass shooters with clean backgrounds."
On “how to stop mass shooters with clean backgrounds”, I don’t think we can, barring a radical change in our society and culture. And I don’t think it’s just one thing – I think these sorts of mass shootings are a cultural meme for which disgruntled and angry young men (and mostly young white men) are susceptible. Almost like “well, my life can’t get any shittier – guess it’s time to start shooting people”. With guns so easy to acquire, and no obvious way to eliminate this cultural meme, I don’t see how this changes. I suppose better policy might at least decrease the chances of financial desperation, and maybe better health policy could make it easier for these folks to seek mental health care, but there will always be some people who are desperately unhappy and angry.
And your strawman is armed teachers. I never called for armed teachers. I called for increased armed resource officers, and arming them with rifles.
No, I’m pretty sure the point was that we have mass shootings hundreds of times more often than they do, and your “solution” to mass shootings is to studiously avoid doing the things they are doing to cut down on shootings.
This is why we will never have a solution to our own gun violence problems.