How do we prevent these mass shootings?

There is simple solution possible ... but not liked and fought like the evil by too much people in the USA: Banning of all army in civil use and allowing, aside official executive Forces only:

a) people having a hunting license!
b) people having out of work necessarily must of guns (for example security personal, bodyguards, crew of money transporters etc.)
c) people of higher rank and in higher personal danger

This strict controlled with strict laws, with strict licenses and getting a license only after thoroughly testing.

but I know ... this is written evil for too many! But on the other side are some statements against done only cynical.
Yes, not guns kill people, but people using guns are doing so. But why is it so easy possible for them to use a gun ... including illegal guns?
Yes, maybe more people die due to other circumstances as killed by guns, but where and how does this back any killed person by a gun please?
Maybe an armed security person or maybe otherwise armed person would have prevent it ... but is such an arms race the good solution?

 

It is mostly about perceptions. Crime is not reported in the news as often as it is here. If you watch the local news, they spend about half their time reporting various crimes whether it is murder, a trial, serious accident, etc. But in other countries, it is not reported on the news even though it happens there. For example, did you know there was a kidnapping in the Philippines just this last week? I bet you did not know that and it was only reported after a couple of days the event took place by the National Philippines News Agency. If a murder happens in Germany and it does not involve a US solider or a US person, then the news will not report it at all. Yet it still happened, police were called, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

there are plenty of ways to protect yourself without the use of a handgun. The handgun is being used as a crotch from people who are scared of their own shadow.

 

Ahhh yes, the old serf mentality.

 

What these figures mean:
2,500,000 @ 8% means 200,000 attackers are killed or wounded every year

2% of those shot are innocent civilians = 4000 innocent civilians are shot of which between 30 to 80 innocent civilians are killed every year.

Not only is there no evidence that a gun was needed at the time to "defend" themselves but 4000 innocent civilians are shot of which between 30 to 80 innocent civilians are killed every year. And you think that this is acceptable?

 

I am sure that the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, circa WW2, would agree with calls to disarm the people.

 

Yes, but what about 'FREEDOM!' which gets yelled at us every time any measure of gun control is even mentioned?

 

"Freedom"? If killing each other routinely en masse is an example of this illusory 'freedom' then you're welcome to carry on, frankly.

 

The big difference between Switzerland and the USA is that their gun owners are Switzerland's trained and disciplined militia because Switzerland has a tiny standing army. Everyone is required to do mandatory military service and their military arms are kept at home. Switzerland's example is a perfect illustration of what a 'well ordered' militia should be, rather than what 2nd Amendment worshippers imagine they are.

 

Statistically it's extremely unlikely that you ever will in most of Europe. Very few criminals have guns - in order to come across one, you would either have to be within the criminal fraternity yourself, or be unlucky enough to be in a shop at the exact time when one of the very rare armed robberies is going on. Other than that, you'll probably never see one - the average house burglar, mugger or other criminal doesn't have a gun, so even if you are unlucky enough to be the victim of such a crime, guns almost certainly won't be involved at all.

That argument in the European context is a complete red herring. In the USA it is not, of course, because the arms race has spiralled so far already there, and petty criminals are routinely armed. That's why the European approach won't actually work in the USA.

That still doesn't mean that nothing can be done to begin to reduce the problem, of course.

 

No, one where gun crime is a vanishingly small statistic, where we are not drowning in guns and where guns are not wanted. It's a nice place to be.

 

Did you bother to read your link. It states the opposite of what you have been maintaining.

And if you go to the homicide section, then that is embarrassing for you

 

Yes, the idiotic 'serf mentality' which has proven, time and again, that fewer guns in circulation means fewer crimes committed with them. Truly stupid; I don't know what we were thinking.

 

Sure ... because there are so many Warsaw Ghettos existing today or being a danger that they come again, eh?

be aware ... there could be an Invasion by strong Cuba Army Forces backed with Mexican drug cartel fighters suddenly invade USA ... so be armed and prepared for it!
Or maybe natives in USA will arm up and try to kick out White Man out of their country suddenly?

 

And this kind of suggestion proves beyond doubt what a ludicrous and false argument the whole 'government disarming the people' thing really is.

It would have made virtually no difference at all - a small bunch of people armed with handguns and riffles cannot possibly compete with a well disciplined and well armed professional military force like 1930s/40s Germany or the modern US armed forces. They might hold a few soldiers off for a few hours at best, until they bring in bigger and better weapons and completely overwhelm them with numbers, expertise and sheer force.

All it is realistically advocating is a pointless arms race between government and individuals, where everyone would ultimately have to have their own Chieftain tank parked on the front lawn, and a string of anti-aircraft, anti-tank and other missiles, and access to their own private F-35 force, just in case the government decides to come a-knocking, to make any difference at all. Not many people, even collectively, could afford that kind of thing (and even that certainly won't save them from a tactical nuclear weapon!).

If your government actually wants to declare war on you, you are without a doubt thoroughly and utterly screwed. If you try to enter an arms race with them, you will lose. They are massively better funded, massively better armed and massively better trained than you and your buddies ever could be. If they really want to kill you by force, they can easily leave a crater where your neighbourhood used to be before they get within miles of having to pull out a gun. Your guns are no defence whatsoever - at best you might be able to take a one or two poor soldiers down with you.

Thankfully, the USA is a pretty secure and tolerant democracy, so such things are extremely unlikely, unless you start to very seriously break the law and endanger other people, in which case the state would be well within its rights (legally and morally) to do what it has to.

Whatever arguments there are for not having some kind of tighter gun control laws, that is just not one that holds any water at all.

 

I'm a gun advocate to a fairly strong degree, but not a nutter who thinks every person who can buy one should. But we have so many laws in my state that require background checks, finger printing, licensing, etc. that adding any more is just senseless. Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the land, yet people want to add more as if it can somehow change criminal behavior. Perhaps if I were in a more free state I'd look at it differently, but my viewpoint is centered on my reality where every purchase is heavily regulated and controlled and still solves nothing. The reality is that something in the minds of these people is driving them to the gun, rather than the gun driving them to the behavior. I think we need to work on lots of things, including protecting our guns from falling into the wrong hands, but those thefts don't drive the behavior. The behavior drives the thefts. The cause of that is where the problem lies, but we're trying to treat the symptom while ignoring the cause.

 

There maybe something in what you have written here (in bold above)

This site also addresses some of those points : http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/policy/

 

The police are a heavily armed population. They are not immune to mental illness.

How many mass shootings have taken place in a police station?

 

Serf or free pick your choice

- - - Updated - - -

Your German right?

- - - Updated - - -

Guess that mass killings by governments isn't a crime

- - - Updated - - -

Guess that mass killings by governments isn't a crime

 

Yes … I am, but no worries, I’m not pi**ed off because you named Ghettos etc. … half of my family fought against Nazis in WW-2 and some were killed in Concentration Camps due to this!
For me it was only a lame reasoning … like another one I read some weeks ago in another thread when it was reasoned with history of US settlers conquering the area and have to fight against these Natives like Apache, Sioux, Cheyenne etc.

 

Of course the freedom to mass murder is no freedom at all.

 

I don't think the motives for self defense are the result of lame reasoning. As long as there are people on this Earth that seek to impose themselves with violence, there will be people who seek to protect themselves from that violence. Yes, some people are more at risk than others, but I would argue that minimal risk is a lame argument for minimal preparation to mitigate that risk. A gun is simply a tool to further that goal.

 

While “liberals” say in one topic they would prop up a dictator like Saddam or Assad, to get what they want, then in another call for more gun control; I would rather yell “FREEDOM” and take my chances with the few nutjobs and keep the Second Amendment for the purpose it was intended to serve.

 

What an odd statement.

The only way to eliminate individual's so called "freedom" to mass murder is to lock them in chains and feed them through tubes.

Which, if you're talking about an entire population, ironically puts the people with the keys in a great position to do a whole lot of mass murdering.

 

Increased gun regulation may have a reducing effect on spontaneous actions (shootings in the heat of the moment) and maybe even on the convenience crimes (ex. armed robbery), but they are not going to stop or reduce the mass shootings. Methodically planned, with a complete disregard for the end (whether it is death or life imprisonment), means the shooter is going to do it regardless.

Regarding the mentally ill, if we are able to somebody at risk for this type of action, and deny them access to guns, and it actually stops the shooting from happening, then what? Proving that it definitely would have happened is impossible, and there is going to be an uproar over violation of that person's rights.

 

even with universal background checks and stronger mental health NICS records, this guy may have still been able to buy a gun.

he doesn't appear to have been schizo or bi-polar, just socially awkward, alone and angry.

maybe we need to have a system where if someone things someone is a threat, they can call the police and the police will look into it.

im sure its already the case, we just need more folks to step up and make that call.