What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

[PrimalToker]

The second amendment is clear, there should be no federal laws pertaining to arms, period. Most states also have their version of the 2A. Citizens should be able to buy the same equipment that the military can. 90%+ of active shooters are in "Gun Free Zones". It's pretty obvious they attack the place they are 100% sure they wont find another person with a firearm to challenge them. The policy should be constitutional carry nationwide, even on airplanes.

[vnatale]

The second amendment is clear, there should be no federal laws pertaining to arms, period. Most states also have their version of the 2A. Citizens should be able to buy the same equipment that the military can. 90%+ of active shooters are in "Gun Free Zones". It's pretty obvious they attack the place they are 100% sure they wont find another person with a firearm to challenge them. The policy should be constitutional carry nationwide, even on airplanes.

Grenades? Tanks? Missiles? Mines? Fighter Jets? Nuclear Bombs? Armed Drones? ????

[PrimalToker]

The second amendment is clear, there should be no federal laws pertaining to arms, period. Most states also have their version of the 2A. Citizens should be able to buy the same equipment that the military can. 90%+ of active shooters are in "Gun Free Zones". It's pretty obvious they attack the place they are 100% sure they wont find another person with a firearm to challenge them. The policy should be constitutional carry nationwide, even on airplanes.

Grenades? Tanks? Missiles? Mines? Fighter Jets? Nuclear Bombs? Armed Drones? ????

Yes. Governments are just people, why can that group of people buy it but not the other people group? I don't support discrimination, I support equality. The citizen militia's would group buy missle's,tanks,jets,nukes. It would be setup much like flying clubs are now. Single airplanes are too expensive for the average person to buy or maintain, so they have clubs that people group buy and then allow access to specific planes to specific people with the training. Without proving your skill and having insurance you will not get anywhere near the plane.

[dualstow]

I'm pro second amendment but not strident or absolutist.

The above post from boglerdude is pure crap on multiple levels. What you should learn from your post isn't the power provided by guns, but the pure ruthlessness of the dictators who had pretty much zero appreciation for the value of human life and particularly if it got in their way.

Afghanistan probably has more high powered rifles per capita than any place on the planet...not exactly a beacon of democracy.

Finally, Ukraine's problem isn't lack of rifles. Its problem is lack of artillery and air defense forces.

A band of bubbas with AR-15s isn't going to do jack when the black boots show up and slaughter, grandpa, grandma, mom and the kids because there's a band of bubbas with AR-15 taking pot shots, even automatic pot shots.

I've seen a lot of drone launched PGMs fly through the roof of a house when it was determined there was a band of jihadi bubbas with automatic rifles sleeping overnight in it. Trust me, the guns did nothing for them.

+1

[joypog]

ofc it wouldnt be traditional war. Surveillance tech improved enough for state-wide house arrest eg China/NK. Those who value liberty might eventually move to FL/TX and be reserve State Guard. I dont expect this to happen, but it's been a long two weeks

https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/commen ... k_mandate/

How on earth did a link to mask mandates end up in a conversation about mass shootings?

beyond the fact there is a big overlap between gun lovers and mask haters....

[I Shrugged]

Afghanistan might not be a beacon of democracy. Maybe of freedom is a better term. But the government or any proxy are constrained by the armed citizenry. And that’s the thing.

[joypog]

Afghanistan might not be a beacon of democracy. Maybe of freedom is a better term. But the government or any proxy are constrained by the armed citizenry. And that’s the thing.

Afghanistan is a beacon of "freedom"? That's a new one for me. Please explain.

[boglerdude]

> overlap between gun lovers and mask haters

2.5 years after 2 weeks to flatten the curve, some wonder if our oligarchs/politicians are not primarily concerned about our health. Those with a portfolio benefiting from 10%+ inflation might find it challenging to understand.

[I Shrugged]

Afghanistan might not be a beacon of democracy. Maybe of freedom is a better term. But the government or any proxy are constrained by the armed citizenry. And that’s the thing.

Afghanistan is a beacon of "freedom"? That's a new one for me. Please explain.

I was trying, not artfully, to say they are not a beacon of freedom. They might be fairly democratic though.

[vnatale]

Afghanistan might not be a beacon of democracy. Maybe of freedom is a better term. But the government or any proxy are constrained by the armed citizenry. And that’s the thing.

Seems like after we "won" Iraq everyone and his brother had an AK-47. If so, how was Saddam able to lord it over the populace? If they did not have those weapons while he was in power how did they get them once we took over the country?

[vnatale]

Seems that we are unique in the world with our mass shootings?

Do we have a higher degree of mental illness than the rest of the world? You'd think that due to American "Exceptionalism" that we'd have less than average?

Then what do we have more of a country than most countries?

Easy access to guns and plenty of them.

Lots of freedom. There is always a lot of negatives to all positives. Gun violence is a consequence of some of these freedoms.

Our country's culture? Founded on violence. A Revolutionary War. The genocide of the native population. A Civil War. Quick to get into wars around the world with innumerable military bases around the world. A military budget tens times the next highest country? All speaks of a country that too often times finds violence to be the solution.

[Xan]

The second amendment is clear, there should be no federal laws pertaining to arms, period. Most states also have their version of the 2A. Citizens should be able to buy the same equipment that the military can. 90%+ of active shooters are in "Gun Free Zones". It's pretty obvious they attack the place they are 100% sure they wont find another person with a firearm to challenge them. The policy should be constitutional carry nationwide, even on airplanes.

I would say that the first amendment is clearly a restriction on federal laws, with the "Congress shall make no law" language. Certainly that was the interpretation until the 14th amendment started applying those restrictions to the states.

The second amendment is much stronger: "shall not be infringed" with no restriction on who it is who must not infringe, implying that no level of government may infringe. Regardless, in light of the 14th amendment applying restrictions against the feds to the states, if you're going to apply the 1st amendment rules then you need to apply the 2nd amendment ones too.

I think one healthy debate to have here is whether the second amendment should be changed. "Nibbling around the edges" of a constitutional right is pretty much unhealthy. If the second amendment is the problem, then let's debate that.

[dualstow]

Seems like after we "won" Iraq everyone and his brother had an AK-47. If so, how was Saddam able to lord it over the populace? If they did not have those weapons while he was in power how did they get them once we took over the country?

Didn’t Saddam distribute weapons to the populace just before and during the invasion? I thought he did. I know my friend said he had one under the bed in his home in Baghdad but he was a kid and I doubt he knows where it came from.

[vnatale]

Seems like after we "won" Iraq everyone and his brother had an AK-47. If so, how was Saddam able to lord it over the populace? If they did not have those weapons while he was in power how did they get them once we took over the country?

Didn’t Saddam distribute weapons to the populace just before and during the invasion? I thought he did. I know my friend said he had one under the bed in his home in Baghdad but he was a kid and I doubt he knows where it came from.

If that was the case then why did not the populace turn all that firepower on him and his supporters? That is what we are continually told as to why our citizens need to have guns. To turn back an oppressive government.

[dualstow]

If I had to guess, Vin, I would say that they didn’t hand a weapon to every man, woman and child, which would not have been feasible anyway. They probably chose strongholds and pro-Saddam areas.
Also, there wasn’t the same social media back then where you could suddenly organize something like an Arab Spring.

[vnatale]

I think one healthy debate to have here is whether the second amendment should be changed. "Nibbling around the edges" of a constitutional right is pretty much unhealthy. If the second amendment is the problem, then let's debate that.

I mostly agree with this. So much has changed since the writing of the 2nd Amendment. A couple examples:

1. Rate of fire: At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, a good riflemen could fire about 3 rounds per minute. A semi auto rate of fire is at least an order of magnitude higher.
2. When the 2nd Amendment was written, a musket was near the top of the arms food chain. Now a rifle, while deadly to similarly-armed or unarmed people, isn't much use against tanks, drones, nukes, etc.

Also, I think about the following topics:
1. We've had more than a couple hundred years to evaluate the 2nd Amendment as technology has evolved. It's time to revisit it and perhaps revise it. The country is completely different, with 100 times the population.
2. An armed citizenry may or may not be of benefit in the event of a tyrannical takeover of the government. If most of the gun owners support the tyranny, it could make things worse.
3. Arming teachers sounds good, and I've supported that in the past. But as I get older and see the reality of mass shootings, I don't think it's worth it in most cases. The attacker has a huge advantage. Most teachers are not going to be great at armed combat. Maybe a tiny percentage would be, and they'd need to be practicing regularly. The less competent armed teachers would be carrying firearms around that would be more likely to be used against them than used to protect.

Full disclosure, I own several semi autos, including a scary M4. Insert obligatory "from my cold dead hands.."

In the Q&A interview I put in the Washington Journal topic this morning the person being interviewed stated that the Les Vegas shooter shot 1,100 rounds in ten minutes. If the first convicted murderer by rifle in our country shot the same number of shots it would have taken him six hours to do so.

[ochotona]

You guys are arguing about hardware, and laws related to it, and missing the other part of the 2nd Amendment.

Well Regulated Militia.

How is what we have a Well Regulated Militia? I think there should be a Militia, organized at a low level (County perhaps), and everyone who wants to be on it has to drill a few times a year, be able to run a mile, hike with a 50# pack, do hand-to-hand fighting as well as fight with arms, and they have to be accountable to a CHAIN OF COMMAND. Which would include military discipline, harder than civilian discipline.

You shoot up a school, you face a firing squad. Within a fortnight.

And if you're not an official militia member, you get no guns.

We should model the militia all after what is going on in Ukraine, not based on romanticized notions about the 18th Century.

[joypog]

You guys are arguing about hardware, and laws related to it, and missing the other part of the 2nd Amendment.

Well Regulated Militia.

How is what we have a Well Regulated Militia? I think there should be a Militia, organized at a low level (County perhaps), and everyone who wants to be on it has to drill a few times a year, be able to run a mile, hike with a 50# pack, do hand-to-hand fighting as well as fight with arms, and they have to be accountable to a CHAIN OF COMMAND. Which would include military discipline, harder than civilian discipline.

You shoot up a school, you face a firing squad. Within a fortnight.

And if you're not an official militia member, you get no guns.

We should model the militia all after what is going on in Ukraine, not based on romanticized notions about the 18th Century.

You are a braver man than I. I've oft thought about the well regulated miltia part of the 2A...and am frankly amenable to it in spite of my general west-coast gun phobia because I have a bit of a state's right streak in my system (especially after joining the state government as an employee).

But whoo...2A folks really buck against any mention about the militia, and I'm not versed enough in 18th century diction to argue it.

[I Shrugged]

There are actually quite a few countries where the citizens can own guns, but none or not many have the US problem of crazed mass shooters on any regular basis. Why is that? This is not a rhetorical question. There is something vastly different in the US culture that is causing this.

thoughts:

social media (kbg mentioned this previously)
violent entertainment and games
porn and free sex (makes losers feel angry/rejected)
bullying
lack of struggle for life's basics, leading to feelings of entitlement and self-actualization (makes losers feel angry/rejected)
lack of religion/ disintegration of family/ single parent homes/ etc
prevalence of pysch drugs

I have no idea how this compares to say, Uruguay. But you can own guns there too, and they don't seem to have people shooting up schools.

To me it seems like another chapter in the eventual decline and fall of the American Empire. Society has gone batshit crazy. Hedonism, nihilism, decadence, loss of morality, it's all here. I like fun as much as the next person but we are way over the top. I guess this happens now and then, especially before a society implodes.

[PrimalToker]

The second amendment is written in an old style that many don't seem to understand.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a statement of fact that is irrefutable.

Everyone in 1776 knew that a government with a military 100% of the time turns against the population. The United States should not have a standing army. No Army, No Marines, No Navy, No Air force, No National Guard. There should only be the Coast Guard, and state sponsored militias. The military is spread throughout the population, only officially forming when congress declares war and creates an army. After the war the military is disbanded and equipment dispersed throughout the states. The real entity that shouldn't be allowed to have weapons is the federal government.

Due to this fact
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right to have and carry military weapons (armaments) will not be restricted.

Modern english translation
Due to the fact a fully equipped and properly trained military citizenry is a requirement to live in a free and modern world we therefore declare that no laws, rules, or regulations will be placed on any and all types of armaments, including but not limited to biological, chemical, nuclear, firearms, explosives, missiles, rockets, aircraft, spacecraft, watercraft, software, hardware, etc...

We already have a red flag law, its the second amendment. Except the red flag is when the government has a military that never goes away....

[joypog]

Unfortuantely, this thread has basically devolved into the typical crud we see everytime one of these shootings happens. The gun maximalists won't budge an inch and the rest of us just need to hope and pray.

I fear it will be a case where things will just keep getting worse and maybe one day a straw will break the camel's back.

Until then, mass shootings are just part of the price we pay for living in America.

I guess a little barbarism is unavoidable in any society.

[vnatale]

There are actually quite a few countries where the citizens can own guns, but none or not many have the US problem of crazed mass shooters on any regular basis. Why is that? This is not a rhetorical question. There is something vastly different in the US culture that is causing this.

thoughts:

social media (kbg mentioned this previously)
violent entertainment and games
porn and free sex (makes losers feel angry/rejected)
bullying
lack of struggle for life's basics, leading to feelings of entitlement and self-actualization (makes losers feel angry/rejected)
lack of religion/ disintegration of family/ single parent homes/ etc
prevalence of pysch drugs

I have no idea how this compares to say, Uruguay. But you can own guns there too, and they don't seem to have people shooting up schools.

To me it seems like another chapter in the eventual decline and fall of the American Empire. Society has gone batshit crazy. Hedonism, nihilism, decadence, loss of morality, it's all here. I like fun as much as the next person but we are way over the top. I guess this happens now and then, especially before a society implodes.

There are extremely simple equations which explain this.

The more guns there are the more violence with guns there will be in a population on a percentage basis.

The larger the population the more gun violence there will be on an absolute basis.

Take a look at this list:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country
Top 10 Countries with Highest Gun Ownership (Civilian guns owned per 100 people):
United States - 120.5
Falkland Islands - 62.1
Yemen - 52.8
New Caledonia - 42.5
Serbia - 39.1 (tie)
Montenegro - 39.1 (tie)
Uruguay - 34.7 (tie)
Canada - 34.7 (tie)
Cyprus - 34
Finland - 32.4

First our country has 2 to 4 times the rate of gun ownership of these other country. Then our population is 10 to 100 (or more) times the population of these countries. So WITH ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL the likelihood of gun violence occurring in this country compared to the others on this list ranges from 200 to 3,000 times more likely. Given how few these events happen each year it is not unusual that it's hardly happening in all these other countries combined.

Then one can increase those likelihoods by some other factor due to how free a country we have and the attendant costs of that freedom.

[dualstow]

I have no idea how this compares to say, Uruguay. But you can own guns there too, and they don't seem to have people shooting up schools.

I always think of Canada.

[Xan]

Unfortuantely, this thread has basically devolved into the typical crud we see everytime one of these shootings happens. The gun maximalists won't budge an inch and the rest of us just need to hope and pray.

I fear it will be a case where things will just keep getting worse and maybe one day a straw will break the camel's back.

Until then, mass shootings are just part of the price we pay for living in America.

I guess a little barbarism is unavoidable in any society.

Well, "gun maximalism" is the position of the Constitution. If you'd like to advocate to amend it to change the second amendment into something else, I'm all ears. (Really!)

[joypog]

Unfortuantely, this thread has basically devolved into the typical crud we see everytime one of these shootings happens. The gun maximalists won't budge an inch and the rest of us just need to hope and pray.

I fear it will be a case where things will just keep getting worse and maybe one day a straw will break the camel's back.

Until then, mass shootings are just part of the price we pay for living in America.

I guess a little barbarism is unavoidable in any society.

Well, "gun maximalism" is the position of the Constitution. If you'd like to advocate to amend it to change the second amendment into something else, I'm all ears. (Really!)

There are reasonable limits on gun ownership in this country, such as red-flag laws and various other restrictions which have not been deemed unconstitutional by our courts. But the maximalists won't countance those due to their preferred reading of the 2A.

In the face of these events, the maximalists have chosen to do nothing and decide that nothing can be done (and calling for a constiutional chane is essentially that). That's my frustration.