How to prevent killing sprees

[Blackbeard]

This is the basic question that the pro-RKBA and the Antis have been dancing around. I think it's time to address the question head-on. Is it possible to prevent killing sprees without infringing on anyone's rights? I postulate that it is not possible.

There are two factors in killing sprees -- A) Guns, B) Crazy people. When these two factors come together, bad things happen. Most of us on this forum are against any restrictions on access to guns and ammunition for normal law-abiding people, as we should be. Of course, this means that crazy people also have access to guns & ammunition, and may be law-abiding right up until the time they open fire. The only other alternative is to regulate crazy people. So how do you do that without infringing on the privacy of the 99.99% of the population that isn't crazy?

Not even the antis are proposing solutions to this problem. They seem focused on the "gun show loophole" (a perverse misnomer), but that does nothing to prevent spree killers. Jiverly Wong was clearly paranoid schizophrenic, but he would have passed a background check, even if there were mental health data in the NICS, because he was never diagnosed.

 

[rbernie]

Killing sprees are caused by people with midwired/midfired mushware. Guns are actually just a tool; they are not causal.

You cannot prevent killing sprees until you can figure out how to predict when/how somebody's mushware is gonna misfire.

The deadliest school killing spree was accomplished with no guns at all.

 

[Maelstrom]

Killing has been going on for thousands of years. If there was a way to stop it, it'd have been stopped already.

If you read the Bible, by page two someone is already killing someone else.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I thought in this country we're innocent until proven guilty.

Seems the 'other side' supports the notion that
people are guilty even though they haven't commit a crime yet.

Placing restrictions using the argument
(the 'thought') that someone will do bad
is a very slipper slope, that sadly, we are already on.

 

[Eric F]

Is it possible to prevent killing sprees without infringing on anyone's rights?

Yes every one stays in their house you can mail order food and guns robots will deliver them.

Ok really no because of human nature and the lack of seeing into the future killing sprees are unavoidable, even with out guns you would have stabbings burnings hangings ect.

 

[Yo Mama]

Only One Answer

I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It made more sense to my than any other long argument. It said something like:

Why does God allow school killings. God replies: Don't blame me, I've been kicked out of the schools for years.

We have at the same time cut our essential services to address mental health and social resources. With the economy getting worse and worse, we also cut these services and wonder why we have a rise in killings.

We also don't talk to each other any more. I'm a big fan of Glen Beck, who hammers this alot. We are so PC now, that we fear discussing our feelings and stances on issues. This leads to dangerous isolation.

 

[Old Fuff]

There is one previously unmentioned factor. The mainstream news media.

During earlier times many of these killings wouldn't have been reported beyond the local area where they happened. Today it's unlikely that they won't be national, and even international news. Add to that, that each incident is milked for all of the possible circulation or viwer ratings it can get.

Thus the media inspires mentally disturbed individuals to do the same, so that they can get attention that they crave. In some cases the killer may see the media attention as approval for such acts. Sometimes the authorities refer to these additional acts as "copycat killings,"

To understand the media's role, it might be remembered that in the middle of the Virginia Tech shooting the killer actually stopped long enough to mail a packet of documents to a television station. Of course they exploited every piece they got.

Is this situation going to change? I highly doubt it, but we can be sure the media will continue to blame guns. I remember one incident where they did so even though no firearms were involved.

 

[AllAmerican]

You want to end the killing sprees?

Just put signs on every building and on the streets reminding folks that everyone is armed. Then, arm everyone.

Problem solved.

 

[runrabbitrun]

You want to end the killing sprees?

Just put signs on every building and on the streets reminding folks that everyone is armed. Then, arm everyone.

Problem solved.

Ditto to that.

Why is it so hard to understand?
An armed society is a polite and safe society.


Let me take this a bit further.

Let say the US announces to the world we are gun free.
We destroy our nukes, we disarmed our citizens, our military and
all our LE agencies.

How long before some other country decides we are ripe for the taking?
How long before the criminals from with-in take full advantage
and turn our lands into true killing fields?

Having guns is what keeps these threats at bay.
IMO of course.

 

[yokel]

If criminals and crazies want guns, they're going to get them.

As far as "illegal" guns go, about the only way to prevent those would be to prevent all guns, and I just don't see that happening.

 

[frogomatic]

there is no real way to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things.

The best deterent to those crazy people doing crazy things is for all citizens to take responsiblity for their own saftey. Be prepared at all times to defend ourselves from crazy people doing crazy things. Don't let them have a 'path of least resistance'.

 

[TheVirginian]

It's not possible. A larger number of people could be more easily and stealthfully killed with a poison. That is in fact, the latest and greatest danger to the public since the declaration of war by religious zealots.

Gun control, and by that I mean complete, search and destroy all guns, would only prevent most of the gun violence. Obviously it's not possible either and many would still slip through the cracks. they are simply picked on because they are an easy target since they are convenient and common for anyone to get hold of to commit a crime, and that includes the psycho killer type. So other means would just be used by the deranged. General gun control isn't the smartest or even best thing to do IMO. I am for some basic laws but not any form of prohibition, confiscation, etc. As we all here realize, that would just be counterproductive and not solve the problem. There are probably already enough guns in the US to arm just about everyone. That doesn't make everyone crazy...
-Bill

 

[TravisB]

Just put signs on every building and on the streets reminding folks that everyone is armed. Then, arm everyone.

Problem solved.

Can you think of any new problems that might arise from this solution?

 

[TravisB]

How to prevent killing sprees

Has any major proponent of any gun-control measure ever stated that their proposal will end all killing sprees?

GUN-CONTROL PROPONENT: While we can't realistically hope to end all crime, we can at least reduce the number and degree of casualties by limiting the firepower available to all, and therefore limit what is realistically available to most criminals.

GUN-CONTROL OPPONENT: But that won't prevent all crime! Olly olly oxen free! I win!

Meanwhile, the gun-control opponent demonstrates his understanding of and actual agreement with the gun-control proponent's underlying strategy when he does support keeping [name the class of weaponry where he draws the line] out of common circulation.

Why would you support banning/limiting any weaponry at all if you didn't agree with the underlying concept of casualty reduction?

 

[bigione]

Nope, not possible as long as evil is present. Before cars, people got killed by horses, before guns by knives, before knives by clubs and rocks. More obedience of God's laws and more prayer will help.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Killing has been going on for thousands of years. If there was a way to stop it, it'd have been stopped already.

There is a way to stop it -- be armed, and in Condition Yellow.

Note that we hear of killing sprees in "no gun zones," places where the killer is assured his victims will be unarmed. We rarely hear of someone going out to the local rifle range and shooting people.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

You start with at least two flawed premises from the get-go.

A. Most importantly, that's it's possible or even DESIRABLE to completely eliminate killing sprees. First, it's not possible. Second, and I know this sounds crazy, but even if it was possible (which it's not), it's not even desirable to do so. Why, you ask? First off, they're tiny tiny in number and per capita basis. Despite being blown all out of proportion by the media, they represent the tiniest fraction of causes of death, and even a very small fraction of deaths by firearms. The reason it's not desirable to completely eliminate them is because the amount of infringement of fundamental freedoms (1A, 2A, 4A, 5A) it would take to eliminate them would cost far more in lives lost (due to taking weapons used in self-defense out of the hands of good guys), and lost freedoms than it would be worth - it's not even a close analysis.

B. The second flawed premise is this:

This is the basic question that the pro-RKBA and the Antis have been dancing around.

Some pro-RKBA forces do dance around the issue, but most do not dance around it - most of us take it directly head on by saying the way to stop them is to ARM MORE LAW-ABIDING citizens - teachers, principals, pilots, and other citizens - almost without exception, all the sprees take place in "gun free zones" - that's WHY they happen, because the governments have disarmed the law-abiding in these gun free zones. The madmen are really cowards, and they wouldn't even do these things if they knew they'd get popped pretty much right off the bat, as happened in the church in Colorado.

As far as the antis dancing around the issue, yes, they do sometimes, but make no mistake -their goal is NOT to stop mass killings. Their goal (at the top leadership levels) is to strip fundamental political POWER out of the hands of the people (peons in their minds - and remember, real power comes from the barrel of a gun), in order to aggrandize their own political power, as the powers-that-be in government. They know full well that what they propose won't stop killing sprees - it will only increase them - but they also know that the masses tend to go along with their phony logic, and it happens to aggrandize their own power by making the people/peasants more pliable / less resistant to their nanny state ideals.

If more and tighter regulation of guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns then why has the crime rate INCREASED since the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes Amendment, and the 1993 Brady Law, which were enacted to do exactly what you suggest?

Not to mention that violent crime has increased dramatically in Australia since the 1997 disarmament laws, and increased dramatically in G.B. since the 1996 disarmament laws.

Armed robberies WITH GUNS went up 44% in Australia in the first 2 years following the 97 disarmament which is exactly what anyone (who studies the issue or is capable of applying logic) would expect to happen, when you disarm only the law-abiding.

 

[rbernie]

I've deleted the obvious bickering posts, and I will continue to do so until I either get tired of it and start banning folk from THR or until some of y'all figure out how to discuss things without acting like petulant eight year old children.

This is THR.

It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet

Bringing nothing to the table but an opinion and an attitude without any calm, deliberate, and adult presentation of debatable fact is not successful here, and will eventually get you shown to the door.


----------------------------------

Has any major proponent of any gun-control measure ever stated that their proposal will end all killing sprees?

Google 'Rebecca Peters'. Look to the UK and Australia and how they lost the RKBA.

You'll have your answer.

Just put signs on every building and on the streets reminding folks that everyone is armed. Then, arm everyone.

Problem solved.
__________________

No, it's not. People kill with machetes (ever heard of Rwanda?), with poisons, with IEDs, with whatever they can find that is effective.

The desire to kill others is either driven by sociopathy or survival instinct. You cannot 'stop' either.

Placing restrictions using the argument (the 'thought') that someone will do bad is a very slipper slope, that sadly, we are already on.

Yes, that is what I meant to imply but I was not clear.

You cannot tell when the mushware is about to malfunction, and when we get to the point where people CLAIM to be able to tell in advance who's about to commit a sociopathic act - be very afraid.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Not to mention that violent crime has increased dramatically in Australia since the 1997 disarmament laws, and increased dramatically in G.B. since the 1996 disarmament laws.

But but but. PLEASE, don't confuse the issue with FACTS. lol

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Google Rebecca Peters.

I wouldn't Google Rebecca Peters with your computer, if you get my drift.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I think the best way to stop these is to let people carry guns. The problem with banning guns is that it increases crime, probably more than enough to outweigh these killing sprees.

GUN-CONTROL PROPONENT: While we can't realistically hope to end all crime, we can at least reduce the number and degree of casualties by limiting the firepower available to all, and therefore limit what is realistically available to most criminals.

GUN-CONTROL OPPONENT: But that won't prevent all crime! Olly olly oxen free! I win!

Gun control often increases crime or crime continues to rise in spite of it. However, allowing more guns, especially concealed guns, usually reduces crime or the crime does not increase.

Can you think of any new problems that might arise from this solution?

I can. However, I believe it solves more problems than it causes, especially considering that people with CCW permits are more law-abiding than the general population.

 

[TexasRifleman]

GUN-CONTROL PROPONENT: While we can't realistically hope to end all crime, we can at least reduce the number and degree of casualties by limiting the firepower available to all, and therefore limit what is realistically available to most criminals.

If that were shown to you to be untrue would you change your mind?

We did this already. Criminal use of guns has increased in this country since the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was passed to do exactly what you state.

It is simply untrue, and borne out by the facts, that limiting access to guns has had no effect on gun crime.

I know you don't like that, and I know it goes against your "gut feeling" but it is nonetheless true.

Would arming everyone be any better? Probably not. Criminals still commit crimes. They have for thousands of years regardless of laws.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I wouldn't Google Rebecca Peters with your computer, if you get my drift.

 

[sm]

Criminals are not wired like law abiding folks, hence the reason we call them "criminals".


"The Great Society", started by Little Bitty Jesus, set in motion how "the government is going to take care of you".

They used the media, and spring boarded off the assassination of John Kennedy, this new ideology- taking advantages of a country going through a dark time in history.

We had laws to deal with evil, including killing sprees.

TGS instead chose to restrict the rights of the law abiding, including gun control, which is just smoke and mirrors for Control of Society Period.

Media.
Media was advancing with technology, and soon color television would replace black and white programming in more homes.

Propaganda, took advantage of this new and improved brainwashing tool, television, as it did print and radio.

Communications is the key.
Media is a form of communication.
History has proven, a people can be influenced , thereby controlled, by communications, such as print, radio, and television.

Advertising was part of the brainwashing, so was skewed statistics and data.
"State" owned media had proven successful, by giving the people what the State wanted them to read, hear, and see, just give the serfs a "feel good" sense of everything.


TGS also planted the seed, inanimate objects are the reason for evil, such as guns killed JFK in Dallas in '63.

Enacted Laws had been on the books, in regard to taking a human life, and other evils.

TGS said it was inanimate objects, such as guns.
TGS said, the gov't was going to take of people, as some people just needed more hugs, and second, third, and fourth chances.
TGS said evil could be rehabilitated, and therefore become contributing persons of The Great Society.


You want to stop killing sprees?

Stop The Great Society, with their propaganda, brainwashing with direct and sublime messages in media.

Bring back The Republic for which it stands.

 

[Mainsail]

There are two factors in killing sprees -- A) Guns, B) Crazy people.

You couldn’t be more wrong. This is a tactic used by anti-gun people that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. By narrowing the focus you can conveniently forget that the subjects are violent people and killing. If guns were 100% unavailable (an impossible goal) would there be an end to mass killings?

The gun is merely one of many tools. Mass killings are caused by many things, not exclusively firearms. In fact, as a tool for mass killing, the gun is arguably the most inefficient tool one could use.

No firearms were used in the 9-11 catastrophe.
No firearms were used in the Oklahoma City bombing.