Most mass shooters got there guns legally

Status
Not open for further replies.
Switzerland and perhaps Finland might be worth looking into, even if their militia- and sniper-focused gun cultures differ somewhat with ours. Somehow their citizens are able to own weapons banned here, such as modern automatic rifles, yet mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence are not nearly as common over there.
 
A different approach - more armed "good samaritan" citizens

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over - but expecting a different result. Starting from that premise, maybe we ought to try something different as a solution instead of thinking that the solution is to put in place more restrictive laws about this issue. We have numerous examples where no laws were broken until the murders start........these all being where laws failed to address the problem.

I believe that a different approach of having armed citizens in public spaces would help solve some of these mass murders, or at least cut down on the body count. If an indivdual is unsure if armed conceal carry citizens are present or not then it would at least be some amount of deterence for him / her to not just open up on a group of folks. So, why don't we ask the anti's to pass laws (since thats what they seem to want to do to fix this problem) that are less restrictive and encourage more concealed carrying (but not encourage more or easier gun purchasing so they can't complain about increasing the number of guns). Maybe even to the point of offering a "good Samaritan" type law that would protect the good guys from legal / criminal action along the lines of the existing good samaritan laws that have already been time tested for validity and public acceptability. All of this would be more along the the lines of Heinlein's "an armed society is a polite society" thoughts.

I realize that this sounds a bit odd, but we as a society are not making any headway on this issue today, so we need to think outside the box a bit for solutions.

I am pretty sure that this will generate a lot of comments, so if the mods want to delete this - no worries on my part. But we have to start somewhere on this issue or it is likely to get blown up by the anti's on emotional appeals and we might end up with extreme gun ownership restrictions like in Australia and the UK.

I dont have all this thought thru and it is certainly not enough detail to be the " final form" of this approach so a lot of discussion and supportable talking points will likely be needed to get any amount of support from the public so let those comments start. And i suspect that there will be a lot of emotional comments also so let the flames start....

I am not in a position to drive this in any way so someone else will need to run with this. If this thread dies a no / low response death here on THR that's OK with me - it will simply mean that the idea is not one that will fly with public at large.

Thanks for reading my $.02 worth of comment.

Zapj
 
I'd like to see statistics on foreign mass murderers by other methods, I wonder if these mass killing still occur without the presence of firearms and at what frequency.

Google "china mass murders with knives" and you will find many, many, articles. It's my understanding that they have more frequent mass killings with higher death counts than we do, they just use knives. So they can still say less gun violence occurs there.
 
Switzerland and perhaps Finland might be worth looking into, even if their militia- and sniper-focused gun cultures differ somewhat with ours. Somehow their citizens are able to own weapons banned here, such as modern automatic rifles, yet mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence are not nearly as common over there.

I'm not so sure about those Swiss and Finnish gun laws. It sounds good on the surface, but in reality, the gun / ammo laws don't seem to be much better than New Jersey, or some other oppressive state. Check this out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

Those laws don't sound to great to me, it sounds like what many anti's would like to see. Sure, it's waaaay better than Australia or Britain, but still not as good as most of the U.S.
 
One of the worst mass murders in modern times happened on 3/25/1990, Cuban refugee Julio Gonzales killed 87 people at the Happy Land night club using a can of gasoline and two matches.

http://www.murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gonzalez-julio.htm
On top of that, the worst school massacre was the Bath School massacre in Michigan. 38 elementary kids killed along with six adults. The maniac used incendiary bombs to do his murders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

You can't stop evil. It will find a way. It's not a gun problem.
 
Also currently running in the New York times is this editorial mentioning the sniper assault in August of 1966 when a deranged student and former Marine named Charles Whitman killed fourteen and wounded thirty-two with a rifle from the top deck of the University of Texas Tower in Austin:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-guns-campuses-and-madness.html

What the writer has conveniently left out to further his anti-gun agenda is the heroic part good samaritans played in one of the first mass shootings in America.

Back in that day, every Texan with a pickup truck had a gun rack with one or more long guns. And there were lots of pickups in Austin, Texas. The Beemer/Merrcedes crowd was much later.

Several samaritans on the ground opened up with suppressive fire on Whitman, causing him to take cover and severely limiting his field of fire, which undoutably reduced the number dead and wounded.

Meanwhile, another armed samaritan accompanied police to the top of the tower, where they took Whitman out.

Now, if you think you can stomach some more sucky anti-gun-running-at-the mouth from the NY Times, here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/opinion/charles-m-blow-on-guns-fear-is-winning.html

Some folks drink the koolaid, but that boy done drank the latte. All of it.
 
Last edited:
Clearly the problem is murder not guns. Gun free zone are just fertile ground for cowards. Salt that earth with more ccw and cowards will shy away. Teach kids early that murderers die horribly from the stocks or gallows; not comfortably from a needle or old age. Politicians may demonize "God and guns" but give kids a heavy dose of those early and not endless free hours of Doom as a baby sitter and they will be better for it. Guns and God (ie. thou shall not murder/lawlessness) have been made illegal in schools and we contemplate how more gun control will fix it.
 
gun control

is not about guns
is not about mass killings

is a political agenda, boosted by recent events.

mass killings are politicized to support that agenda, preying on the fear of the populace fuelled by the slant of media coverage.
(Terrible as they are).
The one has nothing to do with the other, but has been confused intentionally,
Logic would tell you there is no causal effect.
We will be left with the fallout should the political agenda succeed; we will still have the crazies, and no means or rights to self-defense
The latest mass murder only proves the maxim that
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
He may have purchased them legally, but his use of them to murder made him an outlaw.
the agenda is and always has been to make gun ownership go away.
There is no gun problem; there is a murder problem.
Anyone who wants to suicide will find a way; it is so with anyone who will do murder.
Don't blame the guns.
J
 
It's not a gun problem; guns will be available all the time.

It's not a mental health problem; there have always been and always will be crazy people around. Those who are sane today may go crazy tomorrow.

The problem is the desire to have someone else protect us, failure to take responsibility to protect ourselves. Can you imagine the frontiersmen, explorers, the mountain men of the 1800's complaining that they were attacked by an armed crazy person? They dealt with the situation themselves because they had no one else to protect them.

The problem is...how to convince our fellow "civilized" citizens that no one can protect us better than ourselves. As long as we only depend on some policeman or psychiatrist to stop the bad guys we put ourselves at increased risk. The Second Amendment is our best chance.
 
Last edited:
Chris Mintz.
Remember that name.
A Veteran who was attending school at that college.
He charged the gunman receiving a number of gunshot wounds in the process.
He survived and his actions allowed a number of potential victims to escape the gunmans wrath.

Had Chris Mintz been allowed to carry a gun on that campus the outcome of this event may have ended very differently.

By not being allowed to carry a gun on that campus due to a Gun Free Zone policy Chris Mintz Rights, in my opinion, were infringed upon.

"The RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be infringed."
 
Blaming gun-free zones is about as bad as blaming the guns. While many "public" mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, it is only because so much of America where people gather in larger numbers is gun-free.

However, the truth of the matter is that most mass shootings happen in non gun-free zones and are mostly domestic and non public shootings, though a bunch of mass shootings happen in the form of gang-related drive-by shootings. These happen on the streets, in residential neighborhoods, or in residences. We tend to conveniently ignore or forget these.

All of the following mass shootings happened in the last month, none of which happened in a gun free zone.

NJ http://abc7ny.com/news/4-people-shot-in-newark/986485/
Baltimore http://www.wbaltv.com/news/multiple-people-shot-in-northwest-baltimore/35622480
Indianapolis http://fox59.com/2015/09/19/four-pe...uvenile-at-north-side-indianapolis-residence/
Charlotte, NC http://www.people.com/article/north-carolina-shooting-7-year-old-killed-birthday-party
Atlanta (possible drug deal) http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/4-people-shot-in-southwest-atlanta/vCLhb/
Evanston, IL http://www.wlwt.com/news/police-multiple-people-shot-including-child-in-evanston/35542760
Dayton, OH http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/multiple-victims-reported-in-dayton-shooting/nnqSG/
Denver http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...n-denver-19th-closed-between-market-and-blake
Shreveport, LA http://www.ksla.com/story/30017707/4-people-including-3-juveniles-shot-in-shreveport
Chicago, IL http://abc7chicago.com/news/4-killed-53-wounded-in-chicago-weekend-shootings/1005837/
Albion, MI http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/t...lbion-sidewalk-shot-206824.shtml#.VhLsuSurE_M
Daytona Beach, FL http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-4-shot-outside-daytona-beach-nightclub/nnYsn/
Atlanta, GA http://www.cbs46.com/story/29556601/four-people-shot-in-nw-atlanta
Minneapolis, MN http://www.kare11.com/story/news/lo...ly-members-shot-to-death-in-mn-home/72099054/
 
Switzerland and perhaps Finland might be worth looking into, even if their militia- and sniper-focused gun cultures differ somewhat with ours. Somehow their citizens are able to own weapons banned here, such as modern automatic rifles, yet mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence are not nearly as common over there.
Look up murders by ethnicity and you will find a part of the answer.
 
Blaming gun-free zones is about as bad as blaming the guns. While many "public" mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, it is only because so much of America where people gather in larger numbers is gun-free.

However, the truth of the matter is that most mass shootings happen in non gun-free zones and are mostly domestic and non public shootings, though a bunch of mass shootings happen in the form of gang-related drive-by shootings. These happen on the streets, in residential neighborhoods, or in residences. We tend to conveniently ignore or forget these.

All of the following mass shootings happened in the last month, none of which happened in a gun free zone.

NJ http://abc7ny.com/news/4-people-shot-in-newark/986485/
Baltimore http://www.wbaltv.com/news/multiple-people-shot-in-northwest-baltimore/35622480
Indianapolis http://fox59.com/2015/09/19/four-pe...uvenile-at-north-side-indianapolis-residence/
Charlotte, NC http://www.people.com/article/north-carolina-shooting-7-year-old-killed-birthday-party
Atlanta (possible drug deal) http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/4-people-shot-in-southwest-atlanta/vCLhb/
Evanston, IL http://www.wlwt.com/news/police-multiple-people-shot-including-child-in-evanston/35542760
Dayton, OH http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/multiple-victims-reported-in-dayton-shooting/nnqSG/
Denver http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...n-denver-19th-closed-between-market-and-blake
Shreveport, LA http://www.ksla.com/story/30017707/4-people-including-3-juveniles-shot-in-shreveport
Chicago, IL http://abc7chicago.com/news/4-killed-53-wounded-in-chicago-weekend-shootings/1005837/
Albion, MI http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/t...lbion-sidewalk-shot-206824.shtml#.VhLsuSurE_M
Daytona Beach, FL http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-4-shot-outside-daytona-beach-nightclub/nnYsn/
Atlanta, GA http://www.cbs46.com/story/29556601/four-people-shot-in-nw-atlanta
Minneapolis, MN http://www.kare11.com/story/news/lo...ly-members-shot-to-death-in-mn-home/72099054/

Good post and is worth repeating.

Just as guns dont initiate murders....niether do areas with signs.
 
A lot of people won't look at that article and realize the Navy Yard murderer armed only with a shotgun killed as many or more people as the other mass murderers armed with what Antis want banned.

If they all passed background checks then what is the background check system doing? If they all were suspected of mental health issues then what needs to be done to get that information into the background check system?

The Antis aren't trying to address the root causes of the mass murders, the mental health question.
Saying it's a mental health problem is a slippery slope my friend. Psychology is not a hard science and it's always changing, that is, the definition of insane or not competent is always shifting and the left will use it to promote more gun control.

I think most of these killers know exactly what they are doing and are not "insane". They are hellbent on killing. To call them insane is an insult to truly insane people as the insane don't know what they are doing.
 
We live in a free society and sometimes free people do horrible things. It's simply part of living in a free society. Trying to control evil with more gun control laws never works. It only hamstrings good citizens.
 
Where we cannot elimtate all possibilitiy of prevention, we must put our efforts into mitigating the damages. That means the quickest armed response possible, which is best served by someone who is already at the scene.
 
The Atis aren't trying to address the root causes of the mass murders, the mental health question.

Saying it's a mental health problem is a slippery slope my friend. Psychology is not a hard science and it's always changing, that is, the definition of insane or not competent is always shifting and the left will use it to promote more gun control.

I'd say it's not only a slippery slope, I'd also say that it's incorrect. A quick google search says about 42.5 million American adults have a mental illness.
Now, let's think about a bumper sticker that says 42.49 million mentally ill people hurt no one yesterday.

Im not saying that mental illness isn't the source of the mass shooters problem, I am saying its a mighty wide brush that gets tens of millions of people that wouldn't harm a fly grouped in with these mass killers.

To be honest, I'm not even really comfortable saying that mental illness is the root of the problem, the word evil comes to mind, maybe evil is a mental illness.
 
I just happened to hear a talk host pair discussing the Oregon shooting a few days ago. The guy was trying his best to discredit the proposition that an armed citizen could have either prevented, or mitigated the attack. He chose to air a quote from someone who claimed to have been lawfully armed on campus that day but who decided, once he heard shooting, to leave the scene post-haste.

My thought is the radio jockey is confusing armed citizens with para-policemen. It's one thing to find oneself in a position that cannot be avoided, from which escape is impossible, to draw one's weapon in defense of one's own life and perhaps the lives of others against a murderous attacker. It's quite another thing to hear obvious signs of potentially serious danger, such as gunfire, and go looking to see what the ruckus is all about.

In any event, after successfully knocking down his straw man, the jockey concluded there's no need for concealed carry if the carriers aren't going to use their weapons to stop an incident like this. To paraphrase, "whats the use of carrying a gun if you aren't going to shoot someone".
 
We all know what Adam Lanza's mom did. She completely enabled that situation by turning a blind eye to his obvious mental problems. She gave him guns and ammunition, allowed him to immerse himself in violent video games and everyone is surprised at how this turned out?

If the mother had not been shot to death, she would be serving a long prison term. No one talks about his mother, just "ban the guns".

This is probably the worst case of a "mass shooter" getting his guns legally.
 
I just happened to hear a talk host pair discussing the Oregon shooting a few days ago. The guy was trying his best to discredit the proposition that an armed citizen could have either prevented, or mitigated the attack. He chose to air a quote from someone who claimed to have been lawfully armed on campus that day but who decided, once he heard shooting, to leave the scene post-haste.

My thought is the radio jockey is confusing armed citizens with para-policemen. It's one thing to find oneself in a position that cannot be avoided, from which escape is impossible, to draw one's weapon in defense of one's own life and perhaps the lives of others against a murderous attacker. It's quite another thing to hear obvious signs of potentially serious danger, such as gunfire, and go looking to see what the ruckus is all about.

In any event, after successfully knocking down his straw man, the jockey concluded there's no need for concealed carry if the carriers aren't going to use their weapons to stop an incident like this. To paraphrase, "whats the use of carrying a gun if you aren't going to shoot someone".[/QUOTE]


Nothing like some FBI data to prove him wrong.

In fact, the data shows that it is more than 2x more likely that an armed citizen stops a mass shooter than an armed off duty LEO. Yet, off duty and retired LEO's always get the exceptions to the gun control laws.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

■■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents, 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted. Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
were students).

■■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

■■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.25

■■ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat
 
We all know what Adam Lanza's mom did. She completely enabled that situation by turning a blind eye to his obvious mental problems. She gave him guns and ammunition, allowed him to immerse himself in violent video games and everyone is surprised at how this turned out?

If the mother had not been shot to death, she would be serving a long prison term. No one talks about his mother, just "ban the guns".

This is probably the worst case of a "mass shooter" getting his guns legally.
Here's the deal, Lanza DIDN'T get his guns legally, he KILLED his mother and took her guns. In other words, he murdered his mom in order to go on a rampage.
 
The anti gun people don't want fact or common sense to get in the way of their aganda, which is to control the population. They will never change no matter the facts or data.
 
We all know what Adam Lanza's mom did. She completely enabled that situation by turning a blind eye to his obvious mental problems. She gave him guns and ammunition, allowed him to immerse himself in violent video games and everyone is surprised at how this turned out?

In the spirit of truth and full disclosure, while he did own violent games the game Dance Dance Revolution was reported to be the one he played for hours on end, up to 10 hours a day if memory serves.


**I use the term "violent games" to indicate the images within the games that are considered violent in nature. In no way has a video game ever been violent toward me, in the event one is I intend to throw it to the floor and stomp it, likely multiple times. Unless possibly it's an arcade game to heavy to lift, then I'll likely shoot it repeatedly and run out the arcade screaming, at which point I'll be arrested and tell the police that said video game assaulted me, then I'll likely be declared mentally ill and not allowed to have firearms anymore. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top