The Mass Shooting Epidemic...how do we stop it?

[Sean]

I don't agree with you

But this is an agreement only forum.

I don't agree with you that "zero effort" is being made on those issues.

Zero effort was me trying to be generous. Actually there is negative effort on the value of life. Abortion and Euthanasia "rights" continue to grow as all other forums of life gain in equal value to human life. This is not about an oopsie falling through a crack.

We have to start somewhere, Sean. We don't need semi-automatic weapons. You don't need them, I don't need them. No one needs them except for the appropriate public servants (law enforcement, military, etc). As zeek said, we have to manage risk while work is being done to address cultural problems.

We have started somewhere, there are many limits on weaponry. It is a mischaracterization to say we have to "start" somewhere as if there are not already many regulations and restrictions on guns.

So yes, we already limit the weapons that can kill the most people to quickest and therefore we have already started. What is being characterized as a "reasonable start" is really a continual expansion of regulations. And when the next one does not work, the rhetoric will again be how we just need to make a reasonable start. But when we are applauding 8yr old transitioning gender then no, there I say there is no effort being made to address the chaos in society.

As to there ever being a need for a semi-automatic? How about when a gang attack or multiple intruders break into a home or business...could not a semi-automatic weapon at least be handy if not needed? Or maybe we just say "...hang on fellers while I chamber another round or better yet, why don't yall just wait until I call the police they get over here." So goes the "reasonableness" of more regulations based on the comforting thought that no one would ever need such a weapon.

[Ivy]

I don't agree with you

But this is an agreement only forum.

That means you need to agree with me as the OP.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[Sean]

I don't agree with you

But this is an agreement only forum.

That means you need to agree with me as the OP.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

I did agree, in fact my first words were "I agree mass shootings are bad" and then I went on to add that "I don't know that it is an epidemic. Maybe, I don't know. I know that shooting crimes are spiking right now. Which I think might have been the point of Neil DeGrasse..." This is agreement and my input to finding a solution, which you said you were interested in finding.

But now asking about perspective seems to now be labeled as "disagreement" and "offense". As I said that is what DeGrasse found and so it seems the case here maybe. How can we work on the solution that you have asked for help with if we do not recognize the reality of where we are with current gun laws? Allz I am saying is that phrases such as "we have to start someplace", "we need some limits", and "we have to do something" do not seem to me to acknowledge the reality that in fact there are many limits, which started long ago, and it were an attempt to do something.

And now that the "starts", those "limits", that "something" are seemingly not enough. I am merely pondering if that hasn't worked, then what is the rationality of suggesting more of the same will work the next time. Maybe...maybe more gun laws are needed. I do not know. I am just thinking out loud. This is akin to wondering why spending more money on public schools is a suggested fix when per capita spending is already higher than those in the lead. We have many of gun laws already so I am merely wondering how it is that "more gun laws" are described and thought of as needed because of "having to start somewhere". I am just trying to make sense of the phrasing and wondering if the phrasing is helpful in finding the solution we are looking for.

[Ivy]

I say we need to “start” someplace because the things in place aren’t working.

[Cootie Brown]

Outlawing automatic and semi automatic weapons, even though I personally favor that, isn’t going to stop the killing. Guns are easily modified and there are already hundreds of thousands, if not a million, AR-15 type weapons already in circulation.

Just like drugs, a black market would quickly be organized for the sale and distribution of these weapons if they were outlawed. As I mentioned before, better security is the only manageable way to defend against mass shooting but that is going to be enormously expensive and likely unpopular too.

Therefore, it is likely the can will continue to be kicked down the road and the wringing of hands and the cries for the government to do something will continue. And politicians will continue to point the finger at the NRA and claim it’s their fault, and the general public will agree.

If the NRA was disbanded tomorrow the killing would continue unabated. It’s the crazies that pull the trigger and they will always find a way to get a gun.

[agricola]

No single magic trick will stop all shootings. But that does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing at all, simply because whatever we do, will not stop EVERYTHING.

Mass shooting numbers dropped significantly when automatic-type weapons were banned, and jumped significantly when the ban expired. So - FOR GOD'S SAKE - we know that WORKS. It didn't stop all shootings, but it DID STOP MANY.

We already have bans on individual ownership of all kinds of military grade weapons. Why not another?

We raised the age for drinking and smoking to combat underage (teens) drinking and smoking. That also REDUCED the incidence of teen drinking and smoking. Putting an age limit on who can own/buy a weapon sounds quite reasonable.

Cars? licensing and training. That, also, reduces the incidence of death. So do seatbelts and other safety gear. What could be 'safety gear' for a weapon? It is already possible to make weapons that can't be used except by the owner. That's something.

There is no one single magic solution. The solution is - must be - a whole lot of relatively minor, but collectively important, measures.

[Ivy]

I agree with you, Agri. There needs to be a good, multifaceted plan, because this involves a lot of different issues. There is no one
"magic bullet" that will resolve it.

I do think that our country has evolved to the point that what used to be considered "enough" to prevent this kind of thing is no longer "enough".

[B.H.]

Just curious but is there anyone here who owns any firearms. I have an old .22 rifle my grandfather left me. It hasn't been fired since I was born if ever. It really is just a wall deco now. It looks very pretty when all shined up.

I thought about buying a. 38 but decided against it. I have peace with all peoples now and my apartment only has one window two stories up no one can get to. The stairs and walkway do not run by it. The only way anyone could come in is through the double lock door.

I know me. I would never want to kill someone. But I know in real life I can be bad tempered. Knowing I had a gun may make me not willing to back down as easy as I otherwise would over something not worth killing over even if I technically was in the right to stand my ground . It's best in some cases to take a wrong than take a life
. The Quran says when dealing with stupid people it is best to just say peace peace and then go on..

[zeek]

Yes, I own firearms. Don't ask how many as I don't really know. A bunch. However, I do not own any of the domesticated military style guns such as the AR or AK platform guns. I've got some through inheritance, my grandfather and my father's shotguns. Some were adolescent Christmas presents (it's a southern culture thing.) Many I've bought since adulthood. I've loved guns all my life. With the exception of the solid black "tactical" guns I've never seen more than maybe 3 that I didn't want, at least a little bit. I will confess, that for most of my life the notion of any kind of gun control was anathema. I was an NRA member for a few years at one point. However, the events of the last twenty years since the Columbine massacre and especially the Sandy Hook massacre have changed my thinking. I now believe that the general population should never have had high capacity, rapid fire weapons and I believe we should ban them. In my opinion, the only really honest answer to "Why does a person need and assault rifle?" is "because I want one". There are many things that a person might want that society has decided one can not have in the interest of the good of the group. For example some might want to drive 100 mph on the highways, and some might have the skill and the judgement to be able to and to know when it would be safe to drive 100 and for those folks it wouldn't reduce public safety for them to do so. However, there are others who lack the skill or the judgement to drive so fast; so, we have limited everyone's speed in the interest of public safety.

[Ivy]

My DH has some guns, but not the rapid fire, high capacity type. I respect that he knows how to handle them safely for emergency use only. i do not know how to use them and I generally keep my distance from them. He goes to a range to practice.