Real talk on solutions to mass shooting

[Rexedgar]

There's a fast food place hiring within a mile of every homeless person. I wont deny economics is a factor, but anecdotally I've yet to meet a homeless or previously homeless person and addiction or illness is not the driving factor.

Minimum wage is going to provide shelter, food, utilities and other sundry expenses needed to exist and function?
You want someone whose has all their worldly goods in a shopping cart working for you, regardless of the circumstances that got them where they are?

 

[Evilroddy]

These are all great ideas. For a dystopian Sci Fi movie.

As a viable and realistic approach? Not a chance.

Polar Bum:

The technology for making all those measures listed above exist right now and already are being used to control and facilitate other human behaviours. Radio Frequency technology is old tech, not science fiction. Marrying RF tech to facial recognition technology could immediately allow authorities to determine how many RF tagged guns any person had on them and if all of those guns were properly registered to the person carrying them. I use RF in my credit cards and security passes for work all the time. RF tech is embedded into the merchandise and products we buy for inventory control and anti-theft purposes. This technology is already here and functioning for security and commercial purposes now and is definitly not science fiction.

As to dystopian, which is worse? A well regulated gun industry where legal ownership of firearms is continuously and instantly verified or more and more dead and wounded people piling up monthly in a firearms saturated society? Technology allows shooters to kill scores and injure hundreds in minutes. Technology can also be used to stop such carnage. Remote RF tagging of all firearms coupled with remote biometric recognition would make illegal possession of firearms nearly impossible and would deny felons and would-be felons access to firearms. Only law abiding gun-owners would be able to keep and bear arms and such legal possession would be exulted closely, just like the second amendment intended.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[ecofarm]

Minimum wage is going to provide shelter, food, utilities and other sundry expenses needed to exist and function?

My life has been mostly having roommates. That's not good enough for them?

You want someone whose has all their worldly goods in a shopping cart working for you, regardless of the circumstances that got them where they are?

That's an issue but not really economics.

 

[Bum]

Polar Bum:

The technology for making all those measures listed above exist right now and already are being used to control and facilitate other human behaviours. Radio Frequency technology is old tech, not science fiction. Marrying RF tech to facial recognition technology could immediately allow authorities to determine how many RF tagged guns any person had on them and if all of those guns were properly registered to the person carrying them. I use RF in my credit cards and security passes for work all the time. RF tech is embedded into the merchandise and products we buy for inventory control and anti-theft purposes. This technology is already here and functioning for security and commercial purposes now and is definitly not science fiction.

As to dystopian, which is worse? A well regulated gun industry where legal ownership of firearms is continuously and instantly verified or more and more dead and wounded people piling up monthly in a firearms saturated society? Technology allows shooters to kill scores and injure hundreds in minutes. Technology can also be used to stop such carnage. Remote RF tagging of all firearms coupled with remote biometric recognition would make illegal possession of firearms nearly impossible and would deny felons and would-be felons access to firearms. Only law abiding gun-owners would be able to keep and bear arms and such legal possession would be exulted closely, just like the second amendment intended.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

RF can be, and has been jammed with an old cell phone and a handful of components from Radio Shack.

Thanks, but no thanks.

As for biometrics? Not fool proof and will not always read the owners print or retina...I know, we use them here.

And that's just two of the many problems you have not identified.

 

[NeverTrump]

Another day in America, another mass shooting. This one got more attention because of the high death toll, but the fact is, mass shootings have become more common in the US.

This is not a problem that most other developed nations choose to struggle with. Yes, choose. We collectively choose not to address this problem. And when our politicians are asked to do something, anything, this is how some of them reply:

"I think it’s particularly inappropriate to politicize an event like this, it just happened in the last day-and-a-half. It’s entirely premature to be discussing legislative solutions, if any." --Mitch McConnell, R-KY

"I don’t think this is a problem a law is going to fix by itself." --Lindsey Graham, R-SC

"I don’t know if legislation can [prevent mass shootings]." --Richard Shelby, R-AL

"[Y]ou never accept the fact that you can [prevent mass shootings]. ... [Y]ou should never accept the fact that you can do it." --Johnny Isakson, R-GA

"As somebody said: get small." --John Thune, R-SD

Get small? Are you ****ing kidding me, Mr. Thune? And go screw yourself and your fatalistic attitude, Mr. Isakson. Great American spirit you have there, that we're just gonna throw in the towel. :roll:

Very simply, I want to say this: If we assume for the sake of argument that stricter gun laws are not acceptable, then inaction on mass shootings is equally unacceptable. It is no longer acceptable to bury our collective heads in the sand and claim that we can do nothing, or that we all need to "get small."

So, to those who fiercely oppose gun control, I want to know specific laws that can be put into place to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

It should be tougher to get a gun than to get on a plane or apply for a government job. :mrgreen: Take all those security procedures we use for those two things and you can find that we can easily create a system like that for guns.

 

[Evilroddy]

RF can be, and has been jammed with an old cell phone and a handful of components from Radio Shack.

Thanks, but no thanks.

As for biometrics? Not fool proof and will not always read the owners print or retina...I know, we use them here.

And that's just two of the many problems you have not identified.

Polar Bum:

Cars break down but we still use the technology even though it is not foolproof. Nothing is perfect so expecting a perfect remote gun surveillance system to appear overnight is a bit unrealistic. But it can be done over time and with improvements it can be made more and more air-tight. Coupling remote RF tech and remote biometric tech will have glitches along the way but they can be worked out. Biometric sensors could be used to read facial patterns, ear shape and morphology and walking patterns (gait) in addition to iris patterns and fingerprints. If the RF is jammed then as mentioned above the weapon will not function and since the proposed jamming is active jamming the emitting jammer will be readily identifiable by the authorities in real time. Problems can be solved along the way. Perhaps you are reaching for straws and looking for obstacles here because you fear true transparency in gun-ownership and gun-possession?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[NeverTrump]

Let's not ask Australia. There's no comparisons to be made between the two Countries when it comes to the gun debate. The average Australian has never owned a firearm and we have never had a constitutional right to own firearms. We don't have that gun culture here. The difference between the US and Australia is like night and day when it comes to the Gun Debate. It's ridiculous to even attempt to draw any comparisons.

I'll give the gun culture here in the US about 40% of the population, and that's being generous. So I really don't think it's the majority of people who own guns and some of the people who do own guns, don't even like them!

 

[Moon]

Australia never had a significant number of a mass shootings before the law, so **** that noise.

Australia never had 300 million guns in circulation either.

So you don't actually want to talk about non-gun-control solutions at all, other than to dismiss them, do you?

It's starting to appear that the only solution acceptable to the OP is something along the lines of repeal the 2nd, ban all guns except those in government hands and forcibly confiscate all privately owned firearms.

 

[Bum]

Polar Bum:

Cars break down but we still use the technology even though it is not foolproof. Nothing is perfect so expecting a perfect remote gun surveillance system to appear overnight is a bit unrealistic. But it can be done over time and with improvements it can be made more and more air-tight. Coupling remote RF tech and remote biometric tech will have glitches along the way but they can be worked out. Biometric sensors could be used to read facial patterns, ear shape and morphology and walking patterns (gait) in addition to iris patterns and fingerprints. If the RF is jammed then as mentioned above the weapon will not function and since the proposed jamming is active jamming the emitting jammer will be readily identifiable by the authorities in real time. Problems can be solved along the way. Perhaps you are reaching for straws and looking for obstacles here because you fear true transparency in gun-ownership and gun-possession?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

A car not functioning when you need it can be annoying.....a firearm not functioning when you need it can be fatal.

I don't have to create or look for obstacles, they are already there....but, keep working on those tech theories...they may be viable some day for the applications you are thinking of.

 

[TheGoverness]

False. Ask Australia. But one of our two major political parties has made it crystal clear that gun control measures are not acceptable, hence why I intentionally steered away from that.

Australia and the United States cannot be compared. We have a gun culture, Australia doesn't.

 

[TheGoverness]

Another day in America, another mass shooting. This one got more attention because of the high death toll, but the fact is, mass shootings have become more common in the US.

This is not a problem that most other developed nations choose to struggle with. Yes, choose. We collectively choose not to address this problem. And when our politicians are asked to do something, anything, this is how some of them reply:

"I think it’s particularly inappropriate to politicize an event like this, it just happened in the last day-and-a-half. It’s entirely premature to be discussing legislative solutions, if any." --Mitch McConnell, R-KY

"I don’t think this is a problem a law is going to fix by itself." --Lindsey Graham, R-SC

"I don’t know if legislation can [prevent mass shootings]." --Richard Shelby, R-AL

"[Y]ou never accept the fact that you can [prevent mass shootings]. ... [Y]ou should never accept the fact that you can do it." --Johnny Isakson, R-GA

"As somebody said: get small." --John Thune, R-SD

Get small? Are you ****ing kidding me, Mr. Thune? And go screw yourself and your fatalistic attitude, Mr. Isakson. Great American spirit you have there, that we're just gonna throw in the towel. :roll:

Very simply, I want to say this: If we assume for the sake of argument that stricter gun laws are not acceptable, then inaction on mass shootings is equally unacceptable. It is no longer acceptable to bury our collective heads in the sand and claim that we can do nothing, or that we all need to "get small."

So, to those who fiercely oppose gun control, I want to know specific laws that can be put into place to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

Eh, I don't think more gun control laws is the answer to fix these issues. I used to, but now I don't really see them as effective.

 

[Evilroddy]

A car not functioning when you need it can be annoying.....a firearm not functioning when you need it can be fatal.

I don't have to create or look for obstacles, they are already there.

Polar Bum:

I believe car-related fatalities surpass gun related fatalities in the US so car malfunctions can be very fatal. For your thesis to be true the malfunction of the remote sensor system would have to coincide with a threat from an armed attacker. That would not be a likely occurrence, probablely far lower a frequency than a misfire or a gun jam. The sensor malfunction would also likely disable the assailant's firearm too if both assailant and armed target were in reasonably close proximity. So again initial perfection of the system is more likely to be a work in progress.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Goshin]

Stephen Paddock, so far, would not have been singled out for mental health issues......

That we know of, at this point... but at this point, we know very little about the man other than he was very private and even secretive for a long time.


Many mass murderers however have exhibited signs of mental illness prior to their attack. Some of Dylon Roof's friends knew something was off about him, for instance.

 

[Rexedgar]

That we know of, at this point... but at this point, we know very little about the man other than he was very private and even secretive for a long time.


Many mass murderers however have exhibited signs of mental illness prior to their attack. Some of Dylon Roof's friends knew something was off about him, for instance.

My point was that there were no apparent warning signs that restricted firearm purchases. After action reports are no help to over 500 folks.

 

[Bum]

Polar Bum:

I believe car-related fatalities surpass gun related fatalities in the US so car malfunctions can be very fatal. For your thesis to be true the malfunction of the remote sensor system would have to coincide with a threat from an armed attacker. That would not be a likely occurrence, probablely far lower a frequency than a misfire or a gun jam. The sensor malfunction would also likely disable the assailant's firearm too if both assailant and armed target were in reasonably close proximity. So again initial perfection of the system is more likely to be a work in progress.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You are operating under the assumption that an attacker intent on killing you will use a firearm......clubs and knives have a lower malfunction rate than firearms.

But, if you wish to purchase a "smart gun", then please do.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Addressing the lack of adequate mental health care systems in the nation is the single biggest one.

Exactly. This would actually focus on the people doing these mass shootings. This would address and focus on the much larger problems of depression and suicide. Plus this addresses the problem without restricting or taking away the rights of 100's of millions of law abiding people who will never kill anyone.

A real solution that targets the actual problem. Good luck getting the gun banners to even listen to logic.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

That we know of, at this point... but at this point, we know very little about the man other than he was very private and even secretive for a long time.


Many mass murderers however have exhibited signs of mental illness prior to their attack. Some of Dylon Roof's friends knew something was off about him, for instance.

People suffering from depression do tend to become very private and secluded. That is warning sign that should raise a flag especially if the person was not this way in the past. A lot of suicide victims and serial killers tend to lock themselves away from everyone and thus begins the down ward spiral. A trained professional seeing someone on a regular basis would most likely be the only one who spots this progression and could intervene long before the killing occurs.

 

[Rucker61]

So, nothing?

My suggestion to reduce mass shootings like active shooter and domestic violence looks at three actions: prevention, isolation, intervention.

Prevention is the process to reduce the chance that a shooter will have a firearm in the first place. It's easier for DV than for active shooters, as the Lautenberg Amendment can be used to disarm anyone convicted of domestic violence or with a personal protective order sworn against them preemptively or actively. For Lautenberg to be effective, we need to educate potential victims, their legal support and local law enforcement. Potential active shooters don't have that history and with HIPAA restrictions find it easier to pass background checks. Prevention against rampage shooters is much less effective.

Isolation is the action of keeping a shooter separated from his victims. For DV, removal of the family to a safe house is the primary tool, unless the DV offender commits another crime or is caught violating a PPO before any homicide attempts occur, when he can be arrested. For active shooters, limiting access to schools or other targeted areas via channelized entry, metal detectors and similar passive measures are the first step. Being able to effectively lock down classrooms and other sub-geographies is also necessary.


Sometimes none of these work, or the area under attack isn't conducive to isolation, and that's where intervention is important. The FBI teaches Run, Hide, Fight when thrust into an active shooter situation, and data shows that the best way to fight is with a firearm. The current strategy of limiting ammunition magazine capacity to force reloads where the shooter can be physically restrained is untenable and hasn't been shown to be effective as an active response with a firearm. It suffers from fatal flaws: that the pool of potential victims includes someone that is brave enough to physically attack the shooter, that the brave person isn't among the first shot, that he or she is lucky enough to be in a close enough position during a reload and that he or she is physically capable of restraining a shooter. The biggest flaw, however, is that this tactic requires at least 10 shots to be fired with up to ten dead victims before there is a chance to stop the shooter. We've seen with both the Uber driver and Philly barbershop that CCW holders are not so restrained and can act quickly and effectively enough to stop a shooter with no innocent lives lost.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are operating under the assumption that an attacker intent on killing you will use a firearm......clubs and knives have a lower malfunction rate than firearms.

But, if you wish to purchase a "smart gun", then please do.

I hope bad guy all get smart guns that are run by the same operating system that Equifax used for its cyber security

 

[PirateMk1]

PirateMk1:

Fortunately there is artillery, armour and other heavy weapons for that eventuality. You won't have your own private Alamo, you will just die in the rubble of your home. Grow up dude, and leave the Rambo fantasies to Hollywood. Real life kills for real. Such vain glory, you remind me of General Erich Von Falkenhyan, lusting for battle and getting millions killed as a result. Such pointless folly we no longer need.

Evilroddy.

I happen to be a collector of antique weapons. Think spears, swords, cannons from the 17th century ect., various other martial oddities and curios from throughout history, I have had people say that I live in a museum. In a way I do. It is my sovereign right to live that way as it pleases me.

For your information I have seen war up close and personal for an extended period of time. Your right it aint like Hollywood,.... at all. You mistook my statement for my vigorous defense of my rights as one of the physical realm, rather than as I intended the legal realm, my apologies for the confusion.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Another day in America, another mass shooting. This one got more attention because of the high death toll, but the fact is, mass shootings have become more common in the US.

This is not a problem that most other developed nations choose to struggle with. Yes, choose. We collectively choose not to address this problem. And when our politicians are asked to do something, anything, this is how some of them reply:

"I think it’s particularly inappropriate to politicize an event like this, it just happened in the last day-and-a-half. It’s entirely premature to be discussing legislative solutions, if any." --Mitch McConnell, R-KY

"I don’t think this is a problem a law is going to fix by itself." --Lindsey Graham, R-SC

"I don’t know if legislation can [prevent mass shootings]." --Richard Shelby, R-AL

"[Y]ou never accept the fact that you can [prevent mass shootings]. ... [Y]ou should never accept the fact that you can do it." --Johnny Isakson, R-GA

"As somebody said: get small." --John Thune, R-SD

Get small? Are you ****ing kidding me, Mr. Thune? And go screw yourself and your fatalistic attitude, Mr. Isakson. Great American spirit you have there, that we're just gonna throw in the towel. :roll:

Very simply, I want to say this: If we assume for the sake of argument that stricter gun laws are not acceptable, then inaction on mass shootings is equally unacceptable. It is no longer acceptable to bury our collective heads in the sand and claim that we can do nothing, or that we all need to "get small."

So, to those who fiercely oppose gun control, I want to know specific laws that can be put into place to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

It's tough, because we know a couple things...

1. Other countries with high gun ownership don't necessarily have mass shootings, or even much gun crime in general.

2. Other countries with strict gun laws don't necessarily solve mass killing -- it's just done with something other than a gun (or not, for countries that have difficulty controlling their illegal gun trade). Some of them even have higher rates of violent crime than we do, even in the developed world. Yes, really.

In light of those facts, I don't think there's a simple, one-size-fits all solution to this. There's a lot of prongs to it, and few of them directly have anything to do with guns. What I'd propose?

1. Every other country with high gun ownership and low gun crime has weapon training. This doesn't only teach you how to be safe with a weapon, but also teaches you some damn respect for what they're capable of. I've been saying this for years -- this needs to be provided to everyone, and I'd prefer to do it senior year of high school.

2. Mental health care. Mental health care. MENTAL HEALTH CARE. Yes, I read your link about only 4% of shootings are related to mental illness. But mass shootings are only a small minority of all shootings, and a disproportionate amount of them are due to mental illness (along with the 65% of gun deaths that are actually suicides). So if you want to address mass shootings SPECIFICALLY, then this is still an important factor.

3. Specific solutions for people most likely to be victims of gun violence. This includes outreach for poor inner city youth, better protection for people who report domestic violence, etc. Those are the people most likely to be killed by guns, not random people in a mass shooting. This is where that that other 96% of non-suicide gun deaths are.

4. Drug policy, harm reduction, and addiction outreach. This accounts for not only a lot of gun suicides, but also a lot of assaults and robberies that involve guns.

This has to be a comprehensive and holistic social effort. Passing this law or that is not going to solve this problem. It is more complex than simply America having a gun culture. Not all gun cultures have mass killings, and not all gun-restrictive countries are free of mass killings. People kill other people because something is socially wrong.

 

[gfm7175]

So, to those who fiercely oppose gun control, I want to know specific laws that can be put into place to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

I think your question should actually be directed towards people with the viewpoint of supporting gun control measures, since they are the ones wanting to impose laws to somehow prevent these tragedies. My view, being a person who opposes gun control measures, is that laws only work when people obey them, and people with mental issues and wanting to kill people are not going to obey laws, so I don't think laws are the answer.

Sure, we can try to keep firearms out of the hands of people with "mental health issues", but again, it comes down to specifics... who is going to check these people out? A psychiatrist? What if that psychiatrist makes his/her judgments based on their individual bias on the issue? Would gun purchases be banned from someone who once had a mental health issue, but now has it under control? And who says that someone with these plans would even go through with protocol to get themselves evaluated? And there are many ways to acquire a gun... gun store, family member, black market, etc...

At least when other near-by responsible citizens also have guns, there is a better chance to stop the mentally unstable person from causing greater harm.

 

[Phys251]

Eh, I don't think more gun control laws is the answer to fix these issues. I used to, but now I don't really see them as effective.

Governess, I do not how much clearer I could have been that I was seeking out solutions that did not involve gun control. I spent hours on this thread last night seeking one, just one, such solution, and only a joke post provided one.

Inaction is no longer an acceptable outcome.

 

[TurtleDude]

Governess, I do not how much clearer I could have been that I was seeking out solutions that did not involve gun control. I spent hours on this thread last night seeking one, just one, such solution, and only a joke post provided one.

Inaction is no longer an acceptable outcome.

we have to DO SOMETHING even if it only results in harassing honest people is not acceptable either

 

[Phys251]

we have to DO SOMETHING even if it only results in harassing honest people is not acceptable either

So the solution is the empty set?