Gun violence. Any ideas?

[watu05]

With mass shootings now a daily event, guns now the biggest cause of kids deaths, and Missouri legislature ensuring kids access to open carry, does anyone have an idea about how to reduce gun violence? Our current trend appears headed in the wrong direction .

At Least 9 Dead, Including Gunman, in Shooting at Texas Mall

A police officer on an unrelated assignment nearby rushed toward the sounds of gunfire and killed the gunman.

www.nytimes.com

 

[aTUfan]

more gun control. Whats that? There needs to be a plan to eliminate or at lease reduce the occurances.

How about a committe of 5 Reps and 5 Dems. Lock them in a room until they create meaningful legislation.

its time for them to do their job!

 

[noble cane]

Enforce current laws?

 

[Weatherdemon]

more gun control. Whats that? There needs to be a plan to eliminate or at lease reduce the occurances.

How about a committe of 5 Reps and 5 Dems. Lock them in a room until they create meaningful legislation.

its time for them to do their job!

Love this idea!

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Love this idea!

They'd never come out of the room. Either that or they'd come out with a compromise than does diddly squat.

In Texas they have bipartisan legislation which is actually wiggling around a bit for an increased age to be able to buy AR-15's. All after this latest shooting. The gunman was how old?(33) I doubt they are going to raise the age to 35. I realize if they raise it to 21, it might help a little. But angry young men are going to find a way to do what they want to do, whether they are 18, 21, or 25.

 

[watu05]

The recent shootings are evidence that shooting people because they make you uncomfortable is becoming the rationale of our time. Go to the wrong door, ask someone to be quieter, go to wrong car, etc.

This year the US has already equaled last years total mass’s shootings. When the white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine parishioners in a South Carolina church in 2015, it was so shocking that the governor at the time, Nikki Haley, removed the Confederate battle flag from the State House grounds. Now there’s little sense that these latest shootings are a watershed moment that could spur political change. Instead, it’s the kind of regular occurrence we are expected to live with, lest the quest for unfettered gun access be interrupted. A day or two in the news cycle and then gone.

 

[lawpoke87]

I would be fine with restrictions on the purchase of these types of weapons. However, let’s not forget we are talking about 0.2 percent of gun related deaths in this country. Might want to address the others as well.

 

[aTUfan]

register gun owners. Annual renew with mental test, . . .
manditory liability ins, like auto.
Registration levels: collector, self protection. dealer, law enforcrment, ...

get the guns out of the hands of the psychos

 

[noble cane]

register gun owners. Annual renew with mental test, . . .
manditory liability ins, like auto.
Registration levels: collector, self protection. dealer, law enforcrment, ...

get the guns out of the hands of the psychos

Hard pass on a registry.. i would go for background checks on private sales, but, i dont see that affecting much... i see problems with the mental health reporting aspect just because people wont talk about their mental state if they think their dr is going to rat them out and a hostile govt is going to take their property..

We have to take political agendas out of the debate as well... we still havent seen the Nashville shooter's manifesto.. the Allen shooter was called a white supremacist even though he was clearly hispanic.. in several cases shooters have driven miles out of their way to a generic target when the same target existed in their neighborhood.. why?..

 

[918Golden]

Ban them all.

 

[Clong83a]

register gun owners. Annual renew with mental test, . . .
manditory liability ins, like auto.
Registration levels: collector, self protection. dealer, law enforcrment, ...

get the guns out of the hands of the psychos

I do like the idea of different registration levels for different types of gun owners. A guy that collects antique rifles is different than a guy that likes to hunt every chance he gets is different than a guy that wants a handgun for self protection, etc.

Maybe also some insurance and liability requirements? Like, if you want to buy a 5 different semi auto rifles, okay, but you also will accept responsibility if any of those guns ends up being used in a shooting, even if your psycho 20 year old son stole it from your garage. And you have to buy insurance to cover that risk, prepaid when you pick up the gun from the shop, just like driving a car off the lot.

Not sure how much that would help, but it wouldn't take anyone's rights away and at least would be some sort of step toward sanity. As usual, insurance rates for young single men would be more expensive than for any other demographic. Woudl be okay exempting antiques and hunting rifles from insurance requirements.

 

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

Enforce current laws?

What laws are we not enforcing? I have always wondered about this myself every time I hear this.

 

[watu05]

The direction in the courts has been to make current laws less enforceable and in many states legislatures to relax limits on gun ownership and licensing. The more guns in more hands makes us safer is often the rationale. It’s not working.

 

[lawpoke87]

I’ve yet to hear a workable solution to get handguns guns off the streets. It’s almost like we’ve thrown in the towel when it comes to 99% of the gun related murders in this country.

 

[astonmartin708]

I’ve yet to hear a workable solution to get handguns guns off the streets. It’s almost like we’ve thrown in the towel when it comes to 99% of the gun related murders in this country.

Closer to somewhere between 70-95% per the FBI’s numbers which are a bit poorly categorized.

 

[HuffyCane]

Plenty of people 18-25 walking around Israel with fully automatic assault weapons. Plenty of mass murder there too, but rarely with firearms.

The problem isn’t the guns themselves. So debates about this gun or that gun, this law or that law, is pointless.

We might start with this country having a massive public health challenge in our failure to properly fund mental health counseling and incentivize its use.

We fail to concede the civil liberties considerations when one constitutional right (right against involuntary mental health detention) collides with a right that is natural and precedes the Constitution, (the right to possess weapons suitable to protect your home from incursion or invasion).

Until we concede that a lot more people need mental health treatment than either side is willing to fund, we get no place. But that doesn’t matter because neither side, nor the courts, are pretty eager to deal with the only solution - when people need to be locked up for their own protection (and ours) that needs to be done quickly without a lot of red tape while balancing the rights of the detained, especially after mental health stability has been documented by appropriate professionals.

Until then, America has enough guns that you could ban and confiscate 98% of them and it wouldn’t significantly reduce gun related crime, particularly random mass casualty events.

Meanwhile I’ll sit here and wonder why we have red flag laws where we confiscate guns from people determined to be too dangerous to possess them, but then we just turn them loose on the public at the conclusion of the hearing.

 

[aTUfan]

crazy people with guns

 

[astonmartin708]

Plenty of people 18-25 walking around Israel with fully automatic assault weapons. Plenty of mass murder there too, but rarely with firearms.

The problem isn’t the guns themselves. So debates about this gun or that gun, this law or that law, is pointless.

We might start with this country having a massive public health challenge in our failure to properly fund mental health counseling and incentivize its use.

We fail to concede the civil liberties considerations when one constitutional right (right against involuntary mental health detention) collides with a right that is natural and precedes the Constitution, (the right to possess weapons suitable to protect your home from incursion or invasion).

Until we concede that a lot more people need mental health treatment than either side is willing to fund, we get no place. But that doesn’t matter because neither side, nor the courts, are pretty eager to deal with the only solution - when people need to be locked up for their own protection (and ours) that needs to be done quickly without a lot of red tape while balancing the rights of the detained, especially after mental health stability has been documented by appropriate professionals.

Until then, America has enough guns that you could ban and confiscate 98% of them and it wouldn’t significantly reduce gun related crime, particularly random mass casualty events.

Meanwhile I’ll sit here and wonder why we have red flag laws where we confiscate guns from people determined to be too dangerous to possess them, but then we just turn them loose on the public at the conclusion of the hearing.

”We are the only country dealing with crazy people”

 

[watu05]

Curious about what the gun laws and regulations are in Israel. Israel has about 100% mandatory military training for starters and long term reserve commitments which may account for all those Uzis.. Also Uzis carried by active and trained reservists is very different from having more guns than people and those people being untrained, unscreened, and with most able to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
A better comparison would be Australia which after its first mass school shooting increased its gun ownership regulations and hasn't had a school shooting since. While in the US it's a regular, recurring event.

 

[lawpoke87]

In 1975 45% of American households owned guns and to my knowledge there were no mass school shootings. The percent of American households who owned guns in 2022 was …..that’s right 45%. Something significant is going on in 2022 besides gun ownership which also needs to be looked into.

 

[HuffyCane]

In 1975 45% of American households owned guns and to my knowledge there were no mass school shootings. The percent of American households who owned guns in 2022 was …..that’s right 45%. Something significant is going on in 2022 besides gun ownership which also needs to be looked into.

You wonder about the pervasiveness of violent imagery, whether that’s video games, movies, etc. The rate of active shooter incidents, which is different than a mass shooting, has tripled since the invention and wide availability of the smart phone.

 

[astonmartin708]

In 1975 45% of American households owned guns and to my knowledge there were no mass school shootings. The percent of American households who owned guns in 2022 was …..that’s right 45%. Something significant is going on in 2022 besides gun ownership which also needs to be looked into.

Up til that point most of the people who had a death wish or wanted to kill innocents were able to go to south east Asia and kill school children there.

Also, the types of firearms that were owned were likely a somewhat different mix

 

[astonmartin708]

You wonder about the pervasiveness of violent imagery, whether that’s video games, movies, etc. The rate of active shooter incidents, which is different than a mass shooting, has tripled since the invention and wide availability of the smart phone.

It's not video games. You act like the rest of the world that doesn't have the same problem, doesn't play video games. How many games of cowboys and indians did you play as a kid?

 

[lawpoke87]

Up til that point most of the people who had a death wish or wanted to kill innocents were able to go to south east Asia and kill school children there.

Also, the types of firearms that were owned were likely a somewhat different mix

Walking into a school with 3-4 semi automatic pistols with additional clips would not significantly reduce the number of children one would likely be able to shoot. What has gone from the unthinkable 40 plus years ago is simply no longer the case. Which leads to the question….why?

 

[918Golden]

Plenty of people 18-25 walking around Israel with fully automatic assault weapons. Plenty of mass murder there too, but rarely with firearms.

The problem isn’t the guns themselves. So debates about this gun or that gun, this law or that law, is pointless.

We might start with this country having a massive public health challenge in our failure to properly fund mental health counseling and incentivize its use.

We fail to concede the civil liberties considerations when one constitutional right (right against involuntary mental health detention) collides with a right that is natural and precedes the Constitution, (the right to possess weapons suitable to protect your home from incursion or invasion).

Until we concede that a lot more people need mental health treatment than either side is willing to fund, we get no place. But that doesn’t matter because neither side, nor the courts, are pretty eager to deal with the only solution - when people need to be locked up for their own protection (and ours) that needs to be done quickly without a lot of red tape while balancing the rights of the detained, especially after mental health stability has been documented by appropriate professionals.

Until then, America has enough guns that you could ban and confiscate 98% of them and it wouldn’t significantly reduce gun related crime, particularly random mass casualty events.

Meanwhile I’ll sit here and wonder why we have red flag laws where we confiscate guns from people determined to be too dangerous to possess them, but then we just turn them loose on the public at the conclusion of the hearing.

Oh yes the classic mental health argument. I guess the US is the only country with mental health problems.

 

[astonmartin708]

Walking into a school with 3-4 semi automatic pistols with additional clips would not significantly reduce the number of children one would likely be able to shoot. What has gone from the unthinkable 40 plus years ago is simply no longer the case. Which leads to the question….why?

Well, even though you say the same proportion of gun owners exists in the country..... That would still mean 100 Million more gun owners existing since 1975 simple due to population increases. That means at least 100 million more guns on the streets.... (though that number is probably substantially more). I don't believe it was so en-vogue amongst gun owners of the 60's and 70's to own entire armories as it is today.

You (collective) argue that social aspects are to blame for the rise.... however; at the same time, we've seen conservative majorities in the Supreme Court and elsewhere rule for fewer restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public and removed restrictions in cities that have historically had high crime rates. You saw a proliferation of concealed and open carry amendments, and a broadening of "stand your ground" scope.

The loosening of firearm legislation from the rollback of the assault weapons ban to the rollout of new carry and defense laws have to be considered as variables in your model the same as video games and social media do.

Finally gun murder rates per 100K people in 1976 were close to what they are now.

 

[lawpoke87]

Well, even though you say the same proportion of gun owners exists in the country..... That would still mean 100 Million more gun owners existing since 1975 due to population increases. That means at least 100 million more guns on the streets.... (though that number is probably substantially more)

The gun murder rates per 100K people in 1976 was close to what it is now.

True. However, even the increase in the number of guns doesn’t come remotely close to explaining why we’ve gone from practically zero mass school shootings to what we’ve seen over the past several years. Again….something else is obviously going on.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Up til that point most of the people who had a death wish or wanted to kill innocents were able to go to south east Asia and kill school children there.

Also, the types of firearms that were owned were likely a somewhat different mix

What a bunch of bs. Do you come up with this stuff because you don't have anything serious to say. That's when most people don't post. Putting our lack of violence on the Vietnam war is a crock.

The AR-15 patent expired around '77. Then all the gun manufacturers were putting facsimile's of the AR-15 out. It has very little to do with the type of weapon. If they didn't have the AR-15 available anymore, then they would find another weapon. I don't think the AR-15 is necessary to the public, but banning it wouldn't even put a dent in the mass shootings. By the time the AR-15 became hard to find, they would come up with something else to modify/use.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

True. However, even the increase in the number of guns doesn’t come remotely close to explaining why we’ve gone from practically zero mass school shootings to what we’ve seen over the past several years. Again….something else is obviously going on.

It's Pandora's box. How to deal with anger and isolation has acquired a socially learned behavior, as a more readily utilized option.(amongst the mentally off part of the population) It's imitated behavior to commit domestic terrorism. I can think of two maybe three kids I went to high school with, that would probably have thought seriously about committing an act like this if they were in high school today. Instead they were in school in the early to mid eighties when it wasn't a readily 'acceptable' option.

The political times we live in have only made it worse. We need to get back to a time where compromise in politics is accepted by the public.(meaning the public would be more accepting of compromise in their daily lives) Monkey do, monkey see, monkey do.(Chicken/Egg)

Identifying the problem isn't hard. Finding a solution is.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Oh yes the classic mental health argument. I guess the US is the only country with mental health problems.

No it's the only country with a subset that deals with it this way.

 

[astonmartin708]

True. However, even the increase in the number of guns doesn’t come remotely close to explaining why we’ve gone from practically zero mass school shootings to what we’ve seen over the past several years. Again….something else is obviously going on.

Of course it has become more prevalent in the past years, but it's not like it didn't happen in the past.

If you look at the shootings from prior to 2000 the farther back you go, the more you see things like .22', revolvers and shotguns being involved rather than Semi Auto handguns and Magazined Rifles.

If you look at reports from the 90's you'll see the market share of auto-loading pistols was much smaller than revolvers. In the 20 years between 73 and 93 the US Justice Dept was estimating that 6-7 million semi auto pistols were manufactured with calibers over .25. Most handguns produced were revolvers. In the last 10 years, the US has produced 15 million 9mm semi auto pistols alone, before you add in other .380 ACP, .45 ACP, etc... That would mean that in half the time, we've close to tripled (if not quadrupled) the number of more lethal handguns circulating around the population. (I say more lethal for the same reason you don't see cops carrying .38 specials anymore)

I do partially think that it's just harder to kill a bunch of moving (fleeing) targets with less lethal rounds, higher degrees of inaccuracy at medium distance, and more cumbersome reloading. We've taken what used to be a more difficult atrocity and made it easier for your common stooge.

 

[918Golden]

What a bunch of bs. Do you come up with this stuff because you don't have anything serious to say. That's when most people don't post. Putting our lack of violence on the Vietnam war is a crock.

The AR-15 patent expired around '77. Then all the gun manufacturers were putting facsimile's of the AR-15 out. It has very little to do with the type of weapon. If they didn't have the AR-15 available anymore, then they would find another weapon. I don't think the AR-15 is necessary to the public, but banning it wouldn't even put a dent in the mass shootings. By the time the AR-15 became hard to find, they would come up with something else to modify/use.

The they’ll just find another weapon is one of the dumbest takes. It’s worth a try instead of doing nothing. The amount of people that are ok with nothing being done is ridiculous. Kids being killed in schools is no ok. Get rid of the guns.

 

[lawpoke87]

The they’ll just find another weapon is one of the dumbest takes. It’s worth a try instead of doing nothing. The amount of people that are ok with nothing being done is ridiculous. Kids being killed in schools is no ok. Get rid of the guns.

Why are you so focused on kids being killed in schools when this is a small minority of the kids being killed by guns in this country. Hell…in 2021 alone 276 kids 16 and younger were shot by guns. 43 kids 12 years old and younger were among that group. This was in Chicago only The amount of people that are ok with this is ridiculous…and all I hear is crickets. Remember….this is only one city and this type of thing is occurring across our country.

 

[astonmartin708]

Why are you so focused on kids being killed in schools when this is a small minority of the kids being killed by guns in this country. Hell…in 2021 alone 276 kids 16 and younger were murdered by guns. 43 kids 12 years old and younger were among that group. The amount of people that are ok with this is ridiculous…and all I hear is crickets. Remember….this is only one city and this type of thing is occurring across our country.

We invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars based upon the deaths of < 3000 people.

Pretty sure we can take some action based upon an ongoing issue inside our domestic control.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

That action was taken to stop it from common place.(foreign terrorist attacks) The same way we should have examined this when these types of actions began happening.(mass shootings on a regular basis/2 or 3 times a year in the 90's) Also it wasn't conflicting with the right to bear arms to search down the terrorists. No rights were infringed on by that effort.

 

[lawpoke87]

We invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars based upon the deaths of < 3000 people.

Pretty sure we can take some action based upon an ongoing issue inside our domestic control.

Let me know when we do. Thousands of kids are shot and killed every year in this country and unless it’s a media publicized act no one gives a damn including most on this board. We sit back and put our heads in the sand except for those acts covered by the media.

I do acknowledge it’s a complex issue with constitutional and social issues working against it. Shouldn’t be an excuse to ignore the problem though.

 

[watu05]

I do like the idea of different registration levels for different types of gun owners. A guy that collects antique rifles is different than a guy that likes to hunt every chance he gets is different than a guy that wants a handgun for self protection, etc.

Maybe also some insurance and liability requirements? Like, if you want to buy a 5 different semi auto rifles, okay, but you also will accept responsibility if any of those guns ends up being used in a shooting, even if your psycho 20 year old son stole it from your garage. And you have to buy insurance to cover that risk, prepaid when you pick up the gun from the shop, just like driving a car off the lot.

Not sure how much that would help, but it wouldn't take anyone's rights away and at least would be some sort of step toward sanity. As usual, insurance rates for young single men would be more expensive than for any other demographic. Woudl be okay exempting antiques and hunting rifles from insurance requirements.

Interesting solution. Insurance companies have increasingly become the new enforcers of common sense. Building in flood plains or on the coast of Florida, particularly after a hurricane has buzzed through, is restricted not by local communities but my the inability of get insurance or pay much higher premiums. So if gun ownership can't regulated by law, then make insurance companies the cops by requiring insurance.

The downside is that it works against those who can afford insurance instead of those who would likely be identified as the highest risk. But an interesting idea and it's at least a step to actually doing something.

 

[Clong83a]

Interesting solution. Insurance companies have increasingly become the new enforcers of common sense. Building in flood plains or on the coast of Florida, particularly after a hurricane has buzzed through, is restricted not by local communities but my the inability of get insurance or pay much higher premiums. So if gun ownership can't regulated by law, then make insurance companies the cops by requiring insurance.

The downside is that it works against those who can afford insurance instead of those who would likely be identified as the highest risk. But an interesting idea and it's at least a step to actually doing something.

It would also do a lot to nudge forward safer practices. For instance, maybe you get an insurance break for having and keeping your guns in a locked safe when not in use. Or getting some documented professional training/certification, or maybe even some kind of voluntary mental health voucher from a therapist could give you a discount. That kind of thing. Free market solutions!

Maybe also waive insurance penalties if you were using best practices and your gun got stolen, like if your gun was stolen out of a locked safe that got forcibly broken into or something.

Just spitballing, really. I am sure there are a lot of things we could try that wouldn’t significantly infringe on responsible citizens, if only our leaders would sit down and try to do a damn thing about it and we had both parties trying to sell it to the people.

 

[lawpoke87]

Do we believe the vast majority of these criminals responsible for these shootings across our country will give a damn about insurance breaks? Hell….I’m willing to bet over 90% of those individuals responsible for the shootings in this country don’t have homeowners insurance.

I don’t have any answers either. I’m ok with added restrictions on assault style weapons. I’m also an advocate of addressing the root causes of gun violence on this country.

 

[Clong83a]

Do we believe the vast majority of these criminals responsible for these shootings across our country will give a damn about insurance breaks? Hell….I’m willing to bet over 90% of those individuals responsible for the shootings in this country don’t have homeowners insurance.

I don’t have any answers either. I’m ok with added restrictions on assault style weapons. I’m also an advocate of addressing the root causes of gun violence on this country.

Of course they won’t. That’s the point. The responsible people would get breaks, and others… wouldn’t.

But if you made carrying a gun without insurance a crime, it could help give police a tool to arrest people that are carrying when they shouldn’t be, which could help with the ’Chicago’ part of the problem as well.

Not saying it would be a panacea, or even work at all, but it would be trying something, which is more than I can say right now.