Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on February 14, 2023, 10:33:15 PM
-
You're in the hot-seat. How would you stop the mass shootings? What would you change? What new laws would you enact?
I am very sick of both sides of this political issue spouting their typical nonsense. Put your money where you mouth is and fix the problem.
-
I'm not sure there is a way to stop "crazy". You certainly can't legislate it away. Magical gun free zones do not work as we have seen far too many times.
About the only thing we can realistically do is attempt to limit and minimize the damage.
A majority of the the nutjobs doing the shooting have been on the radar of law enforcement and have previously exhibited and/or been convicted of violent offences and violent behavior, many have been let slide due to liberal policies.
Things we can do:
More armed responsible citizens, including teachers.
Destigmatize lethal self defense. In the mind of a libtard a dead rape victim is morally superior to a survivor that defended herself with lethal force.
If you are going to insist on a "gun free victim disarming zone" you must provide real security for those inside of it.
Stop letting violent psychopaths run around unchecked.
-
The main common denominator I always hear about is they all stop when they face opposition (die, give up, or kill themselves). Usually that takes the form of someone armed, but hasn't always. Find some way to make sure they always face opposition.
...and maybe disband/defund the CIA/FBI. [tinfoil]
-
You can't STOP something completely so long as bad people exist, but you can reduce it.
I'd say that when a judge releases a violent criminal for any reason other than actual innocence, when a parole board lets a violent criminal out early, or a DA refuses to charge & prosecute a violent criminal, if the person released than goes on to kill, the person(s) responsible for their release ought to be held criminally responsible as accessories.
And of course, do away with victim disarmament zones.
-
It can't be stopped. But I think it could be curtailed immensely by not making the shooters into folk heroes that all the other crazies want to copy. Do not release the name of the shooter right away. Eventually the name has to be released, (court documents) but the news media does not have to repeat it, and no pictures of the shooter. When they have to refer to him, do so only use terms like "loser" and "*expletive deleted*bag". Basically, the shooter (not the shooting) should be erased from history.
-
Train and arm teachers, properly concealed and retained, and do away with these BS "Gun Free Zones", AKA "Fish In A Barrel".
-
Take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens!
Isn't it obvious?
-
You're in the hot-seat. How would you stop the mass shootings? What would you change? What new laws would you enact?
I am very sick of both sides of this political issue spouting their typical nonsense. Put your money where you mouth is and fix the problem.
"Stop" is not an achievable goal. The presumption that criminal acts can be entirely stopped by authority requires unlimited authoritarian power.
Mass shootings are the result of a society with a rapidly declining culture living in a system with freedoms which assume and require a healthy culture, all seasoned with politicians and journalists who benefit directly from mass shootings.
If you assume (as the question requires) that this is a problem that is fixable from the top down then the only option to stop them entirely is to eliminate the "shooting" part by an absolute and universal prohibition of firearms. Good luck with that, and it ultimately won't solve the problem of violence.
I would love to see us cure our various cultural illnesses, but that seems even more utopian than the ridiculous idea that someone in the hot seat could pass some laws and stop mass shootings. We can't even get parents to stick around to raise their own children, much less take an active role in teaching them respect, responsibility, and duty.
But ultimately, even with a very healthy culture you'll always have lunatics who refuse to go along. If your society has freedom, those people will be able to abuse that freedom and cause harm to people.
-
...and maybe disband/defund the CIA/FBI. [tinfoil]
My first thought.
</tinfoil>
-
. . . If you assume (as the question requires) that this is a problem that is fixable from the top down then the only option to stop them entirely is to eliminate the "shooting" part by an absolute and universal prohibition of firearms. Good luck with that, and it ultimately won't solve the problem of violence . . .
Quite correct.
9/11 didn't involve firearms, airplanes and box cutters were used. >3000 people dead.
OKC bombing didn't involve firearms, a fertilizer bomb in a rental truck was used. 163 people dead.
Happy Land nightclub fire in NYS didn't involve firearms, it was arson. 87 people dead.
-
Quite correct.
9/11 didn't involve firearms, airplanes and box cutters were used. >3000 people dead.
OKC bombing didn't involve firearms, a fertilizer bomb in a rental truck was used. 163 people dead.
Happy Land nightclub fire in NYS didn't involve firearms, it was arson. 87 people dead.
Bath School disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
-
If "in the hot seat" means I'm a politician who has to come up with more than platitudes, there are no easy answers. I'm not sure what to do regarding the mental health side.
As far as legal/gun stuff, I absolutely believe fewer gun free zones and less fear of prosecution for legally carrying (and potentially needing to use, even if not sending a bullet downrange) a gun would help at the baseline. After that, it's really a cultural issue of becoming more like the name of this forum - an armed and polite society. there's no legal way (outside of protecting people from prosecution when defending themselves or others) to push that.
It's a cultural issue. Armed Polite Society. Warrior Poet Society (watch some of John Lovell's videos to get his philosophy). How do we get people to pull out a gun or an IFAK or a fire extinguisher to help in a situation, instead of a cell phone to record it? Why do we have more incidents where people just recorded (often laughing as it happened) and so few Eli Dickens responses? Or maybe we have a lot more of the latter than we know about (thanks MSM).
I wonder, if people were more assured that they would not be sued, prosecuted, or otherwise have their lives ruined, if we would have more people being Warrior Poets? We're at a point where people might literally be more afraid of government and their minions ruining their and their families lives than of being hurt or killed while trying to help.
How do we get to the point culturally, where people are more inclined to help than to watch? Where potential mass shooters are more afraid of prepared citizens immediately stopping them vs being able to do their thing (even if it's a death wish) knowing they've got buffer time before the cops show up?
Though I fear that even if we could cast a magic legal wand to make violent good samaritism a thing, those with the guns and medical kits are vastly outnumbered by those with the camera phone.
-
There is no total solution.
Media blackouts of them would likely reduce them, maybe 20-30%.
A fair amount of them are perpetuated by aholes seeking fame via copying other murderers.
-
We can't even get parents to stick around to raise their own children, much less take an active role in teaching them respect, responsibility, and duty.
I don't think "can't" is the right description. Can't implies that we are trying. Not only are we not trying, out policies fund and encourage the opposite. And it seems to be working. So if it works in one direction, it stands to reason we could strengthen and improve families by actually having pro-family policies.
Once again, it's very important to understand to what extent the outcomes we have are the result of government policy.
-
We are almost all very pro freedom but we need to admit that things have not gotten better since the 80s when we opened the gates of the loony bin. Needs to be a process where people can be committed before a violent crime. The overmedicated, or stopped medicating, or self medicating but all completely unsupervised model isn’t working.
Other than that we need classes of citizens that are required to have a rifle on them at all times similar to Israel and the reservists. Stuff happens there but it meets resistance quicker.
-
We are almost all very pro freedom but we need to admit that things have not gotten better since the 80s when we opened the gates of the loony bin. Needs to be a process where people can be committed before a violent crime. The overmedicated, or stopped medicating, or self medicating but all completely unsupervised model isn’t working.
An awful lot has changed since the 80s. It would be hard for me to sort out causes with any precision.
Regardless, I'm not sure that most mass shooters are people who would have otherwise been institutionalized. If the question was "How would YOU stop homelessness?" then I think it would be more relevant.
-
The vast decline of the nuclear family and the complete culture war against traditional family values is screwing up society. There’s a reason the incidences of mass shootings ramped up from the 90s onward.
It’s no longer raise a healthy stable family these days. It’s raise little shits who are holy terrors, medicate them with extreme psychotropic drugs that make them unstable in other ways, let 11 year olds decide they need to mutilate themselves, etc.
-
The vast decline of the nuclear family and the complete culture war against traditional family values is screwing up society. There’s a reason the incidences of mass shootings ramped up from the 90s onward.
It’s no longer raise a healthy stable family these days. It’s raise little shits who are holy terrors, medicate them with extreme psychotropic drugs that make them unstable in other ways, let 11 year olds decide they need to mutilate themselves, etc.
I remember in the 90's and 2000's wondering what the Ridilin kids would be like as adults. Not I wonder what the hormone kids will be like. And that probably only accounts for a portion of the potential source of mass shooters. I doubt the issue will end soon if ever.
The main thing IMO is to encourage and enable people to defend themselves and get rid of "gun free zones". None of that is likely to happen nationally with the current people in D.C.
-
Building a lot more mental hospitals, and mandatory commitment of the crazies (like the perp of the latest University killing) might help a little.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right for gibbering schizophrenics to sleep in the gutter and refuse to take medication. So that would need to be overturned first.
-
To eliminate the fish in the barrel factor, I would promulgate security standards for schools, stores, bars, etc. Such as, required minimum response time for armed response, minimum number of patrolling armed security per X customer/crowd, etc. based on limiting the damage.
This is similar to FAA regulations that require 2 people in the cockpit at all times, or X people on duty at power plants and fire stations.
Also, we already have standards for maximum response time for fire response so it is in line with what we do for other threats.
Leave it up to the end users how to implement (hire dedicated armed security, train and arm existing staff, train security to do the job, collaborate with police forces, etc.).
We have comprehensive planning of egress and fire exits, automatic fire doors, and we even build buildings accordingly from the very beginning to mitigate fire risks...my previous building had to be redesigned because the fire marshal said the staircases couldn't extend between 2 floors. All based on hard historical lessons and based on understanding that eliminating the threat is impossible but we can do things to limit the damage. People still die in fires, but we don't have half a city burning down anymore or whole theaters full of people burning up. Meanwhile we basically do nothing at all to manage risk of violence.
I want to live in a future where the AHJ inspects a new building and say "these cubicles don't count as class 1 cover because they won't stop rifle or pistol rounds. But they do count as concealment. You are going to need 1 armed security unit per floor, or else manned video security with 5 minute dispatch time. You can extend it to 10 minutes if you implement all-hands active shooter threat mitigation training. By the way, your fire extinguishers are past inspection. "
-
Meanwhile we basically do nothing at all to manage risk of violence.
To be fair, though, the risks of something as niche as "mass shootings" (especially as the ideologues using that term are choosing to define that today) are relatively insignificant. The vast majority of "umpteen mass shootings per hour!" as breathlessly reported by journalists and gun control advocates kill zero or one person. Just about all of the remainder of mass shootings (i.e., those resulting in more than 1 death) are domestic incidents - typically murder/suicides - which are not something that businesses, schools, churches, or whatever are likely to stop by hiring armed guards.
-
To be fair, though, the risks of something as niche as "mass shootings" (especially as the ideologues using that term are choosing to define that today) are relatively insignificant. The vast majority of "umpteen mass shootings per hour!" as breathlessly reported by journalists and gun control advocates kill zero or one person. Just about all of the remainder of mass shootings (i.e., those resulting in more than 1 death) are domestic incidents - typically murder/suicides - which are not something that businesses, schools, churches, or whatever are likely to stop by hiring armed guards.
That's a good point - the occurrence seems more common than it is, because we hear a lot about every one that happens. Kinda like how some people irrationally fear commercial aviation - incidents are high profile, but you don't hear about the 747 million passengers that flew on domestic flights safely in 2022[cite (https://www.transtats.bts.gov/)].
-
The vast decline of the nuclear family and the complete culture war against traditional family values is screwing up society. There’s a reason the incidences of mass shootings ramped up from the 90s onward.
Funny how that's the reason for most other social ills, as well.
Aside from generations of work to bring back those hopelessly old-fashioned (i.e., timeless) virtues and taboos that made the West great (if flawed), the more immediate answer is a pressure campaign by advertisers to insist that news organizations be more inclusive stop making mass murderers into celebrities.
Before anyone pops off about the 1st amendment, that doesn't need to be an issue. Media can (should) voluntarily limit their own coverage. Cover the event, sure. Even publish the name (once). Just don't make mass killer coverage into its own industry.
-
Funny how that's the reason for most other social ills, as well.
Aside from generations of work to bring back those hopelessly old-fashioned (i.e., timeless) virtues and taboos that made the West great (if flawed), the more immediate answer is a pressure campaign by advertisers to insist that news organizations be more inclusive stop making mass murderers into celebrities.
Before anyone pops off about the 1st amendment, that doesn't need to be an issue. Media can (should) voluntarily limit their own coverage. Cover the event, sure. Even publish the name (once). Just don't make mass killer coverage into its own industry.
The Supreme Court left the door open for for media restrictions; just declare mass murder coverage to be pornography
-
The Supreme Court left the door open for for media restrictions; just declare mass murder coverage to be pornography
kinda fits
-
Related:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-licensed-carry-bystander-shot-el-paso-mall-shooter-targeted-more-would-be-victims-police
One thing about this one is that it looks to me like it was a targeted shooting, then the gunman was looking to get out and waving his gun around at people while doing so. It appears there were several armed people in the mall and one of them took the gunman down based on his behavior. I'm sure the gunman wasn't even thinking that any of the innocent bystanders there would have a gun. I'm curious if the mall had any kind of "no guns" policy.
-
Mandatory firearm safety and proficiency training started in elementary schools. This must include rangetime and annual safety refreshers, qualification tests and regular, subsidized practice. Field trips to long range or IDPA facilities. Get kids started with airguns as soon as they're physically able. Destigmatize the possession and use of personal firearms for sport, defense, and other political reasons.
Encourage youth participation in the shooting sports. Get the NRAs head out of its rectum and back it its lane promoting the shooting sports- for example varsity skeet, rimfire benchrest and pistol.
And if that doesn't work, follow up with forced 24 month conscription for all able-bodied citizens between 17 and 19 years old without regard to race, economic status, or gender identfixation.
Edit- Holy horsefeathers. I've become an old man!
-
Mandatory firearm safety and proficiency training started in elementary schools. T
Good thought, except the areas that used to be used for that are now either designated safe spaces or else changing rooms, where little boys can dress like girls and vice versa without their parents knowing about it. Priorities, man.
-
Israel requires all schools with more than 100 students to have armed security. This policy has been effective for them. I would do the same.
This could be fulfilled with armed staff, school resource officers or private security guards. Armed staff would be low cost.
This is "legal" in many places. However, schools are mostly run by left wing nutjobs who never would actually allow armed staff despite what the law says. This is why the law should mandate it.