In the video below, NRA commentator and firearms fashionista Colion Noir tackles the question bedevilling the country (and Senator Feinstein) following the Mandalay Bay spree killing: how do you stop mass shootings? Note: the video is from 2013. We’re wrestling with the same question we’ve been facing for decades. Centuries. What — if anything — can we do to stop these horrific events?
We deal with the twin APAs and their long con of drug sales and made up diagnosis to create dependent customers. We also stop appeasing Islamists. I can’t think of a single “mass shooter” (If our definition is excluding gang members shooting a bunch of gang members), other than the Scalise shooter (who didn’t kill anyone), that wasn’t an Islamist or on some mind altering drugs.
Speaking of Scalise, for some good news he opposes a bump fire ban and, more importantly, responded to “Is [the Second Amendment unlimited” with “It is.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/08/steve-scalise-gun-control-bump-stocks-slippery-slope/
You are spot on, except to point out that every single mass shooter has also been a liberal, a socialist of some stripe, or an islamist. The only rational solution is to check VOTER IDs. Only registered conservative should be allowed to purchase and own guns. If you’ve voted for ANY democrap in the last 10 years, you are disqualified. It’s simple Occam’s Razor…
Booo.
We can’t,
Meaniing we can’t expect or relay on local police/law enfircement agencies to do it for us, no matter how much money is taken away from us, federal taxes, incom taxes, consummer related taxes, whatever.
Law enforcemet agencies will not protect us citizens, playing by the numbers how many citizens can one law enforcement (per capita) protect and how fast their reaction time will be?
When seconds count, police officers will always several minutes away.
” A well armed militia”
In God we trust.
We the armed citizens are, and will always be the answer.
No…Because the Thin Blue line is busy Enforcing Draconian Gun control laws aimed at the US citizenry. Designed to discourage, or prevent a US citizen from firearms ownership…No matter the hassles…Like my state, G&A 48th worst state for the 2nd amendment…And Not forgetting ticket revenue, and tax generation….
Pretty sure the Second Amendment is around to stop people like you from having their way.
Except for the fact that when you compare the number of mass shooters to actual listed Socialists and Liberals. There are many more law abiding ones then active shooter ones. Heck throw in Antifa nitwits they are still massively out numbered.
You can’t penalize the law abiding for the criminal.. even if that would be what they would do.
Man You all fail the pop quiz…..
“How do we Stop Mass Shootings” – A good guy with a gun. The mass shoot witll eith kill themselves, get killed, or get caught.
I know the real question is – How do we prevent mass shootings? We can not.
I would actual expand the question to “How do you stop mass killings?” The answer is the same. We can not stop them.
Evil People will find a way. Take away the guns they will use knifes. Take that away and they will use trucks and Cars. take that away and they wil use pressure cookers and explosives. Take away that they will use cleaning chemicals mixed to make posionus gases, I could go on but the point is no matter what you take away Evil will find a way to take life from others.
Can we stop some mass killings. Yes . To stop them all we would have to be perfect every time. Thats not possible. An evil person only has to get lucky once to suceed in killing.
All we can do is be vigilent against evil and try to comfort those who have been hurt.
Unfortunately, the pop quiz question can’t be answered correctly, because it’s a trick question.
The question should ask, How do we stop mass murders?
Limiting the question to shootings plays into the left’s playbook. Guns aren’t the problem, people are the problem.
If we somehow manage to escape reality and ban guns in the US, they will simply be smuggled in. Complete autos are smuggled in. Shipping containers of illegal counterfeit handbags are smuggled in. Drugs by the hundredweight are carried across our southern border daily. Anyone who thinks guns won’t be smuggled in shouldn’t be allowed out in public without a handler.
we need to remember that not only were entire wars fought before there were guns, but civilizations were wiped out without guns. Guns are simply not needed for mass murder.
Be more careful in crafting your questions.
Stop gathering in groups. Some people must see livestock stacked together in tight clumps and think “gee, that’s looks fun!” I’m not one of those people.
Sounds like a good idea. I also think it’s an argument for the open carry of rifles. If a few people in that crowd, or near that crowd, were armed with ARs, or even bigger bolt guns, they could’ve pinned down or killed the shooter themselves. I honestly think we make this a talking point. The only thing that stops madmen such as this is hard security. Concealed carry couldn’t stop this? That’s fine. Rifle open carry would’ve.
Really? And how many bystanders, with rooms next to, below, or above, would have been shot or at least had their rooms invaded with hot lead while shooters on the ground were trying to figure out the ballistics of a 400 yards and up 32 stories shot?
And how would that be worse than the results as they stand now? Your argument could be used as justification for disarming police, in fact. “Because innocent people might get shot by police intending to shoot the bad guy!” Sometimes that’s the cost of stopping the bad guy.
War isn’t pretty, and I garuntee less people would’ve died. Mass shooters typically panic and kill themselves the moment they face credible resistance.
I am certain every one on this blog is capable of calculating those ballistics in their heads. And making clean, effective, successful shots without danger to anyone but the murderer. Probably can neutralize the shooter is such a situation, with one ranging shot, and one kill shot. At night, in a cyclone, while doing a double backflip.
Uh, , click to 400, aim 20 inches below flash might do , or just use a nagant and poke him with the barrel
3 million to one odds of getting killed in a mass shooting. 7,900 to one to die in a car crash. I’m not going to stop driving or going to concerts.
You can’t. Evil exists in this world.
“How Do We Stop Mass Shootings?”
Since peoplekind (PC term) are utterly corrupt/depraved, the only solution is to arrest everyone, put them in labor camps, and keep them there until they die. Mass shootings (anything involving three or more people, including the shooter) are quite rare in labor camps. Once a camp is “full” the people charged with arresting and placing people in camps become the camp administrators and guards. Eventually, we have a very, very small but elite controlling body who remain outside the camps in order to keep things running smoothly. As a side benefit, unemployment virtually disappears. Isn’t that nice?
Such a place already exists. It’s called North Korea.
The crime is life and so is the sentence.
Pass a law declaring humans illegal. Begin euthanizing the population. Problem solved.
It cannot be prevented without everyone being mentally and physically restrained. Until such tech exists to change behavior (Demolition Man anyone?) it will continue.
The only thing that can be done is to have vigilant people on the ready to stop it quickly.
The murderer at Mandalay Bay reportedly fired 200 rounds of 5.56 through the door and walls at an unarmed security guard, hitting him twice. Doesn’t it seem like at the least this poor guard should have had the freedom to do a return mag dump? If it seems like you are going to die anyway, and I’m sure that thought crossed his mind, why not take the chance of getting lucky with some return fire as you crawl to the elevator?
If I know or have at least a remote idea that I’m dying, I’m doing whatever I can to take that dumbass with me. Personally, considering how much cash and expensive crap probably moves around that hotel, I’d want my security armed to the tooth and armored up.
“How Do We Stop Mass Shootings?”
Uhh, we don’t (until you get rid of “masses”) then we’ll still just have shootings.
“1 October” (cheese name) coulda happened any other day that people were similarly bunched up under a high vantage point. Play hard to kill. Don’t be a target, or stop whining.
Outlaw freedom in every form.
This has been tried, several times. All it does is move mass killings from the private sector to government control.
We are kinda stuck with this mess we created. When we quit teaching the truth about GOD, we set our selves up for this and the rest of the pending disaster.
Islamists teach the “truth of god” and look at how nicely that’s turned out for everybody.
Different god. But it’s really hard to tell if ANYBODY’S god is innocent.
While this was the FATHER of the Christian God, I refer you to the story of Noah. Then of course there was Sodom & Gomorrah.
Different god? How so?
How many gods are there? I thought Christians believed there was one. Hard to maintain monotheism with trinity, angels, saints I guess.
The ancient Hebrews were polytheistic. Just read the First Commandment as brought down by Moses: Thou shalt worship no other gods before me…” Which means that there can be other gods, but this guy is Numero Uno. Well, OK then. Monotheism came latter. Kinda. As you said, there is the Trinity and all the angels, after all. Watch a Christian get all tied up in knots explaining how, if there is only one true god, what is Jesus? Being the Son of God, isn’t he a god too? And if he is not a god, why do you worship him as if he were? And so on.
And exactly which version of the “truth” about God do you propose that the government teach us?
Is it (by coincidence, I’m sure) the one to which you subscribe?
The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.
That at least is better than The Church of God the Intentionally Malignant, who appears to be the One in charge at the moment.
Government should not and cannot be responsible for teaching the “truth about God”. The government should not be responsible for teaching anything. Citizens are responsible for teaching. When a citizen neglects his teaching responsibility, the government will often accept the responsibility. Modern universities are an excellent example of the the outcome of government run teaching institutions.
Teaching the “truth about God” begins with the family and spreads to friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. In order to teach the “truth about God” a citizen must research and study God. This requires an immense amount of time and energy. Most citizens are unwilling to sacrifice this time and energy to discover the “truth about God”.
Many people suggest that the “truth about God” makes a great cornerstone for a well behaved society. This is due to the fact the “truth about God” based societies generally have a significantly better track record with respect to the value of human life. Allow me to provide several examples.
1. Mormons – while the Mormon church is far from perfect, they do not teach or practice mass murder.
2. Christians (pick any denomination) – the Christian church has had its share poor decisions. However, any teaching of murder is directly contrary to what Christ teaches.
3. Catholics – Catholicism has also waged wars and killed thousands but these actions are directly contrary to the teachings of Christ.
I am not saying that God fearing societies are perfect. They are not. There are many examples of societies that claimed to be God based but slaughtered many people. A citizen must thoroughly study these societies and compare them to the “truth about God” that they claim to uphold. Again, this requires great amount of time and energy that many citizens are not willing to sacrifice.
Bull cookies. Cain slew Abel, and Moses brought down from the mountain ten commandments, including one prohibiting murder. And after he entered the Promised Land, he and his generals set out on a course of genocide of the peoople who happened to be living there at the time.
The Commandment against murder doesn’t seemed to have stopped anybody yet.
Did you know that much of the German High Command was Catholic? Ye they followed orders, dancing to Hitler’s tuneless death march.
Ever heard of Reverend Jim Jones and that “little incident” in Guyana where, after shooting up a Congressional committee, he slaughtered his entire flock? Nice example of Christians obeying the Commandments, don’t you think?
There is a lengthy list of “Christian” religious leaders committing atrocious crimes.And another of “Islamic” leaders, and Hindu leaders, and and and.
seems like a cop out to say the lack of teaching of a sky fairy leads to people killing others. seems to ignore the human aspect of what drives people to this.
When you teach about God you also include values and morals that come along with the bible.
I grew up in the 80s, then the media and world seemed more accepting of Christianity and it seemed like a standard. While I never went ti church looking back I think things like “thou shall not kill” or “honor your mother and father” instilled a moral compass that helped me become who I am today.
You might have an issue with a “sky fairy” but with so many home being single parent homes and then a good percentage of those parents also being absent, a little material from the bible may not be a bad thing to help the younger generation think about the path they are on.
One of the best-crafted and articulate arguments I’ve heard to date to combat mass shootings.
Colion Noir for president.
Now THERE is a candidate I could get behind. But I’m afraid he is too smart to be tempted by the offer.
Even so, I would love to see him up on the stage during the primary debates!
I don’t. It is too rare of an event to spend any money or time on.
Absolutely right. These things get blown way out of proportion and suck up all the air in the room. Meanwhile 200 times as many people are being killed every year by drunk drivers.
Actually, I spent the time.
320,000,000 population; 33,000 deaths involving guns. 0.00103 of the population
320,000,000 population; 10,809 deaths involving guns, not suicide. 0.00034 of the population
59 dead in 10 minutes due to gunfire
90 dead in 24 hours due to vehicle accidents
357 deaths due to mass shootings since 2016
7394 homicides in the top nine cities, between 2011 and 2013
219 deaths due to mass shootings in the same time period
219 killed since 2001 in “mass shootings” involving 10 or more people
11 mass shootings of 10 or more people since 2001 (16yrs)
CDC declared in 2014 that death by accidental gunshot was number 100 on their open-ended list of causes of deaths.
CDC declared in 2014 that homicide by gunshot was number 107 on their open-ended list of causes of deaths.
Most comparisons of gunshot deaths match a nation of 320,000,000 to much smaller population groups/nations. And of course, with much smaller numbers of guns. The skew is worsened by trying to manufacture “comparables”, like incidents per hundred thousand. Looks good on paper, but the larger the population base for which “per hundred thousand” is used, the wider the number of variables per unit in that 100,000. I.E. the variables of personal attributes in a nation of 200,000 is going to be unrepresentative of the number of variable attributes in a nation of 200,000,000.
I appreciate you doing the research—but what did you use as “mass shootings”? If you are using the classical definition—events like San Bernardino and Vegas—are your numbers accurate?
The numbers get skewed when gangbanger drive-bys are lumped
I do not believe there have been 357 people killed in actual mass shootings since last year.
I don’t think there have been 357 people killed in actual mass shootings since the first major one,which was the McDonald’s shooting in California in the 80s.
How about the mass murders at Wounded Knee, Waco Texas, so many others. Goes back a long, long way – even if you limit the list to America.
Mass murder is certainly still murder when government employees perpetrate it.
Yes, there were other, large shooting incidents. My data array only included “mass” events in the current century (since most anti-gunners are convinced that only something that happened in their short-term memory is real, or relevant.)
As I mentioned, “mass shooting” for the database i was working with began at 3 participants, including the shooter (if killed).
Of the total, 3 incidents included five, or fewer, people. 7 were nine or less. 12 were ten or more. 4 registered between 11 and 18. 4 were greater than 20. You can pick a characterize “mass” at, above or below any of those identified.
In actuality, “mass shooting/murder” sends a single message to the public (thanks to the media grinder that demands headlines in order to sell advertisement [television is completely, and all, about putting you in front of the screen so you can see ads, and be manipulated into buying products; nothing more.]) That single message is that “mass” means “alot”. The desired outcome is that people will assume 10, 20, 30 or more were involved. If faced with the definition that “mass” starts at 3, people just might begin to question other things “in the news”.
Here is one for you: if a self-defender (or even a cop) kills two people, that makes 3 involved, and can qualify as “mass”. Just like it is common to identify a gun incident within visual range of a school, regardless of the time of day, or presence of students, as a “school shooting”.
Analyzing stats required knowing the data, how it was collected, how it was determined to be relevant to the research. None of this is of interest to sob sisters (anit-gunners) who just want to bludgeon their opposition (anybody sob sisters want to impune). As an example, imagine a headline that reads “The unemployment rate of Jabberwocky township is now at an astonishing 50%”. Well, that’s gotta strike everyone as something very negative, even tragic. Then the story finally tells you that there were only two people actually working at a job, and one of them quit.
My old sergeant once growled at me for placing significant importance on certain statistics. I told him that the matter was simple, because statistics provided the answer to a question. My old sergeant looked at me and said, “Says who”? From that incident, I learned to distrust statistics that I could not understand, or identify the “skew”. Still don’t trust statistics as gospel, but have a better idea of how to evaluate them.
Onion headline “‘No way to prevent this’, says only nation where this regularly happens”
If mass shootings are unstoppable, why are they so frequent in the US and so rare elsewhere?
Are the victims of “mass shootings” (three or more people, including the shooter) more valuable, more important than people killed each year in the big cities? since 2001, there were 15 “mass shootings”, 357 dead. between 2011 and 2013, there were 7394 murders (including non-firearm events) it the top nine cities surveyed. 357 in 16yrs, 7394 in two years. Are “mass shootings” really a “problem”. Why no focus on the unending carnage in the inner cities? Is it “just the way it is”. Because those murders involve only the underclass, while “mass shootings” harm “good people”? Or maybe it is because the underclass is mostly made up of minorities? Racism, anyone?
Day to day violence among minorities and criminals (which is what most inner city violence is) doesn’t grab the headlines and allow you to push a gun-control agenda the way a shocking mass shooting does.
The true answer to your question is these pundits and pols who push this crap do not care about saving human lives. If they did they’d take a look at the 100,000 people who die every year because health care professionals don’t wash their hands enough (slight exaggeration, but you get the point) and stop wasting everyone’s time with useless gun control.
I replied to your earlier post—now I see where you’re getting your stats.
When the standard for a “mass shooting” is “three or more, including the shooter”, you’re unnecessarily inflating the numbers. That standard includes someone finding his wife en flagrante delicto with her lover and killing them then himself. That includes gangbanger drive-bys.
Those aren’t “mass shootings” in the classical definition. I define them as lone gunmen entering target rich areas and slaughtering people—-VA Tech, San Bernardino, Columbine, Luby’s, etc.
If you define “mass shooting” in a way to eliminate crimes of passion and gang warfare, the number of actual dead since we’ve kept track is pretty low.
Yes, the key to understanding the data is to know the parameters. My commentary was to put the data I had in the open, so people could judge for themselves what “mass shooting/murder” means. As mentioned, the public, thinks in terms of at least 10 or more, I am convinced. It is a convenience of propaganda to include a number so low as two, which could include events as you noted, or even a shop keeper who defends his/her store, shoots two robbers, and is him/herself killed. It is good to know what the opposition is doing, but pretty useless to use your knowledge in trying to make sense to those bent on feeling good about themselves.
It’s not nessisarily more prevalent here. When you step out of the cities, in real America, the “gun violence” rate drops to that of Finland.
Like mass shootings never happen in the country to our south. The only difference is here the victims aren’t beheaded and their bodies hung from freeway overpasses.
First, call it mass murder, not mass shootings. Then, address the problem of evil. There is a way to address evil, but if I went into it this comment would be 200 lines long. Look into (real) philosophy that acknowledges evil exists and can be defined.
So I guess Japan, France, Great Britain, Australia, and Holland (just to name a few) have “addressed the problem of evil” and we have not?
Last time I checked mass murder, rape, etc, still happens in those places. That is a historically ignorant remark. Religious ideology and self-hating individuals have been causing undue pain and suffering for as long as humanity realised its own vulnerability.
No other 1st world country has the frequency of violent crime and mass shootings we do, denying THAT is “historically ignorant”.
“No other 1st world country has the frequency of violent crime…”
No doubt. And you rightly illuminate that the problem lies with people, not implements. Only a fool believes removing a tool will correct/reduce evil. Or maybe you just think the populace is broadly and utterly stupid. That they will not turn in equal numbers to other means of death and destruction.
The last time I looked, the per capita violent crime rate in the UK was almost 4 times the per capita voilent crime rate in the US.
And the UK only books the crime after conviction where the US books it when it is reported/investigated. This means that, unless the UK has an exceptional record at solving crimes and getting convictions, it is vastly more violent in the UK.
In addition, the overall crime rate in western Europe is considerably higher than the overall crime rate in the US.
Nah, they’d rather use homemade bombs or run people down with trucks, go on a stabbing spree or throw acid in someones face. Are you just gonna ignore the fact that their rates of violent crime are much higher than ours?
Well if you’re going to use alternative facts, sure. But here on earth, it’s widely documented that violent crime is worse in the US than the countries named, it’s not even close.
“Well if you’re going to use alternative facts,…”
The factual “alternative fact” is that people who lacked access to a gun chose alternative means to kill and injure. No matter how you dress it up, the problem remains “people”, not tools.
America has been a more violent nation (on a personal violence level – not a governmental level of violence) than most in Europe since before our founding. Our rate of murder with things like hammers exceeds some other nations’ rates of murder in total.
Our rate of murder, regardless of weapon, outstrips many other countries in OEDC. But, the problem of murder, and especially murders with guns, is mostly an issue of the blighted urban areas with concentrated minority populations. There’s one city that embodies everything about left-wing failures on the issue of gun violence: Chicago.
Gun-banners keep claiming that if there were no guns, there wouldn’t be any shootings. The trouble is, there are plenty of examples where their theory breaks down – eg, if fewer guns would result in fewer shootings, then it logically/mathematically follows that more guns would result in more shootings, right? That’s the mathematical relationship you’re peddling, right?
If more guns caused murder rates to go up, we here in Wyoming would be Murder Central. We have more guns per person than any other state in the US. We have guns in cars, we have guns in homes, we have guns in the workplace, we have people carrying guns openly and concealed. We have big guns, black guns, glossy guns, expensive guns, cheap guns, semi-automatic guns, (and fully automatic guns), single-shot guns, tiny guns, antique guns, and everything in between. As a gunsmith, I have people whip out guns for me to look at from behind kitchen doors, behind pickup truck seats, underneath car seats, in car trunks, under cash registers, behind bookcases, in amongst the books in bookcases, under jackets, on hips, out of purses. Fastest way to discover half of the guns in a room? Walk into said room, announce you’re a gunsmith, and try to keep a straight face.
And yet – our murder rate with guns is lower than the gun violence rates in many cities in Canada, the country of liberal damp dreams.
So it clearly isn’t a problem caused by guns, because if it were, our streets here in Wyoming would be flowing with blood like it were the springtime melt.
Meanwhile, down Mexico way, you have a country with very strict gun control policies, no shortage of illegal guns, and murderers so brazen, it beggars belief that they can even claim to still have a government. Yet in Mexico, they have enacted everything you gun banners want – and more.
Just admit that you don’t give a rat’s rear end about any real solution. You want to ride your gun-control issue because it makes you feel good about yourself, not because it will actually solve anything.
“The factual “alternative fact” is that people who lacked access to a gun chose alternative means to kill and injure. No matter how you dress it up, the problem remains “people”, not tools.”
Yeah sure, truly violent people will find a way to express their violence but how many people are really like that? People like the Newton shooter or the Vegas shooter only have the will to commit their violence with a gun. The Vegas shooter didn’t even have the balls to confront armed police. Simple truth is–weak people are drawn to guns. Take away their guns and they will fade away in slience.
And your “statistics” are crap too. You acknowledge that you need to take country size into account but then you never actually DO that. The fact is, the per-capita murder crime rate is MUCH higher in the US than in any of those countires listed above. Murder rate per 1 miilion people in the US is 42 which is about 4-times that of the other countries mentioned. Until you can acknowledge that fact, no argument made here will persuade anyone outside TTAG bubble.
“The fact is, the per-capita murder crime rate is MUCH higher in the US than in any of those countires listed above.”
Go add up that stats from the entirety of the countries you love, then compare. What you will get is simple statistics, with no context. To help you….take two whatevers and find a single, common element between the two whatevers. Now compare and contrast. If one or more other measurable characteristic is different, what does the tell you about your comparison?
Believing that the mentally ill would “fade away” if they couldn’t have guns demonstrates an utter unfamiliarity with mental illness. But….you are admitting that it is people, not the tool that remains the central factor/issue. You are also admitting that because you have no idea how to solve the “people” problem you would rather punish hundreds of million legal gun owners who have committed no crime. Probably because you think confiscating guns takes less thought and effort. Which means you might also agree that if a bank customer robs the bank, you need to confiscate all the accounts because that is the only way to keep customers of that bank from robbing it. Punish the innocent ! Yeah ! How would that go over as a political slogan?
But, here is the bottom of the bottom lines: guns exist, legal gun owners exist. You lost. Get over it.
Why do you trolls keep changing names?
You reckon it is 2Asux, again?
“You reckon it is 2Asux, again?”
*Highly* doubtful.
Not his style…
You can’t even make a good argument. In the spirit of Dr. Zoidberg, your premise is bad and you should feel bad.
It doesn’t matter, because in a few years you’ll need to edit that comment and put “Islamic republic” infront of each of those nations names, save for Japan.
If you want to really get into it though, to understand crime in America you need to do more than watch the latest NBC segment on it. You need to study it and our culture, and history. I have a degree in this shit, and when these things happen I’m never surprised. Why? America is a *massive* multicultural empire. You can’t compare America to Germany or France. Not ever, and not for ANY topic. From crime, to economics, to education. It’s apples to oranges. Those are small, homogenous cultures. In other words, they’re easy to manage. The size of America and the extreme melting pot it is leads to a vastly different situation than most nations. The only nation you can really compare America to, are namely Brazil, and somewhat to Russia and China. When you look at it that way, it starts to make sense. I’m only scratching the tip of the iceberg here. If you want to know more, you’ll have to take the time to do real research and not just spout off main MSNBC talking points.
It is always cute to compare dissimilar population groups. Cute, insipid, disingenuous and evil.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
UK: 109.96 total crimes per 1000. US: 41.29 total crimes per 1000. There is a similar relationship with most of the rest of Europe. Instead of getting murdered, you just get your head smashed-in and your stuff taken.
Overall crime in the UK is like crime was in the US in the 1970’s. The overall US crime rate has dropped substantially since then.
The linked statistics don’t cover violent crime (rape, aggravated assault) that doesn’t result in death. Death due to violent crime is much higher in the US vs. the UK.
Step 1: Read “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin DeBecker
Step 2: Learn and study pre incident indicators and how to recognise sociopaths and psychopathic behaviors.
Step 3: Lock up anyone that acts weird. Just kidding freedom and free will are hard. Do lock up actual violent criminals and people who are a menace to society.
Step 4: Realize that you will never be able to completely stop things like this from happening but do be vigilant and use all available legal options to lessen the chances.
Step 5: Decide if having one of these events every 5 or 10 years (or each month if you live in chicago) is worth maintaining personal freedoms and liberty or if you are willing to give up those liberties for a false sense of security and actually make yourself more vulnerable to victimhood anyway….
Gift of Fear is a good book but it’s primarily about safety in interpersonal relationships.
What sort of pre- incident psychopathic behaviors were the thousands of concert-goers supposed to notice about a guy on the 32nd floor of a nearby hotel?
See step 4. It seems you have a habit of replying faster than you can read.
No, I read your post. So the hundreds shot in Vegas were not vigilant and didn’t use their legal options?
A question for you, what freedoms do we have, other than access to firearms, that people of Canada, Holland, Japan, Australia etc don’t? It’s not like the rest of the world is behind an iron curtain.
What non firearms freedoms do we have in the US that they don’t have in australia? Let me start a list of things i can think of in a couple minutes since i moved here from Australia to Iowa…
Freedom to repair the wiring in my own house.
Freedom to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle if i so choose.
Freedom to not wear a seatbelt in the back seat of a car.
Freedom to buy and use fireworks.
Freedom to purchase a car without having to get a roadworthy cerificate.
Freedom of speech. (No australia does not have freedom of speech)
I’m sure there’s more but I’m getting bored thinking of them. After moving to the USA I finally know what it feel like to be an adult.
Freedom of speech. Most, if not all of those nations you can be jailed, yes jailed, for “hate speech.”
Due process. America is the only country in the world where you are (supposed to be) presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The notion of Liberty. Most people don’t actually know what liberty is. American liberty is a very unique and special thing. What is it? It’s that if there isn’t a specific law that dictates illegality, then your actions are legal. In America there isn’t things that you are “allowed to do” and “not allowed”. There’s only things that are illegal. This is represented best when people say, “our freedoms don’t come from government, the government recognizes that they are inalienable.” This is still a very different situation than in most western civilizations today.
You won’t eliminate mass shootings without outlawing (and enforcing) a firearm ban. Of course that won’t eliminate mass murder, only what tools are used to commit those crimes (vehicles, poison, bombs, etc).
You can however significantly reduce mass shootings by eliminating gun-free zones and/or making GFZ owners responsible for customer safety. There have been a number of attempted mass shootings that people are little aware of that have been stopped early by having an armed citizen nearby.
“You won’t eliminate mass shootings without outlawing (and enforcing) a firearm ban.”
France has virtually banned firearms for private citizens. Didn’t stop mass shootings/murders by gunshot. Paris? Concert?
The argument about bans being effective always discounts the criminal/terrorist element. The number of incidents may be greatly diminished, and thus the number of casualties, but if there is one episode, “mass shootings” are not “banned” in the now common sense of the word – “a ‘ban’ means a thing cannot happen”.
Evil people exist in this world, its a fact of life. Even if you banned all guns, bombs, knives, cars, trucks, people bent on causing harm will grind a lawnmowder blade into a machete, use a chainsaw, or mix their own 100% legal percussion sensitive compounds, or just bulk up for a year and use a baseball bat.
I would rather live in a free society with slightly higher risks than locked up in a government run cage, scared of my own shadow.
If people are so worried about getting shot at, Level 3 concealable vests and plates are available.
How do we stop all automobile deaths? Stop driving. Is the loss of liberty really worth stopping all preventable deaths? I think not.
“How do we stop all automobile deaths? Stop driving.”
Not practical.
However, I”l play your game. 30,000-plus driving deaths each year. Let’s cut that down by roughly 50 percent with a national speed limit of 35 mph *strictly* enforced for all but emergency services.
Require a 35 mph speed governor on all vehicles driven on public roads, with felony penalties of mandatory prison time for defeating the device.
Transponder the vehicles with data loggers at every intersection to catch the cheaters.
The only people against that law are so selfish and self-centered that they can’t take a few extra minutes to get to where they are going safely.
Just for grins, someone needs to introduce that law to Congress and watch the debate on the floor…
Chip everyone and extreme surveillance. Put the movements and activities of 330 million people into a supercomputer. Because as you know there is hair bleach, acetone, box trucks, and knives. So we just need to track everyone. And, gun control did not stop attackers in London or Paris.
What, you say, freedom? Freedom is overrated, just ask nearly everyone else in the world. That must explain why everyone tries to come here despite the mass shootings.
What if the answer is that there is no answer compatible with liberty?
Australia is implementing Stasiland lite by using facial recognition to track people who have “committed offenses punishable by imprisonment for 3 or more years” and also to combat terrorism.
The image data is coming from the state driver’s licenses, passports, and visa applications. Note that firearms licenses are also handled by the local equivalent of the DMV.
The question is how do you separate the signal from the noise?
“Australia is implementing Stasiland lite by using facial recognition to track people who have “committed offenses….”
Yes. One cannot claim an expectation of privacy when going about in public, now can they? I’m sure that is the basis for the Aussie action. Can’t you agree that it is permissible to track someone using pictures and software, so long as they are outside their domicile? Can’t you?
Mass murder has been a human activity for all of history. The method changes, but the impulse does not.
Such mass murders, by whatever means, could actually be prevented if people minded their own business, gave up trying to control everyone else, and took personal responsibility for their own lives and actions.
Maybe some day, but not now. In the meantime, there is no way to prevent them, any more than hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or volcano eruptions can be prevented. What people CAN do is prepare to deal with a sudden catastrophe like this. Rational behavior (situational awareness for starters) and logical response to any emergency will save many lives.
Somehow, being with 20,000 or more clueless folks in condition white does not fit in there.
I agree that we cannot solve this externally, but I disagree nothing can be done. If these mass murderers took it upon themselves, they could stop themselves and seek help for their homicidal ideation. We cannot look at mass murderers as just another puzzel to be solved, and ignore their drive and free will to carry out this act.
Are you putting me on? The REASON these monsters commit murder – one or wholesale – is that they have zero self control. Sure, it would be wonderful if violent criminals took it on themselves to stop and seek help, but that’s like asking for bed bugs to self destruct. If murders had the capacity for self control like that, the world would be a very different place.
The likelyhood of most people joining in on the evil historical acts of their nation are very high. If not, the Nazis, Soviet Union, etc would not have committed such evils because most everyone would have disobeyed or left. That was not the case.
I just don’t believe in monsters. That would imply we can find and kill the monsters. I believe people get to a point where they are willing to act like monsters. That requires people looking at themselves.
That’s a serious circular argument. If there were no “monsters,” there would be no murders… unless you consider some murderers to be better than others, maybe.
The thing that has to be done is to stop excusing, glorifying and enabling the real monsters among us. Everyone is capable of doing evil, no question, and most do control it. But expecting that from sociopaths and other monsters is delusional.
MKV, there are monsters. I’ve personally seen them. Problem is they all look like us, good luck figuring out who they are. They already have the ultimate camouflage as long as they can act the part.
You can’t is the simple answer. Evil exists. The motivations may very, since the Islamist wants to kill everyone else to please Allah, and the racists want to start a race war, and the few nutballs are just vicious killers acting on some strange internal rage. If there were no guns they would simply use arson or a truck or a bus or an airplane. For them it is all about the killing.
Step 1: Read “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin DeBecker
Step 2: Learn and study pre incident indicators and how to recognise sociopaths and psychopathic behaviors.
Step 3: Lock up anyone that acts weird. Just kidding freedom and free will are hard. Do lock up actual violent criminals and people who are a menace to society.
Step 4: Realize that you will never be able to completely stop things like this from happening but do be vigilant and use all available legal options to lessen the chances.
Step 5: Decide if having one of these events every 5 or 10 years (or each month if you live in chicago) is worth maintaining personal freedoms and liberty or if you are willing to give up those liberties for a false sense of security and actually make yourself more vulnerable to victimhood anyway….
Actually a couple of things that could be done that I believe would make a difference …Change the way that the media reports on these shooters and always publish completely naked and embarassing photos of these shooters and let the family members of the victims do whatever they want to the suspects corpse and post the photos on the internet. That would either make these people think twice or have to come with a way to get rid of their own bodies or face humiliation from the grave..
I do agree that media attention paid to the perpetrators feeds into their desire for notoriety. The Virginia Tech killer in particular wanted to be famous and sent out pics of himself posing like The Punisher, and very news station obliged by plastering his ugly face evrywhere constantly.
Likewise reports of people’s panic feeds into the power fantasy these nut cases have.
You can’t stop someone(s) who are willing to trade their life for yours.
They’ll find a way eventually to achieve this no matter the preventions put in place.
And when that happens, our overlords will come up with more freedom and liberty robbing laws. After all it will be for our safety, RIGHT?
How do we stop ‘ mass’ shootings?ban Catholics
The answer is quite simple. America must do away with the entire Bill of Rights, erase the Constitution. Adopt a more N Korea/Cuban like government and society. Just look at how peaceful the populations of those nations are. They are taken care of. Incomes are much the same (except for the necessary elite class) Education is free. Medical is free. Little or no crime. People are safe and secure. Utopia has been achieved. After all Freedom and Liberty is dangerous in the hands of unwashed serfs. Now, this is sarcasm folks. However, its truly the dream of lefty progressive rats. Bernie Sanders has flapped his lips supporting much of this dream. YOU WANT THIS? Pelosi hopes so. The door to the SLIPPERY SLOPE is to soon open again.
The first thing we have to do is separate the attempt from the actual act.
I don’t think it’s possible to stop every attempt but we can take a variety of actions to stop the act or at least lessen the damage it does.
The first is, in some places like airports, we can change the way that we set up security so as not to create large numbers of people closely packed together. There’s a lot to that which I won’t get into the weeds on.
Second, armed security in one form or another is obvious. In schools that can include CCW and trained teacher’s/staff or hiring off duty cops or retired military. Clearly that’s not going to happen for airports but other options already exist.
Third, as Mr. Noir notes, stop glorifying the attackers. That’s an artifact of modern media and it needs to stop.
Forth, police response has to change. Waiting for hours to go into to Pulse nightclub simply isn’t an option.
Fifth, as much as some people don’t want to hear it, medical. How many people bled out in Orlando while waiting for the cavalry? In any situation where you’re waiting on EMS your options are self aid, buddy aid or die.
As for trying to stop the attempt: the only thing I’ve got isn’t a great option. That would be getting better at identifying these people before they strike. In both Auroran and the Giffords shooting the nutbar was a known nutbar who was suspected to be dangerous beforehand. This gets tricky though, balancing the rights of the accused nut against preventing a shooting and, other than a special track through the court system, I’d have to think on how to do that properly. Really that’s one for lawyers and doctors to sit down and hash out.
[Ident the psychos]
“Really that’s one for lawyers and doctors to sit down and hash out.”
The net will be *far* too broad. The other day you mentioned some person traits you had while young that had some folks wondering about you. And many other very bright people.
There’s no practical way that net can be constructed without destroying *many* innocent lives while many future psycho killers (run, run awayyyyyy) sail right through…
Assuming that the forbidden lore on SSRI drugs is true, I would be in favor of all firearms being removed from the home of someone under the age of 25 who starts taking the drug. Require the local PD or sheriff to have firearm storage lockers perhaps. I believe that many of these young shooters were on, or recently quit, SSRI psychotropic drugs.
Some people would choose to avoid the drug rather than lose access to their firearms, even though they need the drug. But I’d rather see that happen than severe gun control.
I assume the FBI and others know exactly what’s going on with these drugs, but we’re not allowed to have the info., or have meaningful discussions. Why doesn’t the NRA work on this, and inform people?
This does nothing to stop psycho old-guy S. Paddock, but you’re never gonna get 100%.
Go back to the Socratic method in schools, rather than Critical Theory.
Our society canonizes “rebels”- people who see a major flaw in society and act to fix it. However, when you teach people such that they believe that everything about society is flawed irreparably, there will be young people who try to be those rebels and will take violent action to try to fix them.
Note: Paddock was an outlier in so many ways (age, accomplishment/wealth, functional intelligence, etc) that I don’t think that he’s necessarily a valuable data point for the conversation, much less a valid starting point. Dude was just evil.
By being rational instead of political.
Logic tell us its not the gun. Guns have been more easily accessible in decades past, yet fewer of these sorts of incidents. Something else has changed. We should examine the other variables which may be contributing to this.
1. Culture. Is an abandonment of “traditional” values, God, country, a factor?
2. Violence in entertainment. Is there a link between the deluge of violence on the big and small screen a potential contributing factor? Not saying it is, just that a hard look at the issue is certainly warranted.
3. SSRI medications. There are correlations between these shooters and SSRI drugs, and an increase in suicidal/violent tendencies is a listed side effect. And while these drugs have brought comfort and healing to many people, are they being carelessly prescribed? Or is it simply that people prone to mass shootings are the ones most likely to be taking these meds?
4. The 24-hour news cycle, a relatively recent development, kicked into overdrive by social media. Is media’s sensationalization of these events leading to copycats?
In other words, stop using these incidents to push a useless gun control political agenda, and start looking at some of the other factors which might help us prevent future incidents.
This is what a rational media/political apparatus would do if saving lives and preventing these kinds of hours was really the goal.
Sadly, the current political/media establishment is anything but. By their own actions they demonstrate that saving lives really isn’t their concern. If it was, bump-fire stocks would only be one of a number of issues they’d be confronting and we wouldn’t be wasting hundreds of media and legislative hours on bills that their authors readily admit would not have stopped this or any mass shooting.
But anyone who suggests looking at any other factor than gun controls is instantly dismissed as an NRA stooge.
Which is completely irrational.
It’s clear, isn’t it?
Firearms haven’t substantially changed since the 1980s, certainly nothing used in this case was revolutionary in the power to create casualties, and that hasn’t changed since the early 20th century.
mass public shootings were substantially rarer before the 1980s, so what else is there?
What has changed? I can think of 2 things. The 24/7/365 news cycle, and widespread use of treating mental illness with drugs.
We can start by reading “The Insanity Offense.”
Nope…the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. We do our best. Stay locked and loaded.
“the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”
I like the statement, but you left off the most important element.
“Who can know it?”
That right there means we can never, ever remove evil from our midst. No one can ever know the mind of some who cannot know their own mind.
NOTHING forgotten Sam. The rest says GOD knows. No gun? The depraved get a knife,poison gas,bombs,set a fire or a TRUCK. Heck I could do major havoc with my lowly car. I have avoided large crowds without protection for a long time…
We Can’t and Never will. Evil is and will always be a part of the human existence. Evil exists so that Good can exist. For every Adolf Hitler there is a Mother Teresa. The most we can hope for is to be observant and deal with it before it gets out of hand. Make no mistake Evil will always rear it’s ugly head especially when people refuse to admit it’s existence and call it what it is. ISIS Al Qaeda KKK Anti Fa Socialism Liberalism Communism
In my view, police departments look at events like this as a problem in crowd control. They don’t look at it as thousands of people that need general protection. If they did, they would do the same things that would be done if a high level bureaucrat were to be there. There would have been people in and around that building. There would have been at least a couple of counter sniper teams set up. There’s a whole laundry list of things they would do differently. They did not look at that venue in the same manner that a protection detail would have.
Being more transparent and open when it comes to treating mental illness. Maybe have a father figure when they are young.
mass shooters always pick a soft targets, or gun free zones. we need to harden all of the targets and stop gun free zones. and have common sense . like and open air concert in that location was not common sense. it was a lack of thinking and also a lack of security. security officers need to be armed. people need to be armed, and get their face OUT of their smart phones. if you go somewhere where there is a large crowd, well you are now part of the target. look for ways in and out and look up. can any one strike at you from any of the sides or from over or under you? is security looking at ALL the directions, are they fully aware of all the ways someone can strike? nowadays we need to be much more aware than we used to. and management at these events have to be up on security and not do a half assed job of it because they only care about the money. in general, people are stupid and they need to smarten up.
Pretty on point when he says return fire or resistance shuts these cowards down.
‘common sense’ restrictions on the first amendment, blacking out all names of mass killers (the ‘some asshole’ initiative) and forbidding 24/7/365 news from glorifying these assholes would go a long way to discouraging mass killers who do it for the infamy.
1.Repeal the nfa brunch and any federal “no gun zone”
2.) Force buisness as part of civilrights to accept lawfull carry by private citizens white felony charges for breaking !
3.) Force the complete usa and terretorials to constitunal carry
“3.) Force the complete usa and terretorials to constitunal carry”
Interesting you used the word “force”. Nothing more, just interesting.
The political “spectrum is not a linear proposition. It is a circle. Eventually the extremes meet. I don’t want to be there.
Start with big pharma. Almost every single one of these monsters was on psychotropic drugs.
If pot smokers aren’t allowed to own guns neither should be who are dependent on mind altering substances.
“Willful retardation”. Did he just sum up the entire left?
“How do we stop mass shootings?!
How do do stop all murder…? Well, you CAN’T…! Including Government sanctioned…Might as well try and stop the sun from setting, or the moon from rising…
If someone is going to “gas-pipe” you…And they got the drop on you…Then it’s game over… If someone, or a group of someone one’s is engaged in secret predatory behavior…Then they’ll mostly likely succeed…Unless of course, it’s on the personal level and your able to rip the scales in your favor…And defend yourself, or others….I believe that’s it….
The pre incident indicators would have been known to the people close to the shooter, not to the victims of the shooting. If any of them had reported anything this may not have happened. Although he seemed to be pretty antisocial and the investigation is still ongoing just a short list of things from my memory are. Although he did own a few firearms the majority of his weapons were purchased in November (post Trump election?). He was “known” to police. At first I thought that meant that he had a record and was a prohibited person but I guess that was not the case. He made so many large money transfers out of the country that they suspected him of supporting terrorists. People who knew him describe him as bragging about his fathers crimes and saying that he has “bad blood” and is an “evil person”. His family has a history of mental illness. They have located some prostitutes that he used to frequent one of which charges upwards of $6,000.00 that all mention his violent torture and other habits that I wont get into here. His girlfriend said that she was “sent away” just before the event. Of course target practice in the desert, loading the guns into the car, renting the hotel room etc. are all pre incident and led to the outcome
There are many others that I can’t recall now, but that is the thing with pre incident indicators, taken individually they don’t necessarily point to an outcome like this but grouped together after the fact it seems obvious. I would bet that either his girlfriend, a prostitute or someone else had enough info to act but probably chose not to.
Back off on politics being the center of every news story, improve mental health treatment, stop throwing pills at any mental issue, and start making the family (father included) the center of culture again.
“Back off on politics being the center of every news story,…”
Look around. There is not thought, statement, opinion, action you can take that is not political. Those things define your politics. Even arriving at work on time is now racist, a demonstration of white privilege, disrespectful of different cultures, rude, narrow-minded, un-caring, intolerant of diversity, and (wait for it)…..hate speech.
Here’s the thing, unless we do a large scale confiscation of semiautomatic weapons we can’t stop the mass murders using them.
I think that’s untenable, and if our murderer in Vegas didn’t have a firearm, I think he would have used a rental truck or figured out how to blow up those aviation gas tanks he shot at, or figured out how to plant a bomb or carry a bomb into the crowd, heck, how about a massive truck bomb? All of these scenarios would have resulted in a significantly higher number of deaths.
Here’s the other thing, he wasn’t worth a damn as a shooter, the caliber was too small, and he relied on spray and pray. With the money he’d invested, he could have had true automatics, and he would have been more efficient in his murderous rampage. He was a half assed, not clear headed murderer. He didn’t need 23 guns and a bunch of unreliable range toys to do what he did.
Evil finds a way, leave my guns out of the debate. And if I hear one more anti or FUDD talk about hunting in relation to the 2A, I’ll have to get out my gut hook.
I think we have maybe 10-20 years of gun ownership left, sooner or later, we’ll end up with a mostly liberal congress and a USSC that’ll dismember the 2nd A. Enjoy the next few years, gentlemen, I’ll be waiting for the other shoe to drop…
The obvious problem in America as compared to other countries is both its history and its demographics and its social system.
1) The US started as a “frontier nation”. Whether you agree or disagree that it was mostly done at the expense of the Native Americans, the point remains. Guns were necessary on a frontier.
2) The US started as multiple territories competed over by several governments. This resulted in early wars which again necessitated familiarity with arms by the population.
3) When the nation was declared, it was immediately invaded and occupied. Hence…guns.
4) When it expanded westward, more fighting with Native Americans. Hence…guns.
5) Then we had waves of immigrants and slaves and conflicts over both. A Civil War ensured…hence, guns.
6) Then the discrimination directed at immigrants and blacks led to violence and both sides armed. Hence…guns.
7) We had additional wars in the 1800’s with Britain (1812) and Mexico. Hence…guns.
8) Then we had the creation of organized crime. Hence…guns.
9) In addition to this, as a result of the large land mass, prevalence of open lands and the influence of the frontier past, we had an extensive hunting culture develop. Hence…guns.
10) Subsequently we had an extensive sport shooting culture develop. Hence…guns.
11) Add to this a society with massive divisions in racial, ethnic, social status and economic terms causing psychological tensions and mental disorder across the board and you can hardly NOT have a society with elevated levels of violence.
12) Add to this the following:
50 Largest Countries in the World By Area
Rank Country Area sq.km
1 Russia 17,098,242
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 United States 9,826,675
4 China 9,596,960
And in population:
Countries and areas ranked by population in 2017 Rank
1 China[a] 1,403,500,365
2 India 1,324,171,354
3 United States 322,179,605
Now look at the populations of the white, Christian, unified demographic states in Europe often compared to the US:
2 Germany 81,459,000
4 France 66,991,000
5 United Kingdom 65,110,276
6 Italy 60,589,445
7 Spain 46,423,064
12 Belgium 11,455,474
13 Greece 11,183,716
Their TOTAL is less than the population of the US. Only adding Russia in would get close to the US population. And none of those countries have been “frontier countries” or had waves of immigrants or slavery issues or civil war since hundreds of years ago . ANY comparison between the US and Europe is apples and oranges.
Finally, we have the US Constitution which explicitly states that an armed population is both necessary and shall not be denied.
Bottom line: The US has gun violence because of a confluence of its history and its social organization which is unique among developed countries.
Only solutions that address the underlying issues has any change of altering the level of gun violence.
And given the current state of the US society, no such solutions are being suggested, addressed or applied – and very likely will not be unless a major change in government, education, and other basic issues are created.
Good luck with that.
Excuse me, my math was wrong. The total of European population does match and slightly exceed the US population.
But of course, not in any given country, so the point stands. All of the European countries are at most a fifth of the US population and their histories, albeit violent with numerous wars and invasions, have also been one of mostly totalitarian societies which restricted firearms to an extreme degree for a long history, as well as mostly not having severe ethnic and racial divisions.
Thanks for putting that together.
Australia way seems to be better and better everyday,
They still have not had a mass shooting or a rise in violent crime like you nutbars continue to think.
PM john Howard saved Australia and it’s citizens from the stranglehold of “gun rights”.
They’ve suffered no mass shootings after the 1996 port arthur tragedy when some progun loon went on a spree.
Then, if you are living in the US, or are still living in the US, our opinion of you is validated. Residence, or continued residence in the US means you do not take your own opinions seriously, at best, or you are betraying you principles for wealth and position here.
And 60 some % Aussies refused to register in the first place when the Politicians swore on the souls of their children that it would never lead to confisation.
Colion is spot on, but he missed one thing: the best way to cut down the number of mass shootings would be for Congress to utilize their Article I Section 8 authority for training and disciplining the militia by passing a new Militia Act requiring states to recognize local militias and providing funds for those militias to acquire facilities useful for storage and training — storage in part so those who want to join a militia but can’t afford a weapon may use ARs or whatever provided by the federal government (using the authority to arm the militia).
What’s truly sad is that this is spelled out in the Constitution, and neither party seems interested in making use of the Constitution’s provision for this: making sure we have an armed and trained militia.
For my part, that new Militia Act should require a minimum percentage of the people (like 15%) to be in militias and thus getting training — and in any place where that minimum doesn’t sign up voluntarily, use the Selective Service to pick people to make up the difference.
The thing is you don’t have to be enrolled in service under military Disipline, to be IN the Militia. (See Federal Militia Statute #311) The Union Congress is quite empowered by the Constitution’s Militia Clauses, to require and set up State’s training for Everyone.
The only thing the second amendment has to do with this is they can’t ask if you have or carry private arms. Even current military issue.
I think you’re tripping over the terminology. Yes, we’re naturally part of the general militia, but we have to join to be part of a specific militia (a great example is the TIllamook County, Oregon militia in World War II, which specifically organized because the county had been identified as a possible landing site for invading Japanese forces: all those farmers and loggers were already members of the general militia, by by joining that they became part of a specific militia).
My point is that Congress actually has the authority to do something about the whole situation, and it’s in a different part of the Constitution — a part everyone seems intent on ignoring (though at a town hall meeting once I got Senator Ron Wyden to see the logic). It wouldn’t have to require everyone to enroll in militias, only make it so that anyone can, and it could require a minimum number/portion, thus ensuring an excellent chance that someone present at an attempted mass shooting would have training to respond.
As for asking if you have arms, that’s an interesting argument, since prior laws have required everyone to be armed, and the only way to establish that is by inquiring. But since militias come under state authority, the feds could be excluded from knowing.
The Constitution is specific one may only be enrolled in service in times of insurection, invasion, or when “enforcing the Laws of the Union”. But nothing requires the States to have an individual member of the Militia enrolled in service under military disipline, when training them. The fact is in the modern world our children Should finish high school fully trained Militia-persons even though only with limited Ratings.
Um, no — there’s a vast difference between being enrolled in a militia and the militia being called up. The first, the Constitution is silent on.
Though yes: in a free state, high school graduates would complete basic militia training before graduation. At that point they should be allowed to enroll in a local militia.
Be the person that has the right kind of weapon to shoot back.
In this case heavy scoped rifle with rangefinder.
Comments are closed.