Posted on 08/16/2019 9:28:57 AM PDT by Sarcasm Factory
I get that question whenever I object to more “gun control” as a response to the latest tragedy. I have long held, and continue to hold, the position that more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is not the answer to mass murder. It doesn’t work. It just leaves the law abiding helpless in the face of criminal violence.
First, let’s dispense with that “end”. I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them. “Gun control” certainly cannot. France’s strict gun control did not prevent Charlie Hebdo nor the 2015 Paris attacks. India’s draconian gun laws did not prevent Mumbai. Norway’s gun laws did not stop the spree shooter there. And so on.
“Ending” is an unachievable target. No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, who intends to harm others–particularly if the[y]’re looking at going out in a blaze of “glory” (with “infamy” serving for their purpose)–will find a way to do it. When you use it as a justification for restrictions on the law abiding there is no end to that. No restrictions will ever be enough. So it will always be an excuse for more restrictions. And if at any point anyone objects, you can do then as you do now and say “Don’t you care about the victims of gun crime?”
Sorry if you don’t like that, but the truth hurts sometimes.
So, can’t end them, not entirely, but you can improve the situation. In fact, you can improve it a lot.
“Ah, hah!” you say. “Gun control, right?”
Nope. In fact, gun control is a large part of the problem. The vast, vast majority of mass shootings of the “spree killer” type (which is what most people think of when you say “mass shooting” and is different in causes and dynamics than the “domestic murder-suicide” types and the “gang war” types, both of which require different approaches to reduce) happen in gun free zones. The El Paso shooter, in his manifesto (of which only his rant on immigration got widespread publication in the media; for some reason they didn’t bother to mention his rant on the environment and his rant on business) said:
Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.
More than 90 percent of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Numbers vary depending on source (which can vary in how they’re counted) but the figures I’ve seen range from 92 to 97 percent. Yes, even the Fort Hood massacre, on an Army base, and the Norfolk Navy Yard shooting, Navy base, were “gun free zones” for this purpose–the military forbade personnel from being armed unless they were doing so as part of their duties–Stateside that meant Military Police on duty.
These shootings tend to stop once the shooter encounters armed resistance. Indeed, as I have noted before, FBI studies covering 2000 to 2017 had 33 cases of spree killers where armed citizens were present. In 25 of them, the armed citizen totally stopped the attack. In an additional 6 the armed citizens reduced the number of casualties. That’s 94% of the time the situation is made better by armed citizens being present. And what about the claim that people “getting caught in the crossfire” would make the situation worse? Those same reports also give the number of innocents killed by the armed citizens in those incidents. It’s a surprising number, all told. That number?
Zero. (emphasis added by poster)
So, with that information in hand, here’s my approach to dealing with mass shootings:
Boom. Done. Mass shooting spree killer problem dealt with. There are no longer soft targets for them to attack and if they decide to try anyway, the odds are good that someone will be present and in a position to deal with it.
Now, some folk will say we need to do more. Well, okay, I can give you more.
Molṑn labé.
(Technical notes: I added bolding to one word as seen and enclosed one spelling correction in square brackets as seen. That's it.)
The same way I propose to end murder, rape, and robbery.
It will end when the Lord returns, and not before.
None of this is the answer.
The answer is to restore the value of life to life.
This is a spiritual problem, everything else is a pointless bandaid.
As I often say;
"The trouble with laws is they handicap law-abiding citizens." -Tom
Disarming law abiding citizens won’t make bad guys less harmless. (quote seen on the interwebs)
Suppose we banned the purchase of all semi-automatic weapons, is there a guarantee that there will be NO MORE mass shootings, or even a DECREASE in mass shootings?
I’d add, keep a$$holes locked up if they are a danger to society. Shouldn’t take a background check to ID these guys. The only ID they should have is a prison ID.
too many a$$holes running around free after they have a known track record and get let out early or on bail or with only probation for violent offenses.
[[“How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”]]
By making it illegal of course
how about trucks on crowded streets?
let’s ban trucks!
I’ll say it again:
Re-instate the second amendment in full, and fire, fine and imprison any governmental official who infringes it.
1. eliminate ALL gun laws
and regulations
2. restore firearms training and shooting sports to our high schools
3. re-open the insane asyla so that any seriously mentally ill people can get help, care
Ban guns to those doing the shootings: Democrat males between the ages of 15 and 40
Doing “something,” let’s see...the Governors of California and Colorado both suspended carrying out executions of death row inmates. California has 750+ and Colorado had one notorious killer that former Governor Hickenlooper wouldn’t carry out the will of the people.
Following Sandy Hook, former VP Biden, in a question regarding follow up and prosecution of those who lie or have issues on their ATF Form 4473 (used for retail sales and transfers) words to the effect that they didn’t have time or resources to review and prosecute. In fact, I think that I read that something like only 47 forms were taken through the legal process out of the MILLIONS of firearms transactions.
Yet, more laws (unenforced) seems to be the current popular political answer.
End mass shootings? End liberals.
That's not going to happen either. The author said there is no way to "end" these crimes. He merely discussed ways to minimize the damage.
“Disarming law abiding citizens won’t make bad guys less harmless.”
Less harmless would actually mean MORE harmFUL so disarming law abiding citizens WILL make bad guys less harmless in all likelihood. Someone needs to proofread.
So where were all the people who were concealed carrying at the El Paso Walmart?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.