What "meaningful action" would suggest to prevent more mass shooting in the US?

[PonoBill]

First of all, I don't recall seeing many posts saying "don't take my assault weapons away from me".

The title of the thread is What "meaningful action" would (you--sic) suggest to prevent more mass shooting in the US?. Even with a gun confiscation effort as tight as was done in England, there would be 150 million illegal guns in circulation. So explain to me Tom how even a "dream" action, that would never gain enough political power to be undertaken, would keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

[Admin]

Most people fall somewhere in the middle on this and it is not unlikely that this last group of events will be enough to change things to reflect that.

Most Americans would not support a ban on the sale of handguns but would suppport a ban on high capacity clips (10 bullets) and even a ban on handguns that auto-reload every time the trigger is pulled.

It is the extremes (no guns whatsoever vs. no restrictions whatsoever) that have kept sensible advancement from occuring.

[Bean]

This is such a polarizing issue, not just because so many Americans love guns, but also because our very liberty hangs in the balance.  You do not have to be a gun collector to realize that eroding the 2nd Amendment is a prelude for further restrictions on our liberties. 

[SUPerSwede]

This is such a polarizing issue, not just because so many Americans love guns, but also because our very liberty hangs in the balance.  You do not have to be a gun collector to realize that eroding the 2nd Amendment is a prelude for further restrictions on our liberties. 

Is liberty really about owning a semi-automatic weapon or a handgun?
Or is the true restriction of liberty not feeling safe enough to let you kids out to play, or sending them off to school without wondering if they're safe there?

[NoSaltSuper]

What action would I take?

Eliminate "gun free zones", train, equip and arm people to defend. As has been said, it's an impossible task to get rid of guns, of any kind, in the U.S.. There are just too many of them and they're not tracked.

We can't prevent the crazies from doing crazy stuff, but we can and should reduce the number of soft targets out there, like schools and theaters.

Smaller clips won't help either. Take one smaller clip, tape it upside down to another clip and voila, you now have two clips that take 3 seconds or less to swap.

Criminals (typically) target soft targets, unguarded, unarmed, such as schools.

Yes, it's a sad state of affairs to consider arming schools, but IMO, it's a better choice than hoping an evil person doesn't come to visit.

We should also look at other sensible actions: requiring a specific need to acquire bullet proof vests (mililtary; cops etc..); VERY strict controls on armor piercing rounds; background checks at gun shows; required training to own a weapon and so forth.

These are all good things but they aren't good defense. It's time to look at all possible, reasonable and doable actions. Eliminating guns, just isn't one of them.

[Admin]

This is such a polarizing issue, not just because so many Americans love guns

1/3 of US adults own guns.

[tstansbury]

Mexico has very strict gun laws.  The problem we have is with mentally unstable young men. 

[SUPerSwede]

From the constitution poll of 2011:

"Support Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban

Despite the ideological differences that exist in the US, a majority agree that the federal government should ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons. Nearly two thirds (62%) agree that the federal government should ban the sale of these types of guns. There is even general agreement among political rivals...

73% of Democrats, 61% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans agree that semi-automatic weapons should be banned.
Though 46% of Republicans believe they should not be banned to protect the rights of gun owners."
Source: http://www.srbi.com/Constitution_Poll.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/20/james-holmes-ar-15-semi-automatic
Read this, then tell me again how you "need" these legal weapons.
A quick search for AR-15showed me 3 ways of converting a semi- to a fully automatic weapon. I didn't even search for conversion or fully automatic.

No civilian needs an AR-15
Unless you ask HendersonDefense who posted this pic on a weapons forum when pushing the weapons:

[Tom]

NoSalt, Having more guns will never resolve the problem of the mass killings by guns we are experiencing.

re-criminals target soft targets--- the mass killings are not from 'criminals', they're from crazies.

re-arming schools- It's hard enough to get good teacher today, now you want them all to be armed and ready to kill.

re-background checks, requiring training- Adam Lanza would have passed any background test and had plenty of training. In fact, he'd probably be a good candidate as an armed school guard.

Which sign- I would never enter a place that had a heavily armed staff.

[NoSaltSuper]

Mexico has very strict gun laws.  The problem we have is with mentally unstable young men. 

Well, that's just one of the problems. Females have done some damage over the years too.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/female_mass_murderer/1.html

One of the women in the article above, used a car, plowed down pedestrians in Vegas, dozens seriously injured, 7 killed.

This is such an incredible complicated issue. Mental illness. When is someone truly considered a danger to society? Who makes that decision? Medications help, but you can't force folks to take them. Some anti-depressants have been shown to cause aggression.

Blame it on videos? Maybe, but the biggest school massacre happened years before videos existed, it was a bombing. "On May 18, 1927, 55-year-old farmer and school board member Andrew Kehoe dynamited the new consolidated school in Bath, Michigan. When the dust settled, 45 people—mostly children—were dead, "

There just is no easy answer.

[NoSaltSuper]

NoSalt, Having more guns will never resolve the problem of the mass killings by guns we are experiencing.

re-criminals target soft targets--- the mass killings are not from 'criminals', they're from crazies.

re-arming schools- It's hard enough to get good teacher today, now you want them all to be armed and ready to kill.

re-background checks, requiring training- Adam Lanza would have passed any background test and had plenty of training. In fact, he'd probably be a good candidate as an armed school guard.

Which sign- I would never enter a place that had a heavily armed staff.

I didn't say it would resolve it, but might reduce these things. My point stands, these "crazies" targeted soft targets because, in part, they know they victims are unarmed.

"...never enter a place that had a heavily armed staff".
Hah, now that's funny. Ever been to the airport, a police station, a political event? Plenty of VERY heavily armed folks there, for your protection.

"..now you want them all to be armed and ready to kill."
Quit exaggerating please. I never said "all" teachers should be armed, your hyperbole doesn't help the debate. In probably every school, there are former or current military, or police. You don't necessarily have to arm any of them, but give them access to arms, in a secure gun safe perhaps. Then ADVERTISE that the school, as the sign says, is armed.

You're also wrong about Lanza and a background check. He tried to get a weapon a week or so before this, but was DENIED. That part of the current system worked.

So what is your reasonable and feasible solution?

[Admin]

So what is your reasonable and feasible solution?

Hold people personally accountable for violence done with their guns, stolen or otherwise.  The right is to bear arms.  It is a responsibility as well. 

No assault weapons. 

[The_Dude]

We all have to remember that every country has a shelf life. Most are born and die in war. Some with violent coups, some not so violent, some internally rot. There is the potential for any government to go too far. That is the seed of the 2nd amendment. While I don't think the U.S. is anywhere near that...if I did I'd be buying guns and bullets.....who knows. It doesn't always happen in a way that anyone could predict....sometimes a single incident lights a fire. You also have to admit that individual rights, part of the core of our existence, are being impinged on to say the least.

Above is a quote from stoneaxe and I agree 100%. Also agree with everything supthecreek has said.

If history has taught us anything it's that EVERY government or form of societal order will eventually be eclipsed by something else.....usually by violent means. When this happens (and it WILL someday happen) I personally find comfort in the fact that the general populance is armed with assualt weapons. If the public wasn't armed, then the likelihood of a government emerging that caters to the elite at the expense of the masses is much higher.

[Bean]

Is liberty really about owning a semi-automatic weapon or a handgun?
Or is the true restriction of liberty not feeling safe enough to let you kids out to play, or sending them off to school without wondering if they're safe there?

It is intellectually dishonest to infer that these two choices are mutually exclusive. 

[SUPerSwede]

Dishonest? You mean that the first will provide the second?
That has played out well so far...