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

[Admin]

The title of the thread includes "meaningful action".  That does not imply that all violence or even all mass violence will be eliminated by a meaningful solution.  We are aware of the Timothy McVeigh's of the world and that other forms of weapons and potential weaponry exist.  A lot of people are looking for "better" without a requisite "perfect" to get started and are not likley to be swayed by the defeatist arguments.

The framers recognized that the Constitution would require change and gave mechanism to do so.  None of it is static. 

[stoneaxe]

Why is it that so may respond to events like this with things that do little or nothing to solve the problem. Gun control? Do you really think it will stop any of these kinds of things? While this kid was obviously disturbed from what I hear he was also pretty smart. Like Bill has already pointed out you can make very potent weapons from household items and readily available materials. A nut job intent of killing as many as possible will do whatever it takes to make it happen...no guns......some diesel and fertilizer and he turns Mom's minivan into a WMD and drives it in the front door. Guns give a greater sense of power/control and are simply the easiest route for most to take...that's why we more mass killings with guns and not more mass poisonings, bombs, etc...

What's at the root of the mass killings....we have a society that doesn't prepare kids for dissapointment nevermind failure....everyone gets a trophy, no recognition for hard work, or consequences for sloth. So when they do experience it thay aren't ready for it.  How we deal with mental health issues.....SSShhhh....don't talk about the fact that little Johnny (you know the kid...the one that burned cats alive for fun) is a little touched in the head....we have to be inclusive. Parents don't want the stigma of mental health issues associated with their family and teachers and others are not willing or able to say anything for fear of hurting feelings or being sued. We have an entertainment industry (movies, TV, and games) that schools children from the time they are old enough to use a clicker or game contoller that violence and particularly the use of guns is a great problem solver. By the time the average teenage boy reaches 20 he has killed 10's of thousands in his virtual world (that is often more real to him than day to day life and obviously always more fun). That same industry is now wringing it's hands and saying we need more gun control. Try pushing for more control over what is allowable for children to see and use and see how fast they fight that.
You might get some slight changes to gun regs, maybe some small amount of money thrown at mental health issues. The meaningful actions that mighty possibly help will be impossible to implement....nothing is going to change. Maybe you might get less mass shootings if we had hard core gun regs...but i'd bet there would be an equal increase in mass killings using other means. You could also have unintended consequences as things like this usually do. If he hadn't had access to guns and had decided to turn Mom's minivan into a bomb and then drove it into the schoolyard when school was getting out...26 might be a small number in comparison.

[Admin]

Do you really think it will stop any of these kinds of things?

Yes.

[stoneaxe]

What is so strange to me is how this issue has become a liberal vs. conservative thing. I don't understand how this became tied to ideology other than it's another issue that can be pumped up by the pundits. I know I'm wishing one thing....that all the vultures on both sides would just shut up. I felt like going nuts myself today when the radio show I was listening to was decrying the medias 24/7 coverage...while covering it 24/7.

[SUPerSwede]

Guns give a greater sense of power/control and are simply the easiest route for most to take...that's why we more mass killings with guns and not more mass poisonings, bombs, etc...

you answered it yourself, didn't you...

It's easy, gives a sense of power and control. Many of the mentally unstable probably seek that, plus the media attention it gives. I don't think a lot of them would go building bombs instead. They haven't historically. Just a few.
So far I haven't heard a good reason to refrain from removing easy accessibility. Even if it stops just one shooting like this, it's worth it. One hurt child is worth more than every hurt feeling of every weapon fan out there.
And remember, I'm an ex officer, with shooting medals, but you're not even convincing me.

Right to bear arms? Come on, what about children's right to not get shot?
The less legal weapons about, the harder to acces illegal weapons in the long run. You need to start thinking about the long run.

Remove the easy access to arms and stop writing about the perps and much is won.

[lee19]

agree with stoneaxe that it isn't just a gun problem.....watch tv for a couple of hours and see how many gun shots go off in movie trailers or idiotic tv shows.  my boys (11, 13) don't do much video gaming but I sometimes will check out something they are on and if some of those games do not desensitize you to violence then I do not know what would.  

My wife volunteers in the front office of our local middle school and has to buzz people in the front door.  As she says, not much you can do if someone wants to shoot their way in through the door.  Do we have a couple of armed "sane" people in the school?  That obviously would not solve the problem but we might be looking at significantly lower toll.  I think Israel did something similar back in the day.  
Hearing of teacher blockading doors with book cases etc....how hard is it to install some good size locks on doors?  It would seem like an easy way to buy a little time.

So this women owned a bunch of guns legally.  Is there a law that says they must be secured under l ock and key?  It sounds like the kid had some mental issues.  You would think that it would make a whole lot of sense to have stuff locked up.  Altho that never really kept me out of the locked liquor cabinet when i was 16.

While i agree that people should have the right to bear arms, I do not think the framers of the constitution necessarily hand in mind the bush master ar-whatever with extended magazines.  At the time I think people were shooting hand loaded muskets  witha 2 min reloading time.  Arms these days are a whole different ballgame.

[pdxmike]

I felt like going nuts myself today when the radio show I was listening to was decrying the medias 24/7 coverage...while covering it 24/7.

You see that all the time now.  Media coverage about media coverage.  Often, it's an excuse for regular media to publish tabloid stories.  The sleazy tabloids will do stories on scandals involving children of celebrities, or maybe some sex scandals. Then the mainstream outlets follow up with "Have Tabloids Gone Too Far in Invading Privacy of Children of Celebrities?" or "Is the Media Obsessed with Sex?" then publish all the same info and photos that were in the tabloids.  You see those types of headlines all the time on msn and yahoo.   At least the tabloids are honest about it.

[SUPerSwede]

But PB - is gun possession really that important that it isn't worth trying harder regulations? Really?

As an ex military, I can't help but feel that you're forgetting there's a reason all armies have guns. They're really effective for killing people. Many are specifically made for that purpose.

Okay guns are now out of the equasion, but you want to kill as many as you can, in as short of time as possible.
You've got a backpack full of small molotov cocktails and a bic lighter, do I have to go on with this scenario?

Just because there are other ways to kill people, does that mean we should not control one that is obviously favoured?
That's really not a very good reason, is it?

Turn it around - since there are so many guns about and they are favoured by killers, should we ease up on dynamite sale regulation?

[Admin]

Bob, that is interesting.  I remember hearing that more than with other issues that polls had gun control (and immigration) was less party line specific.  

I agree with you completely about how hard line the extremes are on this one.  It is not representative of the population.

[Bean]

Just because there are other ways to kill people, does that mean we should not control one that is obviously favoured?
That's really not a very good reason, is it?

Turn it around - since there are so many guns about and they are favoured by killers, should we ease up on dynamite sale regulation?

That's just silly S-Swede.

This is not a problem that will go away with a knee jerk reaction, law change.  As a society, we need to reevaluate how we are raising our children and pay closer attention to what they are exposed to.   We also need to find ways to provide meaningful security for our schools.

[JeanG]

[pdxmike]

Bob, that is interesting.  I remember hearing that more than with other issues that polls had gun control (and immigration) was less party line specific.  

I agree with you completely about how hard line the extremes are on this one.  It is not representative of the population.

I agree too.  I think the party line seems pretty apparent, too, but some of that may be an illusion.  If you say anything that seems skewed towards one end or another of the gun regulation arguments, many people will automatically classify you as either bleeding-heart liberal or gun-toting conservative. 

You can certainly see that on these threads, based on the responses to posts that people get.  Depending on what your comments are, some people automatically place you at one extreme or another. 

Same thing happens with political discussion in general.  It was certainly apparent on the presidential thread.

When I go to hearings testifying how I'm pro-property rights because zoning regulations impede sustainable design, it baffles people, because they can't classify me into one camp or another.

[stoneaxe]

You need to start thinking about the long run.

Remove the easy access to arms and stop writing about the perps and much is won.

Actually...the right to bear arms IS the long run....the response to some isolated incidents is the short run.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not in favor of guns being easy to get. I do think some reasonable restrictions need to be put in place. Assault guns, huge clips, yada yada...kind of silly to have military grade weaponry so easily available. Better safekeeping requirements, background checks, etc... none of that really would have mattered though....do you think the outcome would have been all that much different if he had been armed with a pump shotgun and a few semi-auto pistols?

Where does it stop? Lets say we remove all the guns and we start to see car bombs become the weapon of choice....background checks to get a car? Diesel tanks limited to 5 gals? No fertilizer unless you own a farm?

[SUPerSwede]

Just because there are other ways to kill people, does that mean we should not control one that is obviously favoured?
That's really not a very good reason, is it?

Turn it around - since there are so many guns about and they are favoured by killers, should we ease up on dynamite sale regulation?

That's just silly S-Swede.

This is not a problem that will go away with a knee jerk reaction, law change.  As a society, we need to reevaluate how we are raising our children and pay closer attention to what they are exposed to.   We also need to find ways to provide meaningful security for our schools.

Yes, I know, it is silly. But so is allowing people to own semi-automatic weapons and handguns. See my point now?
And regulating weapons does not exclude any other action.
One thing is weapons you need (how many are those?) and another is weapons you want. Satisfying the latter seems to not be working so well for you.

In the last decades, your country has gone from Land of the free to a nation ruled by fear. Taking away from the public is regarded as a major limitation of liberty when I reckon that the real limitation is the fear being imposed on the nation, little by little, day by day. And way more rapidly since 9/11. I see it more for every time I visit the states and it saddens me. I used to be welcomed with a smile and these days I' fingerprinted while an officer watches over me with his habd on the hilt of his gun.
I really hope you can turn it around, but I'm fairly sure that you can't turn the trend with the help of guns.

[SUPerSwede]

do you think the outcome would have been all that much different if he had been armed with a pump shotgun and a few semi-auto pistols?

Maybe not. But you're missing the point. What valid reason is there for any civilian to own any of those weapons?
I know some of you want to, but one of the things about being part of a society is sacrifying some personal wants for the good of the community. Therevare a lot of opinions on personal protection weapons but I have yet to see an unbiased study that shows the good of those weapons.