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

[pdxmike]

It does seem like the most direct approach to stopping people from going nuts and killing people is to identify them and intervene beforehand, vs. going after any weapon they might use, or putting armed guards at any target they might go after.

There is a lot that can be done short of "Big Brother" approaches.  Plus when you think about it, whatever the approach, it would only be returning us to what used to be typical in most communities--people knew each other enough to know who was odd. 

The idea of using technology doesn't seem as scary when you think of it as returning us closer to what was common not too long ago.  People get freaked about loss of privacy from facebook, etc. but on the other hand, it wasn't long ago that people didn't expect to be able to have their actions go unnoticed by the people around them.  Or look at changes to things like internet dating, where technology makes it harder for people to be as anonymous as they were a few years ago.  You can view that as a loss of privacy, or instead as a return towards earlier times when people knew something about their potential dates. 

Currently, some internet sites are now quoting different prices to different online shoppers, depending where they live.  For instance, Staples will quote you a lower online price if you live close to an Office Depot, or higher if you don't.  It sounds scary, but on the other hand, the newer technology is returning online shopping closer to how things were in the past, where a physical store could charge more if it didn't have nearby competition. 

So there are a lot of things that can be done to identify oddballs who might crack, short of using technology, but using it doesn't necessarily propel us into a Big Brother-type world as much as it does return us closer to the world of a couple decades ago.

[Admin]

I don't envy the fear that makes a civilian strap on a firearm every day (or the reinforcement of that fear that its constant presence perpetuates).  

The same group who consistantly writes here that the government cannot be entrusted with any sensitive programs or decision making is willing to void that and let them determine before the fact who is a risk to society?  

Armed guards in shools?  Everywhere?

That is throwing out an awful lot of freedoms to preserve a fringe percentage of a highly highly questionable one.

[PonoBill]

Actually I'm talking about meaningful actions that might prevent more mass shootings, which coincidentally is the title of the topic. While I consider banning assault rifles to be quite palatable, no matter how they get defined, I don't consider that action to be meaningful in any way.

Does the number 300 million guns mean anything to folks? The population of the USA is 350 million.  There are 254 million vehicles of all types registered in the USA. About 135 million cars. There are more than twice the number of guns as there are cars.

[Admin]

Does the number 300 million guns mean anything to folks?

About 1.5 to 3.5 Million of which are assault weapons.  More like the number of Saabs (OK, I have no idea how many Saabs there are).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

[SUPflorida]

"I don't envy the fear that makes a civilian strap on a firearm every day (or the reinforcement of that fear that its constant presence perpetuates). "

It is not fear driven...it actually brings about calmness. As with just about anything, the more you prepare for a possible problem the less anxiety it creates. Which causes you more anxiety?... Leaving for work in the "nick of time" or leaving 15 minuets early in case you run into traffic? Preparation removes fear.

 Too bad the Boy Scouts has been turned into a "political football" as more people could benefit from their "be prepared" moto. 

"The same group who consistantly writes here that the government cannot be entrusted with any sensitive programs or decision making is willing to void that and let them determine before the fact who is a risk to society?"

Agree with you big time on that point...I know there is a real mixed bag of beliefs on here, but all this is just setting up a society that will accept the Antichrist with open arms...things are moving at a ever increasing pace...would be quite surprised if he is not already alive and positioning himself for his 7 year reign in the not to distant future. All the puzzle pieces are falling into place like in no time in history.

"Armed guards in shools?  Everywhere?

That is throwing out an awful lot of freedoms to preserve a fringe percentage of a highly highly questionable one."

Agree with you on that as well...

[pdxmike]

I don't envy the fear that makes a civilian strap on a firearm every day (or the reinforcement of that fear that its constant presence perpetuates).  

The same group who consistantly writes here that the government cannot be entrusted with any sensitive programs or decision making is willing to void that and let them determine before the fact who is a risk to society?  

Armed guards in shools?  Everywhere?

That is throwing out an awful lot of freedoms to preserve a fringe percentage of a highly highly questionable one.

I agree with all that if you take each measure (armed guards, concealed weapons, and identifying potential problem people) to an extreme, but if you do some of each, none of it is extreme, and is at least as effective as if it were.

Armed guards in schools can be a police officer assigned to the school who might stop by occasionally, and is there to build a relationship with students and become familiar with the school at least as much as for "guarding".   I equate it more to fire marshals who become familiar with high rises so they know the layout if there's a fire, and they may spot some trouble spots to monitor before anything happens.  Armed guards everywhere is stupid, and at that point you have to think that there must be better things to spend money on.  You might cure cancer for the cost of arming every school.

Allowing concealed carrying has some effect even if the permit holders never carry their guns, and couldn't shoot them if they did (not that I'm advocating that).  What matters is that people know that there may be SOMEONE armed besides uniformed police or guards.  The IRS audits only a few percent of people, yet knowing there might be an audit out there awaiting a cheater is a good deterrent.  I'm sure there are some paranoid nuts with permits, but the vast majority aren't, and I bet most don't even carry their guns much of the time. 

Most "monitoring" doesn't need to involve big government at all.  Just people deciding to be involved with people around them does a lot.  My daughter's school makes it almost impossible for a student to slip through the cracks academically or spiral down socially, because it's a small school where everyone makes an effort to know each other.  That's where you start thinking of all that could be accomplished in schools for the cost of putting armed buards fulltime in all of them--certainly there are better ways to spend the money. 

[PaddleAnything]

I completely agree that guns don’t hurt or kill anyone.  I’ve had them around my entire life and only know personally of one person that shot himself.  Guns are extremely effective at doing the job they are designed to do, kill.  Therefore, they are the instrument of choice for suicide and murder, much more effective than jumping from a roof or pills or exhaust fumes.  Now, a mass murderer could construct one of Bill’s remote controlled flying machines and attach a chemical weapon to it.  Since getting that thing up and going is a challenge for a smart guy like Bill, arming it would be even more complicated.  As far as I know, our society hasn’t programed any video games to practice such an activity as we have with guns. 

I have great respect for everyone’s opinion and with an open mind I’ve read them.  But, I’m afraid some folks are a bit out of touch with the problem and solutions suggested. 

Armed Guards- since Columbine either school resource officers (school police) are in place in most middle/high schools that I know of or city police/sheriff’s officers are on radio with the schools.  Every school that I know of has a radio in the hand of every administrator, custodian, clerk, school nurse etc.  With one channel switch, the school has a direct line to the local law enforcement agency.   Within minutes, a school can be crawling with armed police, fire or EMT personnel.  An armed guard sleeping in an elementary school would not be able to respond any faster than the SRO or police/sheriff.  In my state, the estimated cost of just the salary of a low paid armed guard in every school is 50 million dollars a year.  I’m all for increasing the number of SROs along with increasing the number of counselors, paraprofessionals and teachers all of which have been cut from the budget over the last 8 years in my state.

Deterrence- it takes a crazy irrational person to carry out a Newtown  style event.  The deterrence argument assumes you have rational players.  Even with rational operators, deterrence still does not work.  For example, armored truck drivers are regularly robbed in this country along with armed convenience store clerks.  The deterrence argument is a belief with little evidence to support that it is effective.
 
Preemptive Identification-  the slippery slope of all slippery slopes.  Assuming this could accurately identify a potential perpetrator then what?  Would they go on some kind of list such as the sex offender registry?  Would the government force them to seek medical treatment or force them to take meds daily?  Internment camps?  Okay, so you have identified the problem, now what are you prescribing we do about it?  Bill, your suggestion is a due process nightmare worse than any Guantanamo detainee.
 
My suggestion is based on the fact that in our society there is a cost associated with selling and owning guns.  Instead of a ban, require that cost to be borne by the manufactures, dealers and owners.  Insurance companies, although I personally don’t like them, are very good at determining the cost and prescribing safeguards for things they insure.  In my morning paper, 20 guns were stolen from a local dealer.  The smash and grab robber, busted the door window, reached in and unlocked the door and within 4 minutes stole the weapons on display.  If the dealer was legally responsible for any crimes committed with those stolen guns, I can promise you he would have put more safe guards in place than a locked and alarmed door.

Instead, I read yesterday that a lawyer in Ct was seeking100 million in a law suit claiming the state did not provide enough security for a reasonable threat.  In the wake of this tragedy, I predict the Newtown school board and superintendent will be named in a law suit along with anyone else with any connection to the event.   My suggestion is that the makers, dealers and owners pay the cost for all the guns in our society and not the innocent victims. 

[PonoBill]

My suggestion sucks, but it's true to the topic. It could be implemented in less nasty manner, but it's unlikely it would be. Quiet monitoring for patterns. 99.9% of the time no action need be taken. All the same, it would be an ugly thing, and would be better in private hands than the government.

Holding gun owners responsible for actions taken with their stolen guns? You don't see a "due process" problem there?

[pdxmike]

PaddleAnything--I agree that what may deter a rational person may not always deter an irrational one.  But on the other hand, these shootings continue to take place in places without guns, and there's some evidence that at least some shooters have considered that.   And the fact that armed armored trucks and convenience stores get robbed doesn't prove that deterrence doesn't work, it just proves it doesn't ALWAYS work.  Not many people would argue that you wouldn't see a big increase in armored truck robberies if they stopped arming the crews.

The thing that will be interesting is how the lawsuits affect things.  Schools, shopping malls, etc. will consider not only what is effective, but also what will help in the event of a lawsuit.   Organizations motivated by the desire to show that they were diligent in taking steps that may stave off a lawsuit may take measures (such as hiring armed guards) that they wouldn't do based purely on what they think is effective. 

I certainly would expect to see schools, malls, etc. adding lots of locks, training manuals and drills, surveillance cameras, etc.   Nobody wants another shooting, but also nobody is going to want to end up in court after a shooting looking like they didn't take reasonable cautions to prevent one.

Whoever posted the article comparing shooting prevention to fire prevention had a great point. 

[SUPerSwede]

Suggested reading, some good points made here, about media, psychiatric care and gun control laws:
Mass Shootings and the Ethic of the Open Heart
James Knoll IV, MD
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776427

[Weasels wake]

My suggestion sucks, but it's true to the topic. It could be implemented in less nasty manner, but it's unlikely it would be. Quiet monitoring for patterns. 99.9% of the time no action need be taken. All the same, it would be an ugly thing, and would be better in private hands than the government.

Holding gun owners responsible for actions taken with their stolen guns? You don't see a "due process" problem there?

That's like holding bar tenders responsible for what happens after a patron leaves, and totally fu(ks up outside somewhere.  It's been tried in many cities, but it usually has always been repealed.  Not sure if it's still the case anywhere.