The fact is that guns exist. Anything short of eliminating the guns won't prevent these kinds of tragedies. Limiting access to guns sounds good, but in practice has a much greater impact on law abiding citizens than criminals. It can be argued that it actually helps criminals, because they are less likely to face resistance. As others have mentioned, cracking down on criminals who possess guns would make the greatest impact on overall gun violence. Mass shooters are another story. They care more about hurting and killing others more than they care about their own lives. No laws are going to deter someone with that mindset. It was mentioned earlier that 75% of mass shootings were done with legally purchased guns. All that means is that the perpetrators tried the legal method first. Is doesn't mean that they would have given up if they had been denied or of the laws were stricter. We are talking about people who were willing to die. Unless we are are willing to lock up people who fail background checks, they would have made little difference.
So let's talk about eliminating guns. Why do we even have guns? Why do we have the second amendment? As a deterrent to government overreach. At the time, the average citizen could possess a "military weapon." Times have changed. Technology and our civilization have advanced. Someone mentioned earlier that we have a stable democracy and we don't need to worry about our government. But consider, perhaps that is because of the second amendment? Do you think we would be where we out now if over the last 200+ years our government could have imposed it's will by force? "But the average citizen is no match for our modern military." True. But our military is made up by our citizens. And it's different to force your will on someone who cannot resist, than on someone who can- despite the strength disparity. The military can round up a town of unarmed people no problem. A town of armed people- that's going to look a lot different, even if they win, and a much tougher call to make.
Let's take the whole resist your government part out of this, and break it down to an individual level. Why do law abiding individuals want guns? They want to protect themselves and their families. As much as I support the police- they are not here to protect you. The chance of them being in the right place in time is slim. Your phone will not likely save you. We on this board are also primarily men- I think everyone who has posted so far is a man. Many gun owners are women. The average woman is at a distinct size and strength disadvantage to a man, and many rely on the force multiplier for protection.
How about more restrictions on the guns themselves? If we can't always prevent the bad guys from getting guns, can we limit the damage they can do? Unfortunately, many of the proposed limits are much more likely to affect law abiding gun owners rather than mass shooters. An illegal gun or magazine is the least of their worries. Many of the proposed restrictions are put forward by people who have little understanding of how guns work outside of movies. "You shouldn't need more than 7 shots." Because in the movie the hero can shoot the bad guy with a handgun 50 yards away with a single shot and he drops dead instantly. In the real world, a trained police officer will often empty his clip from 15 yards and miss every one. Or put three in the chest of the guy with the knife and still get stabbed. Telling Joe and Suzie home owner that they better make their shots count is not very realistic. Handguns are far outmatched by long guns. Handguns are usually little more than scary noise makers in a defensive situation, long guns are much more effective.
So what do we do? What steps can we take that would be more effective than symbolic in stopping mass shootings? My thoughts-
1) I'm okay with stricter background checks to deal with mental illness BUT- it's a real slippery slope. We need a clear definitions of mental illness that increase the risks of violence. Previous proposals would have included PTSD, meaning taking guns from a large number of veterans and law enforcement. I'm not okay with that as a wide net. I think we also need to re-evaluate how we handle crimes committed by minors and their records. I understand why some criminal records of minors should not be sealed, but I think that violent crimes should not be.
2) The frequency of these incidents has increased dramatically. I've heard reports that there is a lot of correlation between the increases in mass shootings and the use of social media. I'd be much more inclined to limit use of social media by minors than to limit gun sales to 18 year olds. I have no idea how to get that genie back in the bottle though. Maybe better education about social media and it's effects to teens would be a more realistic target.
3) I think there should be a quick reporting process on social media sites to address threats. Threats could be addressed in a similar manner as someone making a threat on an airplane. The process would need to get notification to the local authorities ASAP. Of course, this could open a whole new can of worms with fake reports, SWATting, etc.,- hopefully those much smarter than me could solve the technical and legal issues.
