Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

a reply to: Wayfarer

I think it is reasonable to have laws that stop mentally unstable people from getting guns.
There are problems with that, though.
1) what's the process for classifying someone as mentally unfit to own guns? Who decides? How can it be ensured that some individual doesn't have the power to play God over another. How can abuse of the system be mitigated.
2) does it really stop an individual getting guns to carry out a mass shooting? In LV, it was planned meticulously. Would it really have stopped this guy if he was told one day he was not allowed to have a gun?

As for the broader issue of gun crime, if that is what you meant, then the solutions (IMO) do not have anything to do with gun laws - rather fixing the environment and living conditions of millions of people who are not given the same opportunities as others.

originally posted by: [post=22736344]UKTruth
As for the broader issue of gun crime, if that is what you meant, then the solutions (IMO) do not have anything to do with gun laws - rather fixing the environment and living conditions of millions of people who are not given the same opportunities as others.

I think that's a good idea, but also feel like the majority of US politicians who support the 2nd amendment (for whatever reason) are also in favor of a laissez faire economic system that has so far concentrated wealth in the top 1% (effectively driving the problem in the opposite direction of what you've suggested)? Is it not unreasonable to think that by playing off American's passions for the 2nd amendment, they can achieve their own goals of enriching themselves and their wealthy benefactors without actually providing a response that would in some way ameliorate this issue?

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for your gracious post and apology. And I apologize for my frustration getting the better of me.
These are emotional times - for me; I'm sure for most people.

Well, I know when I need to point out my communication flaws, so no need to thank me--I've always been a terse, very direct communicator because I don't like leaving ambiguity floating about when I make points (which is why my comments on this site are generally long and detailed--I really despise leaving things up to interpretation).

You'll forgive me if I need to apologize in future discussions, too.

My opening post is as much a rhetorical as a philosophical question. It is also a challenge: Gun control? Is that really the best or only solution anyone can come up with? Or should I rather ask - is that the best the politicians can come up with? Do they really care? You and I - our friends and family - we're the ones that have to sit in a movie theater with the chance of getting shot up by a nutjob. We have to send our kids to school with the knowledge that some moody emo teenager might have a bad day and kill our children. We are to ones going to concerts, to have fun and relax and enjoy freedom but may face a storm of bullets. There were 22 000+ people that could do nothing to stop it. 60 are no more. 500 have scars. Thousands of lives were changed forever.

The problem with this question, though, is that it reaches out for emotional reactions instead of logical responses, but I'll attempt some logical thought.

I must cite human nature and the entire history of the human race and its...what to call them..."specimens with drastic flaws?" Entire populations have been wiped out and cultures destroyed by people without guns, and it's because of the nature/nurture of the individual(s). Look at Ghingis Kahn, for example: What he did with bows, swords, and eventually some siege weapons (and the soldiers that wielded them with him) lead to the deaths of (an estimated) more than 10-million people.

This page discusses 13 mass killings that did not involve firearms--airplanes, Kool-Aid, pressure cookers, machetes, dynamite, gasoline, etc...but no firearms. That link is two years old, and since then, there could be numerous additions that deal with trucks and moving vehicles in the name of terror, also.

The common occurrence between all of these instances is a deranged psychopath who will not stop until they find a means to their deranged end, which is mass destruction of human lives.

This is not something that can be legislated away--hell, even if we pinpointed the genetic marker that was the DNA culprit that causes people to do this, what would we do then? Would we cull that population at birth because they might one day do something horrendous?

For me, the long and the short of it boils down to whether we want to live in a free society or if we want to be so burdened by laws and regulations that are in the name of the "greater good"--even though said laws relate to something so statistically miniscule--that it makes the over-arching legislation negatively affect more law-abiding citizens than it positively affects the nation as a whole.

If you look at it objectively, the numbers don't lie: In a country with at least 323-Million people (and an additional estimated 11-Million illegal immigrants), the frequency of these nutbags that do these mass killings is fantastically low. Real mass shootings--not the loosely defined "four people killed or injured," but true, evil mass shootings--happen relatively rarely. But, let's say that it happens once a day on average (which it doesn't) by uniquely different people, that's still only 365 people out of about 330-Million.

That's 0.000001% of the population that will commit these horrendous acts in any given 365-day period.

So, what laws should be passed that negatively affects most law-abiding citizens' rights to purchase and own tools that they will never use with evil intent or to take a life in order to MAYBE (but probably not) stop murderous crazies from doing this stuff?

I submit that the answer is: None. There are no laws that will stop this, but they will disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens' rights.

I would direct to my Jefferson quote in my signature area if I have not already done so: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." I whole-heartedly subscribe to this way of thinking, and I will always fight for the rights protected in our constitution from nullification by our government because they exist for very, very good reasons--even if that means that I disregard the "no firearms" sign at my movie theater and still carry when I'm in there because of the teensy chance that a crazy jackass may show up (better to have it and not need it).

Are we going to do nothing until the next one and we can have this discussion again?

Or can we at the very least agree that we can't do nothing?

I would propose a different question: Are we ever going to admit and accept that doing something for the sake of doing something will not stop the flawed individuals existing in humanity from doing their best do to their worst?

Look, I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I do know bad "solutions" when I see them, and nearly every single proposition that surrounds these violent acts are terrible approaches that will do little-to-nothing to inhibit or stop future incidents.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for your gracious post and apology. And I apologize for my frustration getting the better of me.
These are emotional times - for me; I'm sure for most people.

That's 0.000001% of the population that will commit these horrendous acts in any given 365-day period.

So, what laws should be passed that negatively affects most law-abiding citizens' rights to purchase and own tools that they will never use with evil intent or to take a life in order to MAYBE (but probably not) stop murderous crazies from doing this stuff?

I submit that the answer is: None. There are no laws that will stop this, but they will disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens' rights.

So far in 2017 1311 people have been injured and 346 killed from mass shootings in America. At what number do you actually start to care?

Or will you just find any excuse not to give up your gun, something which (unless your hunting) is pointless and ineffective at protecting yourself or your family.

You have basically admitted to picking and choosing which laws you want to follow and that you would rather put others at risk by carrying a gun into a "no firearm" area than be away from your favourite toy.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well...damn. Thanks for dragging down my morning, now.

Sadly, though, this song is too true for too many. I was lucky enough to have friend in the military who deployed and came back relatively sane, even if it did change them in some ways. But, of course, they weren't fighting trench warfare or getting shot at in jungles by unseen enemies. Different times, and different experiences, but it ends up like this song for far too many, no matter the situation in which they're placed.

But seriously, I have an altered mood, now, and I blame you.

a reply to: SudoNim

Why would I give up any of my weapons when I am not going to shoot anyone without them needing to be shot due to self defense?

Are you telling me that individual rights, as protected by the constitution, is dead? If the individuals shot in "mass shootings" (a nice new phrase that is being bantered about) have issue with their rights to not be shot, that is between them and the perpetrator of that crime.

I had also heard of an interesting approach to gun control that utilizes insurance markets (not my thoughts, taken from another forum - SA poster oohboyy):

Requiring every gun owner to get insurance for every gun they own.

You can start tracking the guns and it wouldn't be the "Government" doing it. Should someone get injured the victim doesn't have to eat the medical cost or the family gets a death payout. You can hit people quickly with a fine instead of dragging every gun into the courts. The insurance companies get lots of new customers. People with many guns would have the incentive to reduce their stock as well for the sake of affordability.

Have a gun range exemption where the range has to keep track of the guns but they don't have to pay insurance on every gun stored and used by their owners as long as they don't leave the range. Hunting is covered with existing permits. NRA potential could join this approach through the "Responsible" ownership position they've backed.

The social problem is far to large to change directly as shown time and again no amount of blood changes anything. Using economics is a far better tool that doesn't step on the toes of gun culture and brings in other interested parties to help fight on your behalf. Insurance companies are pretty good with risk most of the time so finding that sweet spot would be easy.

You would still have government background checks but you use that to link every purchase and transfer so that if it doesn't match up it becomes "Uninsurable" or very expensive similar to a driver who can't stop crashing thus striped of "license". Driving up the cost of owning a gun means many may voluntarily relinquish/sell their guns instead of the Gov. taking/limiting them via de-facto tax.

It would seem wise to have the government kick in some subsidies initially to promote sign ups. Have a gun amnesty and if the person is a multiple gun owner they get a discount on their remaining guns which they need to "Register".

Insurance companies want more customers, so give it to them.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Just so I'm clear, I have seen 3 unique opinions in this thread from individuals in support of guns rights regarding the recent tragedy in LV as well as the issue as a whole:

1. Do nothing - There are no amount of deaths, no limit to mass shootings that should in any way/shape/form limit/hinder/modify the existing gun laws or infringe in any way upon the 2nd amendment. Americans must simply become desensitized to the violence so we stop viewing it as a 'bad' thing and rather just accept it as a way of life.

2. Increase the proliferation of guns / relax the restrictions on guns - by adding more guns into the mix, we increase the odds that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

3. Focus on increasing healthcare/mental health services to ameliorate some of the causal factors that drive people to commit gun violence.


Personally I find the first 2 options abhorrent, and they've been talked to death already (in this thread and countless others of the last couple of days). The third option actually has some mass appeal, if only because its a net positive in all cases. Are there individuals here that support the third option as the best yet still vote for politicians that work to remove/reduce/limit access to healthcare (mental or otherwise), or is it partly due to the nature of the political divide that the type of politicians that support the third option tend to be against the first 2, and therefore those who do in fact think option 3 is the best approach feel hamstrung in their voting choices and side with some principle therein of options 1 or 2 as being intrinsically more important?

Start with the victims of 43% of the gun deaths in the US: veterans. 43% of all gun deaths in America are due to Veterans taking their own lives.

I know it gets talked about a lot in other venues...but the answer really is to do something about the VA and the lousy, lousy "care" that they provide our vets. Agree with war or not, those people generally enlisted because they wanted to do some good. And in return they got broken and discarded.

Im not a fan of the military at all. But that is a damn shame, and an embarassment to our country. Patriotism must end at not kneeling for the anthem at a football game.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Just so I'm clear, I have seen 3 unique opinions in this thread from individuals in support of guns rights regarding the recent tragedy in LV as well as the issue as a whole:

1. Do nothing - There are no amount of deaths, no limit to mass shootings that should in any way/shape/form limit/hinder/modify the existing gun laws or infringe in any way upon the 2nd amendment. Americans must simply become desensitized to the violence so we stop viewing it as a 'bad' thing and rather just accept it as a way of life.

2. Increase the proliferation of guns / relax the restrictions on guns - by adding more guns into the mix, we increase the odds that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

3. Focus on increasing healthcare/mental health services to ameliorate some of the causal factors that drive people to commit gun violence.


Personally I find the first 2 options abhorrent, and they've been talked to death already (in this thread and countless others of the last couple of days). The third option actually has some mass appeal, if only because its a net positive in all cases. Are there individuals here that support the third option as the best yet still vote for politicians that work to remove/reduce/limit access to healthcare (mental or otherwise), or is it partly due to the nature of the political divide that the type of politicians that support the third option tend to be against the first 2, and therefore those who do in fact think option 3 is the best approach feel hamstrung in their voting choices and side with some principle therein of options 1 or 2 as being intrinsically more important?

Start with the victims of 43% of the gun deaths in the US: veterans. 43% of all gun deaths in America are due to Veterans taking their own lives.

You've brought this up a lot, and I literally can't recall a single individual on this forum or any other that would argue against increasing financial & medical support for our veterans. I think you're preaching to the choir here.

But in the case of LV the 200+ deathcount was not veteran suicide, so I think the thrust of what we're discussing here are approaches to gun control that may possibly reduce that type of gun violence/mass shootings.

a reply to: SudoNim

You completely speed-read through that quoted portion and missed my point--but you sure are quick to approach me about feelings. If you think that I don't care, feel free to suck a lemon (to quote one of my favorite "The Simpsons" episodes). Your appeal-to-emotion rhetoric won't work on thinking people.

As for the efficacy of my firearms, you don't know my training with a firearm--you're welcome to believe what you want, but just understand that it's a display of ignorance to pretend that you know anything about me, especially in that regard (or in regard to my levels of sympathy and empathy).

And here in KY, it's not necessarily against the law to carry into a "no guns" zone like a movie theater, it's only against the law if I don't go place the weapon in my car if I'm approached and asked to--and at that point, all that they can get me on is trespassing. So, yes, it's very telling that I'd prefer to have my firearm on me when I'm out with my family than to be bullied into leaving it in my car (where it's much more prone to being stolen and falling into the wrong hands) by a little sign.

My firearm is not my favorite toy (nor is it a "toy"), but the flippant way that you're dismissive of logic is frustrating--you didn't even address the point made in my comment about the illogical approach to negatively affecting millions of law-abiding citizens' right in order to (ineffectively) attempt to stop the tiny population of mass murderers. You sure did jump right to appealing to emotion, though, so there's that, I guess.

Answer this, if you're willing: If my firearm isn't going to leap out of its holster on its own and shoot people, and it isn't an inconvenience to me to have it on my person, and the state tells me that I'm legally allowed to carry it concealed, why are your panties in a bunch if it just sits there snuggly in a holster and does nothing? How does that negatively affect your daily life in any way? You wouldn't even know that I had it, and I could be standing right next to you in line.

Your arguments and questions are built on a foundation of ideologically produced sand. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, let's give it a go, otherwise, go play your silly games with someone else.

a reply to: Gaspode

OK, ill try this again now that im not on mobile.

The reason for the Bill of Rights is essentially to ensure that the tyranny that Europe brought upon its people was not brought upon Americans. It defines what is "American". Our voice is given to us by God (or we were naturally imbued with a voice, however your religious pendulum swings), and no man has a right to silence it without invoking a tyranny.

Man must be capable of self defense, not trying to fend off soldiers trying to rape their wives, or wolves eat their livestock (or, in modern times, having psycho serial ripper come in your house, or coyotes trying to eat your livestock). We were not gifted with strong bodies like the animals, but we gifted with a strong mind to make tools for defense. These are "arms", and we are naturally given the right to defend ourselves to the best of human ability. You never know in rural areas what kind of defense someone will need to put up and lord knows the sheriff isn't only minutes away.

Those rights have a reason, and are mostly based in natural law (which predates the colonies by quite a bit).

RE: suicides....until the VA is providing for adequate mental health care for our veterans, its all just window dressing. For every 100,000 people, 30 veterans are going to commit suicide (vs 14% of the civilian population, who tend to be more organically "crazy", rather than induced through external methods). 2/3 of all suicides are vets. 43% of all gun deaths are vets. And the people charged with their care are well known to be laughable in providing said care.

RE: your final point....my guns and me have not, and will not shoot someone in a movie theater. I fail to see how that is relevant. I know that Holmes was an asshole, and did just that. I didn't, and have done nothing to indicate that I would ever bring harm to someone else. I won't even kill insects in my home (they get put back outside where they came from).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Just so I'm clear, I have seen 3 unique opinions in this thread from individuals in support of guns rights regarding the recent tragedy in LV as well as the issue as a whole:

1. Do nothing - There are no amount of deaths, no limit to mass shootings that should in any way/shape/form limit/hinder/modify the existing gun laws or infringe in any way upon the 2nd amendment. Americans must simply become desensitized to the violence so we stop viewing it as a 'bad' thing and rather just accept it as a way of life.

2. Increase the proliferation of guns / relax the restrictions on guns - by adding more guns into the mix, we increase the odds that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

3. Focus on increasing healthcare/mental health services to ameliorate some of the causal factors that drive people to commit gun violence.


Personally I find the first 2 options abhorrent, and they've been talked to death already (in this thread and countless others of the last couple of days). The third option actually has some mass appeal, if only because its a net positive in all cases. Are there individuals here that support the third option as the best yet still vote for politicians that work to remove/reduce/limit access to healthcare (mental or otherwise), or is it partly due to the nature of the political divide that the type of politicians that support the third option tend to be against the first 2, and therefore those who do in fact think option 3 is the best approach feel hamstrung in their voting choices and side with some principle therein of options 1 or 2 as being intrinsically more important?

Start with the victims of 43% of the gun deaths in the US: veterans. 43% of all gun deaths in America are due to Veterans taking their own lives.

You've brought this up a lot, and I literally can't recall a single individual on this forum or any other that would argue against increasing financial & medical support for our veterans. I think you're preaching to the choir here.

But in the case of LV the 200+ deathcount was not veteran suicide, so I think the thrust of what we're discussing here are approaches to gun control that may possibly reduce that type of gun violence/mass shootings.

What I am saying is that if we want to fix gun deaths, which is a statistic that keeps being thrown around as if relevant (who cares how someone is murdered...the fact they were murdered is what matters), we do it by fixing the VA health system. If i were preaching to the choir, the VA health system would not be a national embarassment. What im preaching to are people who are distracted by meaningless things like NFL players taking a knee (we all are, afterall) and lose focus on the stuff that we really should be doing something about.

Trumps tweets < VA Health System failures. Assuming we can all agree on that, then we should demand that it happen.

As it regards a one off incident of some whacko doing whacko stuff...that kinda stuff happens. Its unfortunate, but the more populous our world becomes, the more frequent reports will be. Im not sure there is much that could be done to stop this from happening, other than some standard hotel stuff (i run hotels, and require entry into any guest room at least 1 time every 3 days so we can vacuum and change linens as an asset preservation step). But the details thus far are sketchy. So who knows.

originally posted by: Gaspode
There must be a reason to have a right. A right needs to be justified. If I told you I have a right to have access to free Internet, your first question is going to be “Why”? You can’t simply claim a right without reason.

It seems that your approach to discussing "rights" in America is flawed. The constitution doesn't create and give rights to the people, it protects natural rights from the government. The reason is because, without doing so, tyranny is only one step away--at least with our constitution, it's more steps away (but not out of reach).

My point being, there is no justification for the rights protected from government, the protection is justified. The rights exists with or without government, at least most of them (obviously you need a government to have a judicial system and whatnot).

I would however like to point out that due to the constant rise of suicide, measures have been placed to try and prevent it. Suicide hotlines, therapists, general awareness on what the signs of depression are, and so on. They may not be 100% effective, but we do know of many success stories. It is probably impossible to imagine what the statistics would have been if there were NO suicide prevention measures in place. What we do know is that the solution was not immediately “gun control” because people were able to recognise that those that want to commit suicide will do so with or without a gun.

The difference between hotlines and therapists and awareness is that this is all done without government, for the most part--or, at least, it can be. There doesn't need to be legislation passed in order to do that.

These things exists for psychopaths as well, except maybe not dedicated hotlines. Maybe this is working better than we know, but there's no way to track how many people have been "therapied" out of doing something like Vegas or Orlando, so we'll never really know.

If you were given the opportunity to save a single human life - that is 0.000000001343724805159903% of the earth’s population – by some action you take, would you do it?

I know that all of these comments were directed to the 800-pound gorilla in the room, but some of them I want to chime in on--I hope that you don't mind.

As far as this question goes, it's about weighing the effects, and if the thing that is being proposed that might save a human life negatively affects 323.1-Million other people by negating their rights, the answer should be an obvious and emphatic "No!," even as heartless as it sounds and how hard that decision might be to live with on some level.

And that's the crux of the issue: Do we make massively important decisions with our hearts, or with our minds? Sometimes the best thing to do has consequences that may end up being measured in dead bodies, and that's unfortunate, but the reality of life and being a society and living on a world with differing beliefs and cultures, there will never be a 100% safe, one-size-fits-all solution to any problem, including that of mass murderers. Like I said in my other recent post to you, you cannot legislate away that which exists in the hearts and minds of people.

I am not willing to trade or negatively affect the rights of hundreds of millions of people to save the life of one or a few. Some may say that this approach lacks sympathy or empathy, but it doesn't, it's just more heavily considered with logic. That doesn't mean that it's an easy approach to take with this issue.

a reply to: UKTruth

You are using a stupid index and you can't admit your error.

Ok. I'll play your game and do so according to the topic of the OP: Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason.

Despite the Onion article being satirical — they still managed to address the crux of the problem. Here is the answer:



Again, when weighed PER CAPITA, American has the highest rate of gun violence. How come...?

There is zero account taken for variables such as population densities, large urbanisations or poverty. Using it to compare countries and conclude on the question at hand is nonsense.

That right there is the problem in your thinking. The index is NOT comparing countries with EACH OTHER. It is taking into account many variables unique to a country. This is why France and Germany fell a few points on the index for totally different reasons the US fell a few points...

Also, America sits where it does on the Global Peace Index because of socioeconomic and population density have also been weighed. Btw, you frame it in such a way as if other G2O nations (and all countries for that matter on the index) do not have population densities, large urbanisantions (whatever the hell that means...,) and poverty. C'mon, man...

Btw, there already have been AT LEAST four new shootings since Las Vegas. Now, before you slip up and fall into a trap by saying that is not lot, I want you to contemplate if that reality exist PER CAPITA in other developed nations since the mass-shooting last Sunday.

originally posted by: Involutionist


Again, when weighed PER CAPITA, American has the highest rate of gun violence. How come...?

Because guns are legal here. And because we do not address the fact that 43% of those deaths come from a demographic representing only 7.3% of the population taking their own lives.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The problem with this question, though, is that it reaches out for emotional reactions instead of logical responses, but I'll attempt some logical thought.

The matter is - to me and to many others - an emotional one. Unfortunately, empathy and compassion is not something I can switch off. That doesn't mean that I - or others - cannot think logically or somehow lack intelligence. It just means that I/we consider the human (or rather humanity) factor into our train of thought.

Interestingly I had a similar discussion with Bigfatfurrytexan right after Sandy Hook. (I don't know if he'll recall it but correct me if I’m wrong.) But I was outraged and much like now yelled from the mountain tops that something had to be done. (Funny how things repeat themselves. Here we are right where we started.) How could we allow that a psychopath to kill kids like that and do nothing. Then Bigfatfurrytexan said something (in the line off) "Why does it matter if it was kids?". Which was quite upsetting to me. But he went to on to explain that in his philosophy all lives are equal. A 5 y.o.'s life was not more important or worth more than a 30 y.o.'s or a 65 y.o.’s life. And he was not wrong. His philosophy might be different from mine (which I probably wouldn’t be able to define as well) but that doesn’t make him right and me wrong or vice versa. His philosophy is fair and logical. And I’m reading/sensing that the two of you have pretty much the same philosophies and approach to the matter. Doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong. Nor does it mean I am wrong. We just think differently. People need to realize this before they step into the discussion.

I do want to point out – and I don’t know whether you would admit this to me or yourself – but from where I’m sitting you get emotional about the topic as well. Only difference is you get emotional about guns. You might feel like you are logical and composed about the matter, but one does not get as passionate in a discussion without there being emotion. May I ask – you don’t need to answer – but do/did you get upset about the loss of life? Do you get involved in the discussion(s) because of the fact that a madman took innocent lives or because the topic of gun control immediately surfaced? I’m not accusing you of not having sympathy or empathy. I’m saying our motives for taking part in the discussion is probably different.
We’ll never find a solution (if such a thing exists) if our goals are different. My goal is to protect innocent lives and to stop the horrors we see (Yeah, I know. Typical hippy tree-hugger stuff). Are your goals the same? Or are your goals to stand up for your own rights and freedom and through that protect your own family and loved ones? This is still a noble cause. As long as there is a meaningful goal.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I must cite human nature and the entire history of the human race -
The common occurrence between all of these instances is a deranged psychopath who will not stop until they find a means to their deranged end, which is mass destruction of human lives.

I’ve shortened the quote, because I cannot possibly refute the fact that there have always been evil men doing evil deeds with or without guns. But have we not evolved enough as a species to outgrow this? There was a time people were killed in the name of gods. We evolved enough to know it’s wrong. (Well the West has. Some Middle East folks – not so much. But I digress.) At some point we were fine with having slaves. Evolved enough to get over that as well. The list is long. Have we not come to a point where such brutally, barbaric and animalistic behaviour of slaughtering people are something of the past? (These are obviously rhetorical questions. Just something to ponder.)

This is not something that can be legislated away--hell, even if we pinpointed the genetic marker that was the DNA culprit that causes people to do this, what would we do then? Would we cull that population at birth because they might one day do something horrendous?

Perfectly good solution to the problem.

For me, the long and the short of it boils down to whether we want to live in a free society or if we want to be so burdened by laws and regulations that are in the name of the "greater good"--even though said laws relate to something so statistically miniscule--that it makes the over-arching legislation negatively affect more law-abiding citizens than it positively affects the nation as a whole.

I agree with you. Legislation is not the answer. I have just as much loathing for nonsensical laws that prevents us from living freely. I think people are restricting their own thinking. We’ve had amazing breakthroughs in technology and the medical field. Why not apply technology (science) to the problem? Why stop the brainstorming at legislation? With laws you have to put your faith – once again – in people’s hands. This might come as a surprise to some – but people cannot be trusted. Science and technology does what it is supposed to do and doesn’t have any hidden agendas.
An automatic weapon that doesn’t fire unless it has been fired upon? None-lethal bullets? Smoke screens in the event of gunfire. I know these are just silly, unpractical examples, but it’s just to make a point – that the idea of stopping future massacres depends on what laws are in place. As bad as the human race can be, it can be just as ingenious.

[Continued]

If you look at it objectively, the numbers don't lie: In a country with at least 323-Million people (and an additional estimated 11-Million illegal immigrants), the frequency of these nutbags that do these mass killings is fantastically low. Real mass shootings--not the loosely defined "four people killed or injured," but true, evil mass shootings--happen relatively rarely. But, let's say that it happens once a day on average (which it doesn't) by uniquely different people, that's still only 365 people out of about 330-Million.

That's 0.000001% of the population that will commit these horrendous acts in any given 365-day period.

It sounds a lot like you are diminishing the deaths of 59 people that died this weekend. Were they just numbers? Would it be OK if 59 or even just 5 people were senselessly killed every day? Or 1? I mean looking at the bigger picture that’s how much of a fraction of the population, so it’s basically zero? And when your wife’s number come up? Or your child’s number come up? Will it matter then? Yes, it’s the emotion card. But that doesn’t make it any less true. There were – according to the reports – 22,000 people at the event. Many, many more on the strip. I’m sure a lot of them felt/feels exactly the same as you about gun control and ownership. We know there were cops and marines and Navy seals. How many of them were able to stop the madman? The problem is, you point out, security prevented guns at the event. All guns? On the entire block? In the entire city?
Do you think these crazy psychopaths will come at you when they know you are fully armed and ready for them? No, they are pathetic, lily-livered cowards. They come when you least expect it.

There have been many – probably a majority - of times when these shootings were stopped quick enough, because someone in the vicinity was armed. Many lives have been saved by brave men that were armed. No-one can deny this and it strongly supports your point. But it is clearly not the simple answer either as we have once again seen.

So, what laws should be passed that negatively affects most law-abiding citizens' rights to purchase and own tools that they will never use with evil intent or to take a life in order to MAYBE (but probably not) stop murderous crazies from doing this stuff?

I submit that the answer is: None. There are no laws that will stop this, but they will disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens' rights.

As already mentioned above, I mostly agree.

I would propose a different question: Are we ever going to admit and accept that doing something for the sake of doing something will not stop the flawed individuals existing in humanity from doing their best do to their worst?

I see your Jefferson quote, and I raise you an Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Look, I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I do know bad "solutions" when I see them, and nearly every single proposition that surrounds these violent acts are terrible approaches that will do little-to-nothing to inhibit or stop future incidents.

I know. Nor do I. Maybe just talking about it helps to process these acts. We will have a real problem the day we stop asking these questions. The day people stop reacting to these unforgivable murders, is the day we as a species, are doomed.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

The difference between hotlines and therapists and awareness is that this is all done without government, for the most part--or, at least, it can be. There doesn't need to be legislation passed in order to do that.

These things exists for psychopaths as well, except maybe not dedicated hotlines. Maybe this is working better than we know, but there's no way to track how many people have been "therapied" out of doing something like Vegas or Orlando, so we'll never really know.

And that is basically what I said in my previous post about legislation. A solution outside something the government does or need to do.
People - you and I - doing something.
Some time ago, one person said to another: "There are too many suicides."
And the other one said: "Yeah. So. If someone wants to die let them."
Or maybe: "But what can we do? We are just ordinary people. Surely the government must be able to do something?"
And the conversation started.

I know that all of these comments were directed to the 800-pound gorilla in the room, but some of them I want to chime in on--I hope that you don't mind.

As far as this question goes, it's about weighing the effects, and if the thing that is being proposed that might save a human life negatively affects 323.1-Million other people by negating their rights, the answer should be an obvious and emphatic "No!," even as heartless as it sounds and how hard that decision might be to live with on some level.

And that's the crux of the issue: Do we make massively important decisions with our hearts, or with our minds? Sometimes the best thing to do has consequences that may end up being measured in dead bodies, and that's unfortunate, but the reality of life and being a society and living on a world with differing beliefs and cultures, there will never be a 100% safe, one-size-fits-all solution to any problem, including that of mass murderers. Like I said in my other recent post to you, you cannot legislate away that which exists in the hearts and minds of people.

I am not willing to trade or negatively affect the rights of hundreds of millions of people to save the life of one or a few. Some may say that this approach lacks sympathy or empathy, but it doesn't, it's just more heavily considered with logic. That doesn't mean that it's an easy approach to take with this issue.

I hear you. But it's a bit of a double-edged sword. A multi-edged sword?
When a president sends troops abroad to "protect our freedom", it is done with the heart. Because patriotism, the American way of life, the American flag, apple pie and white picket fences. Those are all matters of the heart, not the mind. And that weight in bodies - as our Furry Texan friend points out - is beyond measure. It is even heavier than we could possibly imagine. And the price being paid is for the freedom you and me and BFFT treasure so much.
So, do we stop sending our young men and women abroad because the price is too high, but then face the possibility of losing the freedom? (Because politicians said so?)

It is actually such a complex and sensitive topic that I'm struggling to really find an entry point. It's a bit off-topic, but it comes back to the price one pays for freedom and rights one wants. The price being paid not only in bodies, but also with lives - as we know being alive doesn't necessarily mean being alive. The ripple effect is endless.

Back to my hypothetical question. In my posts, you have probably noticed, I ask many questions. I don't expect answers for all of them nor do I necessarily not know the answer myself. It's just my way of communicating like you have yours as you pointed out. - a writing style I've learned long ago from a wonderful mentor. It gives the reader a moment to think instead of just reading what someone else wrote. A moment to be part of what is written.
The question "If you were given the opportunity to save a single human life - that is 0.000000001343724805159903% of the earth’s population – by some action you take, would you do it?" was obviously one such question.
What strikes me from the responses is that you saw this as a negative moment. The very vague scenario doesn't say what type of action, but you assumed the worse. There is obviously not a right or a wrong answer. It just illustrates that people are different and will react different to the same question.
The optimist or someone that is naive might respond "Of course!".
The pessimist might react like you did - expecting that you had to give something up, or that it would affect you negatively.
Or maybe you're not a pessimist, but a realist and saw the question in the big picture and assumed it was about gun control?

It's just an observation. It does however remind us that our thoughts/way of thinking differ too much; that we (as a nation or species) would never find ourselves in a position to find a solution to the problem of innocent deaths.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
...
The reason for the Bill of Rights is essentially to ensure that the tyranny that Europe brought upon its people was not brought upon Americans. It defines what is "American". Our voice is given to us by God (or we were naturally imbued with a voice, however your religious pendulum swings), and no man has a right to silence it without invoking a tyranny.

Man must be capable of self defense, not trying to fend off soldiers trying to rape their wives, or wolves eat their livestock (or, in modern times, having psycho serial ripper come in your house, or coyotes trying to eat your livestock). We were not gifted with strong bodies like the animals, but we gifted with a strong mind to make tools for defense. These are "arms", and we are naturally given the right to defend ourselves to the best of human ability. You never know in rural areas what kind of defense someone will need to put up and lord knows the sheriff isn't only minutes away.

Those rights have a reason, and are mostly based in natural law (which predates the colonies by quite a bit).

I acknowledge your post and the time and effort you put into the post. I saw your initial post about rights before the retraction. Thank you for taking the time. You - as usual - make good and valid points. I am however not going to respond, because as I said in my earlier post, this issue (rights, constitutions, laws) is one big, giant, sticky mess. Our views - people's views - just differ too much, be it because of definition, interpretation or considering the document(s) aged. I've been down this avenue and like so many other topics, everything that can be said, has been said, and no-one is going to change their minds about it.
I respect and appreciate your opinion and that is all I can say about that.

RE: your final point....my guns and me have not, and will not shoot someone in a movie theater. I fail to see how that is relevant. I know that Holmes was an asshole, and did just that. I didn't, and have done nothing to indicate that I would ever bring harm to someone else. I won't even kill insects in my home (they get put back outside where they came from).

I think you missed the point I tried to make. You may have forgotten who I am (?) but I know you well enough to know that you are a very kind person that wouldn't unnecessarily harm any creature - much less so a human.

The movies, churches, clubs, concerts are the places you and I go to relax. Where we are vulnerable. And these are the places these cowards hide in the backs and in the dark to strike out at innocent people.

a reply to: Gaspode

Your point about too many different various experiences to create a consensus is very accurate. Its the best reason I have ever heard to have a bottom up form of government, so that communities can control as much of their own paradise as possible, without people hundreds, or thousands, of miles away trying to get too touchy.