It's Essentially Impossible to Predict Which People Who Own Firearms

[MineralMan]

will use them in a mass shooting. That can't be done. Such shootings are aberrant behavior, not typical. There are few things that mass shooters have in common, really. Except that they all have access to firearms and ammunition.

This is why the solution is not to try to keep firearms out of the hands of people who will become mass shooters. We cannot identify who those people are with any degree of accuracy at all.

No doubt the person who shot up a softball practice and the person who shot up a UPS facility today appeared to be more or less normal people in their daily lives. The factors that caused them to take their arms and ammo somewhere and shoot up the place are rarely, rarely obvious.

The problem is not figuring out who should not own firearms that are easy to use in a mass shooting. The problem is figuring out how to have fewer of those firearms available in general.

That is the thing we must achieve. It is also something that is going to be almost impossible to achieve. There are already far too many such firearms out there. They will not go away. They have very long lifetimes.

I do not have a workable answer, but I know that we need to find one. In troubled times, as we are experiencing right now, we will see more and more mass shootings by people who have reached the limits of their ability to control their impulses. We won't know who they are until they act. All too often, they end their action by shooting themselves. How can you protect against that?

Too many firearms are readily available that are suitable for mass public shootings. That is the problem that needs a solution.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. San Francisco also

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141799456

Guns gotta go, that is the only logical answer. But, never happen of course.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. The UPS shooting is symptomatic of an increasing

tendency to shoot up the place by some. It's more than a little alarming, really. We have had such mass shootings on almost a daily basis recently.

[unblock]

3. frustrating, i know. in a certain sense, gun control is closing the door after the horses have left

i'm continue to support strong (but reasonable) gun control measures, as it would deter *some* of these mass killings.

but yeah, the reality is that we now have more guns than people in this country and someone determined enough to go out in a violent flame like that is quite likely to be able to find a way to get the necessary arsenal, legally or otherwise, if they don't already have such an arsenal at the ready.

one thing i would think everyone should be supportive of is stronger penalties for improper *use* of guns. stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns, for instance. we also need to make and enforce better laws to deal with negligence involving lethal weapons.

"accidents" aren't entirely accidental; they're often a result of irresponsible use. truly responsible gun owners take considerable extra precautions to reduce the likelihood of accidents.

we keep hearing stories of gun "accidents" that almost always involve a weapon in the hands of someone not properly trained, or loaded when it shouldn't be loaded, etc.

like that kid who got a gun as a present and accidentally shot and killed his girlfriend while they were hanging in the house. seriously, why was it loaded while they were just hanging on the sofa?


gun supporters are always going on about responsible gun owners, fine! let's have some solid laws that ensure that all gun owners really are "responsible".

[Amishman]

5. I agree, our focus needs to narrow to the items most likely to actually save lives

Background checks, safe storage, and safety training will save many more lives than assault weapon and magazine bans.

Our platform should be that you can own whatever gun you want as long as you are safe with it.

Failure to report a weapon as stolen within a day or so of discovery should make their former owner civilly liable for anything done with that gun. Same for failing to store properly.

Make safes tax deductible to encourage people to lock up their shit.

An added bonus is these suggestions are more politically feasible than bans.

Would it have prevented today's headline? I don't know. But it probably would prevent a bunch of shootings today that don't make the front page.

[Igel]

4. So there are two ways.

One, prohibit their sale and make owning them difficult. Sort of like taxing something to make it too expensive or prohibiting it overall will reduce the incidence of it. This works not so well.

Two, make them unnecessary. If people feel generally safe, un-imposed upon. If they don't have this "I don't trust government" view because they think government isn't going to impose on them and shove unwanted policies or standards down their throats; if they aren't afraid of the people down the street or of random violence; if the only reason they have guns is precisely for uses like sport shooting, at silhouettes or live animals; then they'll drop out of circulation.

However, as long as there's this view that having a gun makes you an important person--and I don't care if it's because you're a white redneck or a black hip-hop follower--both have been caught showing off their guns on my campus in the last few years--we'll continue to have people buying them and brandishing them for "respect."

And as long as family/friends don't report when family/friends are showing suspicious behavior and possibly criminal behavior, and criminals find it easy to get guns, some non-criminals are going to think they need guns for self-defense even if it's not a reasonable threat assessment. Telling people they're stupid and they should listen to their betters may show who has power for the meanwhile and who's important, but it's not how you function in a liberal democracy.