Ways to prevent mass shootings?

[Doktor Avalanche]

 I believe civilization should move more and more towards a point where the monopoly on violence is in the hands of the government.

Scariest line I have ever read on a forum in this game.

[Solomon]

Scariest line I have ever read on a forum in this game.

You misinterpreted what he said. There is a strong positive correlation between the level of violence the people of a country will tolerate and the level of violence a government believes it can get away with. Less violent societies demand that their governments justify government-supported violence more than violent societies do and vice versa.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You misinterpreted what he said. There is a strong positive correlation between the level of violence the people of a country will tolerate and the level of violence a government believes it can get away with. Less violent societies demand that their governments justify government-supported violence more than violent societies do and vice versa.

"Justified government-supported violence" from a government? Are you referring to the death penalty? Not to sound like another, but please explain further. I would like to know exactly what you are meaning so I do not misinterpret your meaning.

 

I know of no positive correlation that gives any government violence any acceptance except a death penalty, of which I do not subscribe to either. Also, I hope I am not misinterpreting your meaning of this either. LOL

[Rozalia]

America doesn't need weapons or millitary at all

You have JOHN CENA and CHUCK NORRIS

 

[Peace and War]

Perhaps he meant war?

[Quasar]

"Justified government-supported violence" from a government? Are you referring to the death penalty? Not to sound like another, but please explain further. I would like to know exactly what you are meaning so I do not misinterpret your meaning.

 

I know of no positive correlation that gives any government violence any acceptance except a death penalty, of which I do not subscribe to either. Also, I hope I am not misinterpreting your meaning of this either. LOL

I assume what he means if I am interpreting this correctly, is police officers or military using their guns to kill criminals or enemies.

I don't really agree with this though, I could create a whole new debate thread about the prison system in America or how the police should use non lethal weapons when deterring a criminal (except in the cases where the criminal has his own weapon)

In most of the UK police officers don't carry guns except in special circumstances, mostly because of public outrage.

If the people couldn't have guns then they didn't want their officers carrying guns.

 

In America I honestly don't think we would ever see this in our lifetime, guns are too ingrained in our culture, a revolt would indeed happen.

I still don't think if we somehow got rid of all guns in america that this would solve the problem.

It would definitely slow the frequency of mass shootings or school shootings in America but I don't think it would get rid of them completely.

[Solomon]

...

I still don't think if we somehow got rid of all guns in america that this would solve the problem.

It would definitely slow the frequency of mass shootings or school shootings in America but I don't think it would get rid of them completely.

If "solving the problem" means removing it completely, I agree that we're on a hiding to nothing. The USA is not the only developed country to have mass shootings, but does have a lot more than the rest. Most people accept that even small improvements are better than nothing, and some go further and look around to see the greater improvements that are possible.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

In most of the UK police officers don't carry guns except in special circumstances, mostly because of public outrage.

If the people couldn't have guns then they didn't want their officers carrying guns.

Police in the UK have always been a bit unusual in that they police by public consent, as explained here. Our police, for the most part, don't carry guns because they are not the army which is the main reasoning behind the design of the traditional bobbies uniform, definitely not militaristic. We are proud of the fact that the majority of police in this country will never need a firearm, they are resourceful when confronted with violent situations. If someone is shot by the police in the UK there is often major questions asked and most officers will use either the baton, or if they have a taser the taser. In this video the criminal is outside Buckingham Palace and yet no guns are used, even though several armed policemen are present, as are the army! Would that man have lived to tell the tale in America?

[Quasar]

 

Would that man have lived to tell the tale in America?

Well he probably would have made it all the way into the white house

if that was his intention

Edited October 8, 2015 by Quasar

[Peace and War]

Police in the UK have always been a bit unusual in that they police by public consent, as explained here. Our police, for the most part, don't carry guns because they are not the army which is the main reasoning behind the design of the traditional bobbies uniform, definitely not militaristic. We are proud of the fact that the majority of police in this country will never need a firearm, they are resourceful when confronted with violent situations. If someone is shot by the police in the UK there is often major questions asked and most officers will use either the baton, or if they have a taser the taser. In this video the criminal is outside Buckingham Palace and yet no guns are used, even though several armed policemen are present, as are the army! Would that man have lived to tell the tale in America?

As an American, I honestly feel as though the man swinging a large blade at the police should have just been shot. It should be a last resort, but if someone is actually trying to harm the police, they have to be dealt with. It would have been easier too. Did you see how many police where there at the end??? Just kill that guy and get on with the day.

[Quasar]

As an American, I honestly feel as though the man swinging a large blade at the police should have just been shot. It should be a last resort, but if someone is actually trying to harm the police, they have to be dealt with. It would have been easier too. Did you see how many police where there at the end??? Just kill that guy and get on with the day.

I kinda thought the same thing.

My thoughts were "That takes a lot of police for that one guy."

I think it is the way we are cultured though, even if it would have been easier or quicker to kill him, human life is precious and instead of killing a man they saved his life.

In America we would probably think "He deserved to die, he was trying to harm them," but I think being able to prevent any type of death is better than killing someone.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Quasar

[Peace and War]

It does kind of happen anyway since they either end up in jail or a mental hospital. That's not really a way to live either.

[Quasar]

It does kind of happen anyway since they either end up in jail or a mental hospital. That's not really a way to live either.

Well depending on the crime, some would say that locking someone up for life is a harsher punishment than death.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Quasar

[Moon Man]

Well depending on the crime, some would say that locking someone up for life is a harsher punishment than death.

why dont we just use those who would be given life in prison for science?

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I kinda thought the same thing.

My thoughts were "That takes a lot of police for that one guy."

I think it is the way we are cultured though, even if it would have been easier or quicker to kill him, human life is precious and instead of killing a man they saved his life.

In America we would probably think "He deserved to die, he was trying to harm them," but I think being able to prevent any type of death is better than killing someone.

For me that last sentence sums up the problem. If the police had shot that man they would probably have ended up in court for using unreasonable force and a sentence of unlawful killing would have been passed. Any time that someone is shot by the police is a news story in the UK, as is any form of shooting due to them being so rare.

[Hiroshima]

Why do you want to stop gun violence? America is a violent country because we are a boiling pot of every race, religion and culture all competing to usurp each other. Any country that has large numbers of immigrants has higher poverty levels and higher violent crime rates. We had 48 mass shootings 1990-2000, yet we had 28 mass shootings 2000-2010 or half as many. The "assault" rifle ban had very little impact on shootings.

 

You know how many mass shootings we had in the 1950's? 1. I think that's proof enough that it's the culture, not guns, to blame.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Mass shooting incidents in 11 countries, covering the period from 2000 to 2014. Aside from the United States, the countries studied are Australia, Canada, China, England, Finland, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland. This data does show the United States does have more mass shootings. However, other than China the population is much larger and denser. Also to note, China has extreme weapons bans with punishments that are ridiculously harsh yet there are still mass shootings.

 

*Edit- I do agree with this information it shows the United States does have the larger amount of mass shootings overall. This also shows the United States is not alone in this. Even in places where Mass shootings have occurred there were strict gun laws and bans in place yet they still happened. Maybe we focus on the gun more than we should and maybe we need to look at other factors instead.

Edited October 9, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Doktor Avalanche]

why dont we just use those who would be given life in prison for science?

Because regardless of their crime committed, that is beyond cruel and inhumane.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Even in places where Mass shootings have occurred there were strict gun laws and bans in place yet they still happened. Maybe we focus on the gun more than we should and maybe we need to look at other factors instead.

 

Is the first sentence I have quoted meant to be ironic? Apart from the US there is no country shown that has double figure mass shootings, yet the US has triple figure shootings. Surely the severity in numbers of shootings says that there is a major problem in the US?

 

Your second sentence has a lot to commend it and I touched on the subject of societal factors in my first post in this thread, the first paragraph being primarily pertinent.

 

[Arthur Wellington]

To me as a European the comments from Americans on the sword guy seem typical and awful. This might seem condesending but I think that not anyone deserves t die, no matter the crime, eventough at many times my emotions tell me someone deserves to die I, ad no-one, can make that assesment. Also the suggestion to use prisoners for science is not only sadastic my very disturbing.. 

My previous comment about violance being the hands of the government also shows a big difference between the New and Old world. I think that our governments should act as our protectors because any one individual cannot be trusted to decide when to use or not use force. The government is a representation of society and a should be corrected if they make mistakes, thats called elections. 

Each different institution, like the police or army, should have an oversight comitee checked by the goverment. This system has been proven to work. America seems to be stuck on the right to bare arms over the basic right to not be harmed.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Is the first sentence I have quoted meant to be ironic? Apart from the US there is no country shown that has double figure mass shootings, yet the US has triple figure shootings. Surely the severity in numbers of shootings says that there is a major problem in the US?

 

Your second sentence has a lot to commend it and I touched on the subject of societal factors in my first post in this thread, the first paragraph being primarily pertinent.

 

No irony. And if you dig deeper you will find that the cities in which the majority of US mass shootings between 2000 and 12014 are in the strictest gun law zones in the country. Taking guns out of the public hands will do nothing,if not, increase the amount of mass shootings.

 

I highly doubt Mexico's stats. Also it would be interesting to see the stats from Honduras and Brazil.

I do believe Mass Shootings by definition are shootings that are done towards citizens in an area common to the public like street malls, theatres, public events, etc. and this would not include the drug smuggling and assassinations of police, drug lords and War on Drug operations.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

So why is it that the US has much hundreds of shooting than nations with much stricter laws? The UK is a divided country and has many poor people who are struggling whilst the government puts them down, but we don't have the issues you do, even London is cuddly compared to the US. It is an indictment on your country, the rest of the developed world shakes it's head in disbelief. What I don't get is the lack of will to do anything about the issues.

[stetonic]

The F.B.I count a mass shooting as 

 

When 4 or more people are shot in a single event without a cooling off period 

 

So how many group shootings/killings happen but don't make the list

 

 

According to the mass shooting tracker there has been 298 mass shootings in the U.S.A this year.

Edited October 9, 2015 by stetonic

[Karrde]

Ban the bloody guns, all problems go away. Except tory government.. Now, where are those guns...

[Greatnate]

The F.B.I count a mass shooting as 

 

When 4 or more people are shot in a single event without a cooling off period 

 

So how many group shootings/killings happen but don't make the list

 

 

According to the mass shooting tracker there has been 298 mass shootings in the U.S.A this year.

 

Double and triple homicides are tracked differently from mass killings as they tend have more in common with single homicides than public mass murders. In general, ~95% of firearm homicides are single victim, ~4% are double victim, 0.6% are triple victim, and only 0.2% have four or more victims. Mass killings are then sorted into 3 main types: public, familicide, and other felony. Roughly 40% of mass killings are familicide, 40% are other felony, and 20% are public mass killings. Familicide and other felony incidents average just about 4 deaths per incident and have very low wounding rates. Public mass killings average 6.8 killed and 5 wounded per incident. (source)

 

Only 32 of those 298 "mass shootings" meet the definition of mass killing, those incidents averaging 5 deaths per incident. This suggests that the bulk of them (as normal) are not public mass killings.

 

The homicide rate is still falling, we are objectively safer than ever before. I don't know why such a huge circus has to raised about gun control every time these rare edge cases occur. You are 2,500x more likely to be the victim of a single victim homicide than be involved in a mass shooting and 3,750x more likely to die in a car crash.