We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:
1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.
2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck and kills 8 people and injures 11 others.
3. Sutherland Springs, Texas - Nov. 5 - a man, using various guns, walks into a church and kills at least 26 people.
What are some possible solutions that might help prevent such tragedies in the future? According to our government, here are their answers:
2. Extreme vetting (the murderer was from another country)
Do you agree with the government's solution? What are your ideas?
Ban all guns , ban religion , ban hatred, ban churches ...........?
There are simply just some things in life that nothing can be done about , Mental illness , violent tendencies in humanity , religious oriented violence , secular or non-secular violence . The very reason you ask this question in fact is because you feel helpless in the face of your conscience .
What we can do is focus on a ladder of importance , Is mass killings the highest rate of unnatural death ? Is the media focused on "If it bleeds it reads " too much [yes ] . on the scale of unnatural deaths in America , Falling is about number one . Did you know that ? Heart ailments is a close second , of course above all is abortions .
Put it all in perspective , I know ! That's pretty boring however It IS the truth .
The shooter in Texas had a criminal record of violence in the military during the Obama-era, and the Air Force bureaucracy failed to enter that vital information into the data base. Had that been done, the shooter would never have passed the FBI background check and would not have been able to purchases guns.
Thankfully, a plumber with no military background was armed and a super great shot, otherwise there would have been more people murdered.
Churches need to harden the perimeters for security. There have been too many church shooting and deaths of innocent people.
Lots of mentally ill people in this country, in the world.
Love how you threw in "Obama-era" as if that means anything. We can thank the orange POS for lifting the ban that prevented the mentally ill from purchasing firearms back in Feb and Republicans for letting the assault weapon ban expire in '04.
What assault weapon ban? To my knowledge there has never been an "assault weapon" ban that cleared the courts (using current definition of "assault weapon" of anything black and scary looking).
I used Obama-ear, as a time frame. Now we are in a new era, the Trump-ear.
There are mentally ill people who wouldn't harm a fly, but they should be able to protect themselves in their own homes.
Automatic and semi-auto. are not assault weapons.
The TX shooter had a violent criminal record and obviously had a violent mental illness. It is the Air Force's fault that the nut-job was able to legally purchase weapons because of someone's incompetency. That is where I placed the blame.
So you are saying that gun control laws are effective at keeping crazy people from purchasing guns and that this mass murder wouldn't have happened if this man had simply been in the database?
No I am saying the shooter would not have been able to purchase weapons legally. But, he did. That doesn't mean he could not have gotten guns illegally.
So what difference do gun laws make? Seems like we don't need any. Why blame the Air Force for anything? Furthermore, seems like the solution is to arm as many people as possible so innocent people can fire back when attacked.
The Air Force didn't report a dishonorably discharged violent creep to the FBI. How would more government regulations solve gun crime?
Where did I say that we need more regulation? I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, but you're asking me questions about something I never said.
You stated that the murderer purchased guns legally, but should have been reported and it's therefore the Air Force's fault while also saying that he could have just purchased guns illegally. So what difference did it make whether the Air Force reported him or not. Laws or no laws, it doesn't seem to matter how or where he got his guns, he would have gotten them anyway.
So isn't the solution trying to make sure more innocent people have guns so they can defend themselves?
Why not offer up a solution instead of engaging in all this hyperbole?
I'm also asking if you think there are any solutions to the three mass killings I cited? Do you?
Colorfulone, I'm sorry to report that there is an error in your facts. The shooter did not have a dishonorable discharge, he had a bad conduct discharge for domestic violence. Seems that violence upon one's family doesn't rate "dishonorable" by the military, it's just bad conduct.
http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-ch … ce-2017-11
He was banned from buying a gun in Texas, but not in other states.
"...seems like the solution is to arm as many people as possible so innocent people can fire back when attacked."
Crankalicious, I've just retired from a state government job that put this very kind of laws on the books. I also know that many red states are doing that very thing. Seems like the solution here is to elect more officials who are against this very trend.
That's quite a leap, isn't it, from failure to record history to preventing him from purchasing guns? There IS a black market in the country, and nearly all the guns used in murders are not purchased legally.
Wilderness, at this point in time, I don't think it is illegal to purchase a gun from your neighbor or your uncle who purchased it legally, nor to own a gun that you acquired when your late father passed away. That is a far cry from buying a stolen gun on the street, but it can be just as deadly. What should be the solution to that? Should all guns be turned in to the government when the original legal owner dies or no longer wants the gun?
I've seen government "gun buy-backs" in which droves of people turn in guns in return for a check of about $200, but that's voluntary. Do you think it should be mandatory?
I was hoping this wouldn't get off on a political slant in the sense that we're going to assign blame to one political party, so I'll try to get this back on track (and likely fail).
I was hoping for solutions. You can be for gun control or for arming every citizen as a solution.
My point was that a solution was proposed for one of these mass murders - extreme vetting. However, the same solution was not proposed for the others.
What's the difference?
One difference I'd like to point out is that most states do not have a mental institution for the criminally insane. Texas does. Texas is also the only state in which the shooter couldn't legally buy a gun. Perhaps we need to follow the lead of Texas. Maybe a person who is charged with any type of violence should be required to have a mental evaluation. There are mentally ill people on death row in various states, including my own. Do we approve of putting a criminally insane murder on medication and then when he/she becomes lucid, try him for a crime committed while out of his head, a crime the person may not even remember committing,then putting him to death? Or should that person be locked up for life with hardened criminals? Maybe a better solution would be to sentence that person to a mental institution in which the personnel are trained to deal with violent insanity. But still, unless the source of the insanity is found and actually cured, it still wouldn't be wise to treat the symptoms and let the person back out into society.
It wasn't the gun that did it. He could have used a bomb and killed twice as many.
"Maybe a person who is charged with any type of violence should be required to have a mental evaluation."
Presumably you mean an evaluation in order to get a gun. Change that "charged with any type of violence" to "convicted of a violent crime" and you might have my support. Thinking here of the thousands of restraining orders that are filed without any real reason or because the person filing it didn't like the outcome after they began a fight. Or better yet, some kind of consideration of the crime; I know a man that stole a case of beer and, laughing, walked through a fly swatter held out to stop him - he was convicted of battery, yet there was no real violence in the crime at all. And I've seen people convicted of involuntary manslaughter - certainly violent, but not the "kind" of violence that should deny a gun to someone.
Of course, that means a nation wide, accurate compilation of all violent crimes.
Bottom line ; Liberal ideologies are responsible ! Yes , That's right .
Why ? It is the bottomless pit of softening on crime stance that liberals always take !
It is the incredible mass softening on crime that liberals have almost completely reduced our criminal justice system to, Hence more crime , more violence , less incarceration , softer judges , plea bargains . Easier on drug related crimes , after all drug addictions are just a "sickness ", alcohol crimes are just a" sickness" right , domestic violence is just a "sickness " right ?
Maybe there's a co-relation between mass softening on crime and mass killings ?
Oh, yeah, blame it on the liberals. The liberals are responsible for everything from your toothache to your kid's failing in school. Why don't we just shoot anyone accused of any violent tendencies?
Today's society has taken the stance that to be accused is guilty. Where is the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Do you know how many innocent people are rotting in jails now because of overzealous prosecutors while the real criminal is free to go out and do it again? Judges are refusing to release people from prison or grant new trials even after they've being cleared by DNA tests. That's real justice!
How incredibly naive to suggest that the system is perfect the way it is , OMG if we just wrote one more law dealing with guns , all gun crime would end immediately ? The fact that you just "retired from state gov. that put these laws on the books ........" shows that nothing you have done so far with law has cured these murderers . Real criminals laugh at all laws and you haven't figured that out yet ?
Shame on you and the "job" that you think you accomplished .
Geez Louise ... Before your vacation, your word of the day was "shallow," now it seems to be "naive."
ahorseback, you might want to consider that "glass houses" admonition, or at least a longer shovel handle, before continuing this "naive" trend.
Fortunately, for you, your posts are posited as opinions, without any refutable factual basis', but, I think you would be sorely tested if you had to support your Liberal slanders with provable points.
GA , facts , statistics and truths are thrown around here like so much doggy doo . I won't cut and paste like most because of the origins of such charts are as biased and incorrect as the people who use them .
There is obviously a certain naivete with the alt-left that is very obvious to most , And my facts are as good as the next , just as are my opinions . Do you think because you show a chart that makes your opinion more worthy, more truthful , more important?
by Tara Carbery 8 years ago
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
by Mazzy Bolero 7 years ago
Considering the number of innocent people killed by gunmen, isn't it time guns were banned?The recent murders at the movie premiere were in a long line of multiple murders by gunmen - some occurring in schools. Should the right to carry guns still be sacrosanct in the USA?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The following ideas would, I think, go a long way to REDUCE (not eliminate) mass killings in particular and death by gun overall.1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle. 2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10...
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
by Josh Ratzburg 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
by Norma Lawrence 4 years ago
Do you agree with our politicians that if the guns are taken away there will not be mass killings.The man in Japan proved that you do not need a gun to kill 15 people and wound 45.
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|