|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.|
For years I have listed to the two ideologies discuss the issue of crime , violence , firearms , firearm crimes and lately mass killings . I always come to this ending , In my career I have been trained in managing people , I have managed people as employees and managed my own company . This debate of crime and punishment , is as old as the ideologies themselves. I offer all of you- of both ideologies- this ; In any training program for any human possibility there is but one set of rules for the solving of anything especially any problem with the involvement of human nature .
Break the problem down into it's smallest elements . For instance ;
Mass Killings , what initial elements are there ?
a-The Act itself - can't possibly stop the act itself
b-The Weapon - many and multiple choices ?
c-The Reason - multiple , varied and unknowable
d-The man - The one and only controlling variable in the instances of possible prevention of mass killings , So why in the hell does a large part of the mostly liberal popular opinion believe that , A,B or C is controllable and preventable ? Whenever this is pointed out , mostly those of the left scream in unison ," Ban the Gun "?
Explain why you think that A,B, or C is the answer?
A B C and D are all the answer because they are all equally difficult and partially effective.
Can you explain why you think finding the killer, before they kill, is the easiest of the 4?
Not Horseback, but I'll take a shot at it:
1) Given a murderer in range of the victim, and no indication of what is about to happen, the act cannot be stopped. One might say "But we stop (limit) terrorism and that's stopping the act", and we would be correct. But we do it by finding and stopping the person before the act is in a position to occur.
2) Should be self evident; there are far, far too many possibilities for murder weapons to limit possession of them all. That knives, shotguns, pistols, bludgeons (baseball bat, hammer, etc.) and even fists are each used to end more lives than the dreaded "assault weapon" makes this obvious. We cannot rid the world of weapons and killers will kill whether they have access to their favorite weapon or not.
3) The reasons for killing are as numerous as killings. We cannot possibly eliminate reasons...unless and until we have already found the killer before (s)he acts and worked through his/her reasoning.
4) That leaves finding the killers before they kill. Or, perhaps, identifying what it is in our society that promotes and causes these people to kill and then changing society and ourselves so that it no longer exists. The bottom line is that only finding killers before they kill is the only option that is effective at all. That it is perhaps the most difficult, and certainly the most obnoxious (admitting we, the people, have a problem within ourselves) doesn't change that it is the only one that might work.
Because the entire systematic breakdown of our judicial system is the problem and not an inanimate object or theoretical idea or ideals . The act , the weapon or the reason is the most endlessly differing and impossible entity to control . Our system of laws is based on the man , his acts and resulting crimes . Almost every single mass shooting is preventable if we corral the lawless , understand the mentally impaired or connect the dots between pre-recorded crimes and charges of violence .
The legal system has been almost universally at fault in "missing " these mass killers. Immigration , military discharges , past criminal records , mental health records will untangle the mess , not another law.
Restrict gun use, but not alcohol, THC and pharmaceutical use?
Cancer occurs when the control centers of individual cells loose their minds and go haywire. We NEED guns to protect ourselves when individual members of the population start loosing (control of) their minds and go haywire.
When parents start limiting the mind altering legal or illegal drugs they pump into their heads or their kids heads , when grown adults stop altering their own minds with drugs and alcohol , the mass killings will change dramatically .
WE exist in an altered reality today .
What statistics do you have to back this up or is it purely conjecture?
It’s also important to note that most parents don’t “pump their kids full” of anything unless it’s seen as a necessary treatment for another issue. Taking away medication from the general population would likely cause way more problems than it would solve.
You refuse , like all of the anti gun crowd does , to acknowledge that the human element is the greater cause and effect of mass killings yet almost every killing is loaded down like a melon truck with past criminal records , past military records , past mental health problems and other issues , like illegal immigration AND that same human element is responsible for the systematic bungling of our entire legal system . No one in these debates on the left admits systematic problems .
Yet we are all supposed to view the leftist ideology as the more intelligent and enlightened ?
Hmm, I said nothing specifically about guns and included all of the other factors you deemed meaningless as a whole. I don’t really want to have the gun conversation again, truly if you had just made the thread about guns vs whatever else I wouldn’t have replied. The one and only thing I’ll say about guns specifically: wanting stricter gun control doesn’t mean I think the root of the problem is the guns themselves.
So what’s your plan to stop killers from killing before they kill? Stop medicating the people who have mental illness because you’ve decided that correlation equals causation? Throw every person who commits a crime in prison for good because they’re more likely to commit future crimes? Good look with that.
But since we’re throwing out silly and unrealistic solutions... you know what would be the most simple way to cut down on 90% of killings? Have an all-female population. Being male is of course the most overwhelmingly common factor when it comes to murder.
I can see there's not an iota of solution in that response , You obviously have no answer to why gun restrictions don't work and your frustration is showing . Let me just say I understand.
As to the last para. Hey , I thought that the young and enlightened weren't supposed to be as sexist as that ?
YOU are the one who offered a “solution” that actually has no way of being put into motion. I keep asking you HOW you plan on stopping someone before they kill another person and you offer me nothing other than listing off some consistent factors. Please tell me how you plan to control those factors other than the ridiculous “solutions” I inferred from that. Again, I DO NOT want to get into another conversation about guns specifically, I’ve had the conversation 100000 times before. I responded because you listed a number of things that people try to control in order to reduce mass killings, all of which I feel are relevant since we cannot logically just stop someone from deciding to kill someone straight up. If you want to talk about mental health, medications, environmental influences, etc. I am happy to discuss. If you just want to keep coming back to guns then I’m bored and I’m sorry that I misunderstood the direction of this thread.
Stating a statistical fact is not being sexist. I felt it was pretty obvious I was being facetious with my all-female population remark but if it wasn’t clear to you then I’ll spell it out: I do not think all men should be phased out. It’s just as ridiculous as saying that any other one single factor contributes to what makes someone want to kill other people. It’s not that simple.
Well that’s great in theory, but unless you have a tangible idea as to how we stop a killer before they kill someone then it’s nothing more than a nice thought that will save zero lives in reality. That’s why we look to A, B, C as ways of potentially lessening the damage that will inevitably be caused by our lack of ability to know who is going to kill someone before they do it.
"Potentially". A great word, but when massive evidence points to the opposite it doesn't mean much. And when the cost of that forlorn "potentially" is to subvert our constitution, to remove freedoms from our people, it in fact becomes quite negative. Going even further, when it takes the place of actually looking for something that does have potential, well, it just isn't smart at all.
A,B,C are pretty heavily regulated correct ?
A- the Acts of mass killings , all acts of harm to another person , multiple people , domestic violence , school violence law. criminal law , The potential criminal ACT of mass killing is heavily regulated by law no ?
B-The potential weapons , military equipment , guns , knives , automobiles , trucking , airlines , chemicals , explosives , transportation laws ,biological weapons .........any physical weapon is regulated , some of them heavily regulated .What potential weapon of death isn't regulated?
C-The reasons for mass killings , terror, politics , military subversion's, religions , race relations , civil disobedience's ,mental illness'............regulated by law ?
D-The man - human nature - Not one method of prevention , the most unpredictable and unmanageable element of mass killings , yet the most dangerous element of all .
A,B,and C have been regulated to the saturation point of each and all each , all the way to the point of complete redundancy .
But what is done about the man and his mental condition ? Comprehensive Mental health care ? Nope! Any plans of discovery of pre-disposition to extreme violence in children ? Nope . Are we truly addressing PTSD in ex-soldiers or In cases of domestic violence ? Are we questioning religious affiliated tendencies to violence ? Hardly ? Yet ,how many times has someone said , "I knew he was capable of violence - after the fact "?
Anyone turning in their children , neighbors , fathers , students ,
60,000 people killed in America last year from Opioid abuse ? I just read that number and thought , bingo ! This is one reason liberals are all over the gun control issue ..............., because they are dodging and deflecting real issues of thier cultural mess, sloppy health care system , pharm-addictions , your illicit or presription drug addictions .......And the incredible amounts of associated crimes, one of them being mass killings having to do with the altered state of the mind ?
Better get things in proper perspective ?
by crankalicious7 months ago
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...
by My Esoteric3 months 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",...
by alexandriaruthk5 years ago
We agree, something has to be done about mass killings - violence? What are your suggestions?What do you think we need to do about this? - gun control, family cohesion, mental issues and the politics about it, or...
by Cynthia5 years ago
Why do you think there are increasing instances of "mass killings"?In generations past there were "mass murders" or "massacres", of course, but over the past 20 years there seem to be...
by Norma Lawrence22 months 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.
by Person of Interest4 months ago
Why is everyone so surprised? https://www.census.gov/popclock/ There's over 300 million of us and that average is going to continue to increase as societal pressures continue to mount. It will easily be an average of...
Copyright © 2018 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.