Friday, October 2, 2015

How to stop spree shootings

Another spree shooting, at a college campus in Oregon. At least ten people dead, and many wounded. Please pray for the victims and their families.

There is a simple way to stop this. To stop it completely. Two things:

1) Stop reporting spree shootings in the media. These bastards are imitators, and they vent their hate and anger in a way that will give them total power (for 15 minutes) and will make them famous. Stop making them famous. The press should agree: The scumbag's name should never be mentioned. No name, and no pictures. Make the killer an non-person. Tear up his manifesto--never let it see the light of day. Never mention his name. Report about the shootings once, briefly, and then never again. The media is driving this. The media is a hateful psycho's ticket to immortal fame. Take that away and the shootings will stop.

2) Eliminate gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are spree-killing magnets--nearly all spree killings are committed in gun-free zones, for the obvious reason. A spree killer wants two things: immortal fame, and 15 minutes to vent his hate with complete power over his victims. Deny him the power. Make sure there will be people around him who will shoot back--immediately. And he won't know who. Bad guys with guns are only stopped by good guys with guns (they don't quit voluntarily), and gun-free zones simply ensure that the good guys with guns will arrive at least 15 minutes late--time to kill, time to have complete power. Take that power away. Allow responsible citizens to be armed in schools and other places where spree shooters choose to kill.

Of course the media will never stop reporting on this stuff, and as long as there are dumb-fuck Democrats there will be gun-free zones.

But don't believe for a minute that spree shootings can't be stopped. They can be stopped, quite easily. We just choose not to. 

24 comments:

  1. This killer wanted to kill Christians and apparently hated "organized religion." That had something to do with it. Like so many Americans, he was motivated by a hatred fired by popular culture and the public schools that says that Christians are not human. Columbine all over again.

    Joey

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joey:

      I saw that on the news, and I was going to blog on it, but I wanted to make sure it was true. Sometimes the early reports are wrong. Let's see.

      Delete
  2. Michael, I agree partially with number one. And disagree completely with number two. The evidence simply doesn't support it. Canada hears and sees all the same media that you do in the states, yet we have very few spree killings. As well, Canada is essentially a gun free zone. We have a high gun ownership but they are all long guns. And even with these, there are very strict rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if you think his prejudice against Christians had anything to do with it? I've noticed that you share it. He probably thought Christians are evil people who molest children and oppress women and homosexuals.

      Our society's hatred for Christians has to stop. Don't you agree? No, you're still denying it exists.

      The community college was also a gun free zone, you know.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Canada has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. And gun free zones don't work--nearly all spree shootings are in gun-free zones. Gun free zones attract shooters.

      It ain't rocket science.

      Delete
    3. "Canada has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. And gun free zones don't work--nearly all spree shootings are in gun-free zones. Gun free zones attract shooters.

      It ain't rocket science."


      We agree that it ain't science. It ain't even factual. Yes, Canada has a high per-capita gun ownership. But it is still only one third of that in the US, and the ownership of handguns is very low. Before you can buy a gun in canada you must undergo mandatory training and obtain a license. Handguns require a special license and can only be used at a licensed target range. So, in effect, urban and suburban areas of Canada are effectively gun-free zones. If gun-free zones attract spree killers, why is the frequency of occurrence in Canada a tiny fraction of that in the US (45 so far this year in the US).

      This nut job had 13 legally obtained firearms. Who needs 13 firearms? He was found with five of them at the school, all handguns.

      But if you want to bury your head in the sand and preach that access to guns and gun control (the lack of it) is not a big part of the problem, be my guest. Just don't export that type of stupid logic to Canada.

      Delete
    4. Billy:

      Gun murders peaked in the US in 1991. They have plummeted since. There was no new gun control instituted in 1991; the main change was better policing and more certain incarceration.

      Interestingly, gun ownership in the US skyrocketed since 1991, at exactly the same time as gun crime plummeted.

      So much for your gun control theory. It sounded nice.

      Delete
    5. "Gun murders peaked in the US in 1991. They have plummeted since."

      Yup. Plummeted all the way down to 10.6 peer 100,000 as compared to 2.2 for Canada. I wonder why the big difference. Most sane people would think that access to guns might be one of the factors.

      Delete
    6. [I wonder why the big difference. Most sane people would think that access to guns might be one of the factors.]

      Virtually all of the gun violence in America is committed by Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats. The gun violence in Republican suburbs is near zero. Nearly all of our gun violence is in cities, and nearly all (if not all) of the violence-prone cities in our country are deep blue--Democrat.

      We have Democrats. You don't. That's the difference.

      Delete
    7. I am glad that Canada has one of the biggest aluminum mines and processors. With people like you and the demand for tinfoil hats, our economy will remain strong.

      What is the difference between democrats and our own left wing politicians in Canada? Ours support public health care, government regulations, limits on speech, strong gun control, higher taxes, and all of the things that the democrats do. And they are as prevalent in Canadian government as you think the democrats are in yours. And yet, we don't have a fraction of the gun violence that you guys do.

      So please, explain why it is that democrats and not access to guns is responsible for your gun violence.

      Delete
    8. "Nearly all of our gun violence is in cities, and nearly all (if not all) of the violence-prone cities in our country are deep blue--Democrat. "

      This seems true, there is a good article......

      Gun violence not a Republican problem

      Delete
    9. I certainly agree that stopping the extensive coverage of the killer's name and horrid deeds would be a great first step, but I bumfoozled over Dr. Engor's statements: "We have Democrats. You don't." Who knew that only America has liberals?

      Michael, you are every bit as much of a narrative pusher and true believer as any SJW. You are blinded by hatred and partisanship. Maybe have a long chat with Yahweh tonight, OK?

      Delete
    10. I'm bemused by Egnor's claim that since the mass shootings occur mainly in areas with Democrat governments that they're committed by Democrats. What is stopping the shooters from being Republicans, non-aligned or just not interested?

      Delete
    11. " What is stopping the shooters from being Republicans, non-aligned or just not interested?"

      Unfortunately, that would go against the narrative that he wants to be true. The myth was originally spewed by one of the US right wing radio jocks. He claimed that most spree and serial killers were Democrats. His claim has been soundly debunked, but I guess Michael didn't get the memo.

      Delete
    12. Actually I'm not claiming that most spree shooters are Democrats--all spree shooters are evil and most seem to have quite serious mental issues, and I don't think their party affiliation matters.

      Most gun murderers are Democrat, without question, because that demographic--inner city minority males--is wholly Democrat.

      Delete
    13. "all spree shooters are evil and most seem to have quite serious mental issues, and I don't think their party affiliation matters."

      On that, we agree.

      "Most gun murderers are Democrat, without question, because that demographic--inner city minority males--is wholly Democrat."

      Really? Do you have the party affiliation or voting records of all murderers? I always thought that the voting records, at least, were confidential.

      Delete
  3. Suggestion (1) would certainly conceal the fact that many Americans are batshit crazy with access to firearms.

    Suggestion (2) might work if the 'good guy with a gun' is highly trained and proficient in urban warfare and is capable of taking down the shooter without hitting innocent people. I wonder if they'll ever be more than one 'good guy with a gun' at a shooting, each thinking that the other 'good guy with a gun' is actually 'a bad guy with a gun' setting off a free firefight, until the police arrive, who promptly take out all the surviving 'good guys with guns'. Safety first after all. Precautionary principle. If someone has a gun in his hand, shoot first and let God sort out the innocent from the guilty.

    Australia had its mass shooting in 1996 at Port Arthur. The then Conservative Australian prime minister John Howard responded by bringing in strict gun control laws and a gun buyback (so strict that an Australian Olympic shooter, who'd won medals at past Olympics, couldn't get a gun licence because he'd been the subject of a domestic violence order) and we haven't had any copycat shootings since then. I agree that imitation is a factor in subsequent shootings.

    I'm bemused that 'hatred for Christians' by society is supposed to have been a factor. care to give any examples? It's not hatred for the more egregious actions of Christians to be penalised, such as the public official refusing to sign marriage certificates for same sex couples because of her religious views.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've just discovered that the college campus wasn't a gun-free zone, and that there were people carrying concealed guns on the campus at the time, but that they were caught up in the lock-down at the time of the shooting.

    The facts remain. Unless the so-called 'good guys with a gun' have training in urban warfare (not just proficiency in hitting a target on a stress-free shooting range), they're likely to be just as much of a danger to innocent bystanders. And they're likely to shoot other 'goods guys with guns' as almost happened at a college in Austin in the '60s when a sniper in a tower was shooting passer-bys. People actually went home to fetch their guns and returned to exchange fire with the sniper. An off-duty policeman eventually killed the sniper by entering the tower. But he was in danger of being shot too by the surrounding untrained vigilantes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A: How many spree shootings would have been stopped if everyone were allowed to carry guns, anywhere they wanted?
    A: Some, but certainly not the majority.

    Q: How many spree shootings would have been stopped if the perpetrators didn't have access to guns?
    A: All.

    Q: How many spree shooters obtained their weapons legally?
    A: Almost all of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,

      Allowing carrying of guns didn't prevent this spree shooting anyway. There was no ban on carrying concealed guns at the college. There were individuals carrying concealed guns on the campus at the time of the spree shooting.

      The spree shooting wasn't prevented. So Egnor's argument fails.

      I suspect that very few spree shootings would be prevented by allowing carrying of guns. A perpetrator would just wear a bullet proof vest, to increase his chances, and wouldn't worry about his accuracy. If he misses one innocent bystander he's likely to hit another.

      Egnor's 'good guy with a gun' would have to not only hit the spree shooter, probably with a head shot (a small difficult target under stressful conditions), but also not hit any innocent bystanders.

      If all 'the good guys with guns' had training in urban warfare (and managed to retain their proficiency at a high level), then Egnor's suggestion might work (actually, it's not his idea - he just parrots ideas from other sources). Otherwise - no.

      Delete
  6. Congratulations to the US for the 1000th mass shooting in less than 3 years! linky

    Nothing to do with easy access to guns - no siree!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Congratulations to the US for the 1000th mass shooting in less than 3 years!"

    And this in a republican town, in a republican county, in a republican state. The mayor even banned Satan in this town.

    But you won't hear Michael talk about this because it fit in with his narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I find it unbelievable that an educated person (not a redneck hillbilly) would suggest (1) restricting freedom of speech and expression and (2) giving guns to teachers and parents as means for preventing spree shootings. it's absolutely ridiculous. It's the pinnacle of irrationality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How to stop helping Islamists:

    1. Stop reporting on acts of terror by Islamists. It gives them courage to do more and actually makes them think they're winning.

    2. Aboloish Islamaphobia. It radicalizes regular Muslims who start thinking that they really are at a war with everyone else because people seem to hate them because they are Muslims and makes no distinction between them and Islamists. It fuels a martyr complex and makes them think God is on their side.

    Let me guess, it's a stupid liberal argument. But of course when extremist Christians do this crap it makes sense to conservative. He just can't believe dominionism and Christian white supremacy exist.

    ReplyDelete