Current Events > Real talk: How do you deal with the mass shooter loser problem

(+) Yeah! (+)

mass shooters tend to be those loser types.

they seem to be disenfranchised by society which leads them to do shit like this. What can we do to deal with this or fix the underlying problem.

it obviously can't be just the guns.
---

it's just the guns
---

Partially guns

Partially people still neglecting mental health as a serious condition

Partially govt being useless and not doing a better job at regulating and testing people who want to own firearms
---

Could it be prostitution should be made legal?

I feel as though if it were legal less of these dudes would go on their rampages.
---

Trayvon posted...

Could it be prostitution should be made legal?

I feel as though if it were legal less of these dudes would go on their rampages.

We don't need more dead hookers
---

SquantoZ posted...

Partially guns

Partially people still neglecting mental health as a serious condition

Partially govt being useless and not doing a better job at regulating and testing people who want to own firearms

Also government failing to do jack shit when reports of lunatics like this are actually given to them.
---

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.
---

Teachers and students that knew Nicolas Cruz predicted he would do something drastic, yet no steps were taken because there's no system to proceed on dangerous people who will act soon. So start there.

DifferentialEquation posted...

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.

DifferentialEquation post
---

coinstarcad posted...

Teachers and students that knew Nicolas Cruz predicted he would do something drastic, yet no steps were taken because there's no system to proceed on dangerous people who will act soon. So start there.

That's a slippery slope to thought police, nope.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

coinstarcad posted...

Teachers and students that knew Nicolas Cruz predicted he would do something drastic, yet no steps were taken because there's no system to proceed on dangerous people who will act soon. So start there.

That's a slippery slope to thought police, nope.

and thats why these things won't be stopped. people don't want to intervene until after things happen. hence all these things happening

GregShmedley posted...

But it isn't. Guns don't just compel people to go on rampages.

indeed, social isolation does that

guns give them the resources required to actually execute that compulsion
---

Snitch on weird whitey and give licenses to purchase guns
---

Darkman124 posted...

GregShmedley posted...

But it isn't. Guns don't just compel people to go on rampages.

indeed, social isolation does that

guns give them the resources required to actually execute that compulsion

So do bombs, which are illegal, and still doesn't stop bomb violence. Same for vehicles except those aren't illegal.
---

It should be obvious that both mental health and gun control are issues that need to be addressed. All this either or bullshit is just partisan rambling.
---

COVxy posted...

It should be obvious that both mental health and gun control are issues that need to be addressed. All this either or bullshit is just partisan rambling.

This
---

GregShmedley posted...

So what are you saying?

that our philosophy has not kept up with our technology
---

SquantoZ posted...

Partially guns

Partially people still neglecting mental health as a serious condition

Partially govt being useless and not doing a better job at regulating and testing people who want to own firearms

---

GregShmedley posted...

Meaning what? A ban? A ban on certain firearms?

some form of that, or a dramatic, society-changing level of investment in altering the way we deal with the kinds of people we tend to 'other' right now

i'd definitely prefer the latter option.

i think a reasonable middle ground is expanding the grounds on which gun rights are denied; a common link to most mass shooters (not this one, but most) is history of domestic violence. a guy who beats his wife to the point that a restraining order has been filed against him prob shouldnt be allowed to have a gun anyway

that could at least pare it back somewhat as it'd target the profile of actual mass shooters rather than everyone, and it's much easier to enforce than a blanket ban, which just has no hope of success.

even that is a substantial restriction of societal gun rights. but i just dont see people making the proper investment in resolving our psychological problem, because it's much deeper than 'mental illness.'
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.

DifferentialEquation post

What I said makes sense. People who would murder a bunch of innocent children deserve to be tortured. Come on now, there's no way the founding fathers had school shootings like this in mind when they wrote the 8th amendment. And I'm not talking about getting rid of it entirely. There just needs to be some sensible adjustments made to it to keep with the times. Only people who commit mass shootings would lose their 8th amendment rights. There's no reason for anyone to be paranoid and think I'd want to take it away beyond that from people who commit lesser crimes.
---

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.
---

Darkman124 posted...

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

i think right now just second amendment

most other rights have not seen technology alter their risk to our society
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Darkman124 posted...

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

All worthy discussions. How many people are you willing to sacrifice to protect each amendment? Is there an amount if gun deaths let year that would cause you to at least soften your stance on the 2nd amendment? Is 100k gun deaths a year too many? 500k? 1 million?
---

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Darkman124 posted...

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

All worthy discussions. How many people are you willing to sacrifice to protect each amendment? Is there an amount if gun deaths let year that would cause you to at least soften your stance on the 2nd amendment? Is 100k gun deaths a year too many? 500k? 1 million?

rather than innocent american citizens i think this question is much more interesting when phrased in context of GOP congressmen

i was pretty surprised when an attempt to mass-murder the GOP congressional baseball team didn't provoke any kind of response from them
---

It's pretty hard to prevent random acts of violence. Basically every gun control measure that gets suggested would do nothing to prevent shootings like this. If you want to go the gun control route, there's only one option, a complete ban of firearms and government seizure of existing weapons. Good luck doing that.

The other idea that's always floated around is some variation of armed guards at every school, or making schools like airports. This also doesn't solve the problem as most of the carnage occurs at the beginning of the shooting and there's nothing guards can do to stop that. You can make it hard to enter a school, but people still will gather at the entrance to get in.
---

Smaller schools, more nuthouses.

DifferentialEquation posted...

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.

They almost always kill themselves anyway.
---

Darkman124 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

i think right now just second amendment

most other rights have not seen technology alter their risk to our society

How can you say that? Just as one example, there are risks (in regards to the views people might express and how those expressed views may motivate others) that come along with the first amendment. How can you say that the internet has not altered that risk?
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

How can you say that? Just as one example, there are risks (in regards to the views people might express and how those expressed views may motivate others) that come along with the first amendment. How can you say that the internet has not altered that risk?

because no matter how dumb your posts are they haven't given me cancer yet
---

Darkman124 posted...

most other rights have not seen technology alter their risk to our society

What? No.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2qiacs8.jpg

l Dudeboy l posted...

it's just the guns

this

i live in new jersey, where the gun laws are incredibly strict, and according to wikipedia there have only been 3 school shootings in the history of the state (two in inner cities, where a kid shot someone else in a disagreement, and one where a kid shot a bullet into a wall in a school 30+ years ago).

As for mass shootings, once again per Wikipedia, there is only one, which took place 69 years ago.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

What? No.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2qiacs8.jpg

which right are you criticizing
---

Guns have been heavily legislated the last 30 years, yet mass shootings increased. The answer is not more laws. The focus needs to go towards why the crazies are going crazy.
---

Darkman124 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

How can you say that? Just as one example, there are risks (in regards to the views people might express and how those expressed views may motivate others) that come along with the first amendment. How can you say that the internet has not altered that risk?

because no matter how dumb your posts are they haven't given me cancer yet

So you don't think think that people being able to reach others with extremist views like their own has become easier with the internet? Or do you not think that people with similar extremist views grouping together is a danger in the first place?
---

41 posts and no one has said the obvious solution: ban nerds
---

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Darkman124 posted...

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

All worthy discussions. How many people are you willing to sacrifice to protect each amendment? Is there an amount if gun deaths let year that would cause you to at least soften your stance on the 2nd amendment? Is 100k gun deaths a year too many? 500k? 1 million?

You're throwing around some pretty bogus numbers.

There's currently being around 8k gun-related homicides per year. Obviously, if that number were to multiply itself 100x, then yes, it'd be a bigger issue.

Right now about half of those gun-related homicides are coming from gang activities, who are already obtaining and carrying guns illegally, and will continue to carry illegally even if laws are tightened up.

You'd decrease gun deaths by a lot more by breaking up gangs and increasing social welfare in desperate inner city zones than you would by trying to ban guns.
---

Darkman124 posted...

which right are you criticizing

The right to clog arteries?
Are you suggesting that buying or selling a cheeseburger isn't a right? (actually, it may not be, as restaurants need a license to operate).

DifferentialEquation posted...

So you don't think think that people being able to reach others with extremist views to their own has become easier with the internet? Or do you not think that people with similar extremist views grouping together is a danger in the first place?

oh, i recognize that dissemination of extremist views is even easier today via the internet

i just also recognize it was never hard. young, socially isolated men being recruited to violent extremist groups is the predominant narrative of instability for basically all of history. it's the basis of the crusades, of every fascist movement, of most modern terrorist organizations, etc

whereas 200 years ago, a single civilian with a firearm and the notion to use it to harm others was not a significant threat to an unarmed group of their peers. really, back then it was the ideas that were more dangerous.
---

Also, just FYI, right now there's 300+ million guns in America. And only a few thousand of those are being used for gun-related homicides.

That's such a microscopic percentage of guns being used for wrongdoing that I can't even be fucked to finish calculating it. Something like 1 in 37500 guns are being used maliciously per year?

But you wanna take away 37499 guns because of the 1 gun.
---

Darkman124 posted...

oh, i recognize that dissemination of extremist views is even easier today via the internet

Ok. So given that technology has made this easier, would you support some additional restrictions to the first amendment on that basis?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The right to clog arteries?
Are you suggesting that buying or selling a cheeseburger isn't a right? (actually, it may not be, as restaurants need a license to operate).

it's definitely not a right
---

Steve Nick posted...

You're throwing around some pretty bogus numbers.

There's currently being around 8k gun-related homicides per year. Obviously, if that number were to multiply itself 100x, then yes, it'd be a bigger issue.

Right now about half of those gun-related homicides are coming from gang activities, who are already obtaining and carrying guns illegally, and will continue to carry illegally even if laws are tightened up.

You'd decrease gun deaths by a lot more by breaking up gangs and increasing social welfare in desperate inner city zones than you would by trying to ban guns.

Obviously, that was the point.

And you can break up gangs and increase social welfare AND enact common Sense gun regulation at the same time. This false dichotomy is another NRA propaganda item.
---

TomNook20 posted...

The other idea that's always floated around is some variation of armed guards at every school, or making schools like airports.

Both at the same time would work. It'd act as a major deterrent if they knew someone would be shooting back at them. Of course it'd cost millions of dollars to redesign every school in America and train and hire the armed guards, but at this rate it's too easy for the killers. They can just go to Wal-Mart, purchase a gun, go to a random school, then start shooting up the place with no resistance at all. That has to change if people want this to stop.
---