What do we need to do to stop mass shootings?

[Anonymous]

Ban the guns. Buy back the guns. Stop the guns. Stop the NRA. Stop the legislators from receiving money to support the guns. It's the guns.


That's basically it. It's not mental health, it's not autism, it's not anything but the guns. No more guns.

[Anonymous]

There must be some back door way to handle this. Gun control legislation is at a stalemate. What about focus on laws limiting lobbying as a way to dismantle the NRA? What about more work aimed at gun manufacturers? IRS audits, anything. Can we get David Miscavidge on this? Scientologists sure do know how to manipulate the law. Democrats need to be more cunning. Ironically, they need to have a killer instinct. I’m not confident they’ll be successful until they change their game book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban the guns. Buy back the guns. Stop the guns. Stop the NRA. Stop the legislators from receiving money to support the guns. It's the guns.


That's basically it. It's not mental health, it's not autism, it's not anything but the guns. No more guns.

That is not going to happen and I’m so frustrated with that thinking. It’s been decades. That approach is futile as we’ve seen. We need a different strategy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few things need to happen.
1. Require gun owners to carry insurance for their guns. The deductible and price of insurance will be dependent on the insurance company and how risky they believe it is to ensure the person seeking insurance. Not having insurance would be grounds to have your guns removed. Perhaps even requiring a gun order to have a license to own it, such as a driver's license for using a car.

I really like all your ideas, but want to focus on this one and play devil's advocate a bit. If insurance becomes required for all guns, are already-owned guns subject to the requirement? If yes, how does the government go about locating all the guns out there in order to make their owners comply with the requirement? If no, would this lead to a massive surge in gun sales right before the law goes into effect?

DP. I’d make the requirement immediate but give a 1 year grace period to register/become insured. So even if you rush out today, it still has to be insured. Going forward, it is a felony to have an unregistered/uninsured gun. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun,” you get caught you are now a felon. Which means you can never own a gun ever again. Make the stakes high.

You want to be a gun owner, then assume the responsibility that goes with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn't move the needle, nothing will. Nothing.

This. Sandy Hook was a 9/11-like moment for me. I remember the horror I felt and exactly where I was when I found out.

Me too.

I broke down in tears after Sandy hook. It has taken me days to finally cry about Nashville. But here we are.

I can remember too.

I was a HS student watching the news when Columbine happened and that felt ground breaking because
I had never really thought about something like that happening to me or my friends. I identified with the shock of it from the students’ perspective.

Then Sandy Hook happened. It was around the holidays and I was newly engaged. I remember one of the teachers who died was also newly engaged. And I felt sad thinking about how she never got to live out marrying the person she loved.

Now I am a mom. Countless more shootings have happened. I have elementary kids so Uvalde and Covenant School have hit extra hard. I am now grappling with this through the viewpoint of a parent.

These school shootings have been a defining part of the lives of millennials. It’s like the post-911 world. We are living in a post AR ban world. When the ban was in effect this didn’t seem to happen so much. We could enact change today and it would still take years to fix, but maybe we could at least help future generations of children not live through this trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Separate out gang violence.

Obviously with more gun control, gangs will not be able to obtain guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues. People who don’t know what gender they are have mental health issues.

Background checks on all purchases.

Tougher punishment on crime. We can’t keep catching and releasing.

Pack the prisons with the criminals and keep them there.

Normalize being normal. Quit acting like transgender, gay marriage, divorce, crime, etc, is behavior that should be applauded. Two parent homes with disciplined kids should be applauded

You are not only an idiot, you are dangerous.

When morality is called dangerous, and those pushing for morality are called idiots, you end up with school shootings.

School shootings are overwhelmingly commited by straight white Christian men from 2 parent homes and church attendance by family of origin. I don't think your idea of immortality has any connection to school shootings? How many gay people have shot children in a school?
Should I point out priests and ministers and their involvement with sexual crimes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few things need to happen.
1. Require gun owners to carry insurance for their guns. The deductible and price of insurance will be dependent on the insurance company and how risky they believe it is to ensure the person seeking insurance. Not having insurance would be grounds to have your guns removed. Perhaps even requiring a gun order to have a license to own it, such as a driver's license for using a car.

I really like all your ideas, but want to focus on this one and play devil's advocate a bit. If insurance becomes required for all guns, are already-owned guns subject to the requirement? If yes, how does the government go about locating all the guns out there in order to make their owners comply with the requirement? If no, would this lead to a massive surge in gun sales right before the law goes into effect?

DP. I’d make the requirement immediate but give a 1 year grace period to register/become insured. So even if you rush out today, it still has to be insured. Going forward, it is a felony to have an unregistered/uninsured gun. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun,” you get caught you are now a felon. Which means you can never own a gun ever again. Make the stakes high.

You want to be a gun owner, then assume the responsibility that goes with it.

This and allow those injured or impacted by the use of a gun to sue, the gun owner and manufacture as well as the seller

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few things need to happen.
1. Require gun owners to carry insurance for their guns. The deductible and price of insurance will be dependent on the insurance company and how risky they believe it is to ensure the person seeking insurance. Not having insurance would be grounds to have your guns removed. Perhaps even requiring a gun order to have a license to own it, such as a driver's license for using a car.

I really like all your ideas, but want to focus on this one and play devil's advocate a bit. If insurance becomes required for all guns, are already-owned guns subject to the requirement? If yes, how does the government go about locating all the guns out there in order to make their owners comply with the requirement? If no, would this lead to a massive surge in gun sales right before the law goes into effect?

DP. I’d make the requirement immediate but give a 1 year grace period to register/become insured. So even if you rush out today, it still has to be insured. Going forward, it is a felony to have an unregistered/uninsured gun. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun,” you get caught you are now a felon. Which means you can never own a gun ever again. Make the stakes high.

You want to be a gun owner, then assume the responsibility that goes with it.

I really like this idea and it is something that actually seems feasible versus confiscating all guns.

This and allow those injured or impacted by the use of a gun to sue, the gun owner and manufacture as well as the seller

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Separate out gang violence.

Obviously with more gun control, gangs will not be able to obtain guns.

Wrong. Gangs get their guns through theft, and other crimes such as straw purchases.

Stop targeting lawful citizens who are already trying to comply with the myriad of bureaucratic rules in the way of exercising their constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Requiring insurance for firearms also be a good way to get them out of the hands of gangs. If you see a gun and officer can pull them over and require insurance proof. Don't have it. They go to prison for a felony. Done.
Will be able to house more if we can get people out of prison for minor drug offenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Separate out gang violence.

Obviously with more gun control, gangs will not be able to obtain guns.

Wrong. Gangs get their guns through theft, and other crimes such as straw purchases.

Stop targeting lawful citizens who are already trying to comply with the myriad of bureaucratic rules in the way of exercising their constitutional rights.

My constitutional right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by your right to carry AR-15s.
Furthermore, we'll have a right to free speech, yet there are plenty of places where that does not apply.
No right is completely without limits

[Anonymous]

I know I’ll get shouted down but i wish the answer - and its a rough one and requires screwing our collective courage to the sticking point - is an Executive Order for confiscation of all guns of all kinds from all civilians, enforced by the National Guard wearing GoPros to record inevitable confiscation conflicts. Home by home inspections and no-exception confiscations, destruction of the collected armory. Proficient hunters can follow Bo Jackson’s model and learn bow hunting. The 3-D printer question is for another day. I don’t care what happens to panicked concealed carry lunatics. We can’t live like this anymore. We’re talking about exhibiting parts of 9 year olds destroyed by gunfire in open caskets to show what an evil 28 year old wreaked because she could. Because she legally obtained a cache of weapons capable of instantly separating a kid’s arm from her torso. I don’t care about her pair or her manifesto or the Federalist Society goons making up our highest court. If Biden did it, the relative temporary privileging of LEO’s and military personnel as those carrying out an EO would make it theoretically feasible to sweep up the weapons over time.

If we can’t do that, we’ll never solve this. Never. Not just in my lifetime, but in that of my DC, younger than the child victims of the Nashville shootings. We haven’t done anything meaningful even with a billionaire like Bloomberg financing anti-gun work. I mean, what is the harm in trying? If mah guns or else folk want to have their own individual Wacos and face the working end of the barrel instead of putting their self-esteem entirely into the ownership of those weapons, well, bully for them.

[Anonymous]

This is a calculated political strategy. More mass shootings begets more guns sales which begets more distrust in the government and their capabilities which begets more "conservatism."

[Anonymous]

Insurance requirements and the ability to sue will have this all resolved within 10 years