How to Reduce Mass Shooting Casualties and Gun Deaths!

How to Reduce Mass Shooting Casualties and Gun Deaths!

My latest Blog Topic on the recent mass shootings.


Increase funding and easier access for mental health services for those need it, more money and staff for both law enforcement and security, metal detectors in schools, as well as armed security or law enforcement in schools and other high risk locations. DAs need to prosecute violent offenders and give them sentences they deserve instead of slaps on the wrist. That’s a big reason why there is so much violence. You let them off easy they reoffend.

Putting up gun free zone signs and banning “assault weapons” does nothing. It’s not even about the guns. This problem runs much deeper than firearms.


We’ve rehashed every known possibility except for one that will work! Society is nothing like we knew it. Boys are screwed!
What we need is to reinstitute the draft starting at age 13!

Oh my, did he say 13? Have you seen little 13 year old brats smash and grabbing, dealing drugs, tattooing their faces, and totally disrespecting everyone? 16 year olds attempting vehicular homicide???
They are totally out of control.

It’s going to stay that way, because we can’t even implement such a plan. The guy that occupies the air in the White House does!
Nothing we come up with will work, if it hasn’t already been tried. Drastic times call for drastic measures, it’s not the guns fault! It’s the humans fault. Step one get rid of “White Rage Milley”. Replace him with BOZO or PeeWee Herman, at least they were patriots!

To win a war, you’re going to need all the rage you can get, the military trained you on how to disperse it! Heck cops these days stand outside buildings waiting for permission to stop an ACTIVELY SHOOTING broke down male. That’s cowardice! If they’re going to be this cowardly, send in the K-9. Settle down PETA, it’s your kid in that school!

Every adversary we have knows this and they are waiting to pounce! When they do, I don’t know about you, but my cat and my wife are ready, willing and somewhat able. If we ever have to dig trenches and fight for our lives, if I find out you voted for this bag of wind, I’m shooting you myself, for your food, your weapons, that you wanted to ban, and your ammo! You go ahead and talk that grenade from blowing up!

At the very least, I’m putting you on point WITHOUT the scary AR-15. You’ll notice the Ukrainians are not asking for AR-15s they want rockets, I can’t imagine why they would want such a powerful weapon, who needs a rocket to hunt???

According to the “wind bags” logic, send over the liberals and the LGBTQIADFVCHYKKDE to talk themselves out of a bloody war. If they are so serious about Ukraine, I’ll pay for the plane ticket, but they don’t get a weapon! Go ahead and show us how it works! Best test case ever.

Now is their chance to prove that a disarmed society works against an armed society. BLM, ANTIFA and anyone else who hates this country, stand in front of that AK 47, and tell him how much better he would feel if he were in a dress, or try to ask him for a donation for your six million dollar fenced in retreat! As soon as he drops his weapon you can have mine!

SECOND CHANCES, the 16 year old that tried to kill a mother and baby had his second chance, since he failed, they decided to let him off again so he could accomplish his goal. See, it ain’t the gun! Ban cars, high capacity engines and removable wheels, for gods sakes, do something! Who the heck needs 4 wheels to go shopping!

Or maybe we could start all over again!

1 Like

Certainly multifaceted approaches.

It’s not simple, far from that. It’ll take a lot of give and take on both sides per se. No one will be happy, but maybe happier in the long run. If we can all learn negotiating.

If I’m not playing “devil’s advocate”, then how else can I contribute to “all”? It starts with not turning the other person off, first impressions go a long way. Wish me luck, gonna need it. :blush:

Stay safe.

So if an anti-rights person makes a claim that “turns me off”, I need to compromise with them so as to not to “turn them off”? Yes, I see that working well. That kind of defeats the “give and take” aspect of your post.


You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have been asked what gun-control I coud support. First, an assumption in that by the term gun-control, we are addressing laws intended to to address criminal and unintentoinal misuse of firearms. In addition to this, we may also be speaking of restricting access to firearms by prohibited persons. (ATF)

In a brief overview, I will first Identify a key element of unlawful use of firearms, thier unlawful aquisition. I will then look at three possible laws that can address this while not creating new burdons on lewfull members of society.

A little about me, I am very pro gun-owners rights. I see no reason to hide this fact about myself. With that in mind, there are still laws that can address the concerns in the first paragraph and make us all safer while still not interefeering with lawful gun owners.

One thing you may notice about the proposals that I make is that, while focused on reducing address criminal and unintentoinal misuse of firearms, these proposals do not create new criminals. There are no new ways to “catch” otherwise lawful members of society who may not be aware of some new law or regulation.

These suggestions are based on a study by the U.S. Deapartment of Justice document, where they state, “An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%).” (Alper and Glaze) In this same document, they go to to dscribe “the underground market” which they identify as being the source of 43% of firearms used by crimimals ayt that time of thier arrest as, “Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.”

The first two proposals deal with storage. However, unlike other “safe-storage” bills, these proposals do not create new criminals.

The first calls for the federal government, as a condition of funding, to require county sheriff departments to provide “no questions asked” firearm storage. A person wants the guns out of the house, they take them to the SO. It could be for depression, visiting family that have a bit o’ de asshole, or doing some babysitting. . . maybe the self realization that one has a violent temper streak but still likes to go target shooting on weekends, no matter the reason. Drop them off, get a receipt. Want them back, sign them out.

An objection to this proposal is the problem of items being stolen from police storage, by police officers. First, the problem of police criminality is, while admittedly huge, beyond the scope of this proposal. Secondly, this system could incorporate protectoins that bypass the entire “evidence” room procedures, and the thefts that are well known to occur there. This could include two-key systems, where the firearms owner remains in possession of one of the keys, or combinations, needed to access or release the firearm. There are other methods, however, the criminality of the police should not be used as en excuse for not providing safe storage for people who, for whatever reason, want to temporarily remove a firearm from thier home.

The second proposal relates to personal gun safes, and other approved storage device, and is made possible by modern technology. However, this is currently not possible due to a lack on agreed upon communication format and existing silent alarm laws.

In the case of an unauthorsed opening of a firearm safe, or approved storege device, a simple text message with the location of the storage device, and a predetermined call-back number could be sent to the police dispatch office. From there a text or call could be made to the owner and if, based on the conversation or returned text message, there is doubt then a police office could be dispatched to in sure that a firearms theft was not in progress.

This simple process could be easly facilitated with existing technology and would help prevent firearms from being stolen. As we have already seen, stolen firearms are frequent sources of firearms used in other crimes.

With current SMS technology this would not be an expensive process. It could be funded with an assessment fee on people convicted of possessing stolen firearms in th ecommission of a crime.

The third proposal addresses a popular concern that, while being so insignificant it does not even appear in Alper and Glaze’s report, it ganners much attention. That is the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals, or the infamous “gun-show loophole.” While Alper and Glaze’s report does mention gunshows as a source of 0.8% of the firemarms in the study, this is included in the “purchased/traded at retail source” section as, with almost no exceptions, firearms sold at gun shows are sold by licensed gun dealers and employ standard dealer background checks on all sales.

Because of the reality of gun show sales, without regard for the common public misconception, this third proposal is not focused on those dealer to customer sales, but the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals.

In most states it is unlawful for police to provide confidential law enforcement information to non-lawenforcement personnel, for legitimate law enforcement purposes. I would propose that, whit he physical presence, and agreement of both parties, and lawenforcement personnel be able to provide the results of a simple Natoinal Crime Law Enforcement (NCIC) query to both parties before the private transfer of firearms between unassociated individuals. This is not an unduly burdensome process. NCIC queries are regularly run as a part of routine traffic stops.

These three proposals, safe storage at county sheriff departments, SMS message alerts of potential unauthorized of private firearms storage devices, and the ability to private parties to engage in a simple verification of the status of both the buyer and the seller would siginificantly intere with firearms landing in thewrong hands. It could be expected to reduce crime, accident, and suicide deaths. It would do all this at low cost and without creating any new criminals.

Works Cited

Alper, Mariel, and Lauren Glaze. “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January 2019, Accessed 2 June 2022.

ATF. “Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives |, 9 January 2020, Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Accessed 2 June 2022.

Virginia has enacted the “private sale” prohibition requiring background checks on all sales/transfers of firearms. It is just another “feel good solution”. Criminals do not get background checks. Requiring safes is a deterrent to poor that cannot afford that. Further, anytime a firearm is transferred to police, a background check is required to release to the righful owner. This will not solve anything. As to a “hot-headed” person turning in a firearm, I cannot imagine such a person willingly turning in their firearms. A relative doing that to that person will likely further enrage that person. Your ideas do not seem to address your identified issues, nor do they put the burden on the criminals.

Only relevant if you are interested in catching flies.


There is never any “give and take” though. It is always just take less.

Example - Democrats say “we want to ban assault rifles.” Republicans say, “we’ll never do that.” Democrats say “Okay, ban them for anyone under 21.” Republicans say “okay.”

What did the Democrats give the Republicans in that exchange?


Good point. Might this be “agree to disagree”? Or, depend on views, perception. IDK.

Instead of looking at it as “We gave up 18-20 year olds being allowed semi aut rifles”; Might we look at it as “We still get to own semi automatic rifles, except we need to be 21” (so we do get something in return).

I’m not suggesting semi automatic rifles, as I’ve yet to own one, but want to be part of the discussion.

But I’ll admit, these humble pages are limited, in that the committees and legislators will “hash it out”. As it’s so complex.

Maybe instead of just it being about “the tools”, what about mental health care, security measures at schools & facilities, ending violent video games and violent movies? If we don’t invite unusual parties to the party, how will we ever make headway?

By affecting the income of some, feathers will be ruffled, but then more of us “give and take”, so it’s more fair.

Why should individual “firearm” owners be the only ones to give up something? Not to mention, it can make sense toward success in reducing violent behavior. :exploding_head:

Except that group just lost their rights. How about new firearm owners not be “allowed” to carry until they have had 18-20 years of firearm experience? I have no problem with that as I have more than that… well, except I do have an issue with that as it is discriminatory.

[Edit] If 18-20 years olds were banned from firearm ownership, would firearm-related crime be eliminated? Would the 12-year old in a recent thread have been stopped by that law?


How about we follow the Constitution, and let people exercise their rights, so that bad guys can be stopped before they create mass casualties.


I think what the problem is murder is something that is difficult to think about. Many people who responsibly own guns know they are for protecting lives. People who don’t own guns think they are for killing. Training with guns teaches us to stop the threat as fast as we can to save as many lives as we can. TV, media and people’s agendas teach us there are things more important than saving lives. Other people are too emotionally involved to think clear. The point I am trying to make if we take guns away from people who want to save lives we are making it easier for people to kill.


Håsaf, I read your dissertation with interest.You express that you donut want to “create any new stressful burdens on lewful members of society” (your spelling, not mine). Gun owners have already been burdened with many responsibilities. Many of them the result of knee jerk reactions of the public, through their representatives, to the heinous acts of criminals and the mentally ill. We are the collateral damage of the crimes of those who do not care about the law or it’s intent. Criminals and the mentally ill do not follow rules.

Secondly, officers of the law have only two responsibilities, the protection of the citizens of this country and their property. They are second guessed, scrutinized, threatened with loss of man power or defunding, undermanned, under funded and generally overworked without concern of the affect this will have on them. The police departments, no matter what level, city, state or county, cannot be burdened with the storage of private property. It is the gun owners responsibility to ensure the safe storage of his, or her, firearms. Storing the thousands of these weapons would place a financial burden on the departments and the tax payers of the community. Department money could be better spent on upgrading the equipment of the department, providing mental health care for the officers, hiring more officers and providing better pay for the officers.
Added to this is the convenience to anyone, who would like to dip into the trough, of having thousands of weapons in one or more locations, well known to everyone, and not well guarded (who is going to guard the weapons, not the officers who have other responsibilities). Any professional thief would find this easy pickings. And for those who fear the government confiscation of our weapons, how convenient it has to have all those firearms so easily located.
What assurances do the owners have of reimbursement for loss or damage to property?
Your statistics regarding the criminals who have used weapons in the act of committing a crime. You say these are stolen, found at the scene of the crime or illegally obtained. I do not doubt this although I have not checked your sources (I will take your word for the stats). You mention that the problem of “police criminality” is huge". I believe that there is that faction in police departments who take advantage of opportunities to gain illegal profit in various ways, but a huge problem? Any illegal act by an officer is a problem that should be dealt with. But a huge problem, I doubt it. Also doesn’t that make the storage of weapons by the police a problem of itself if there is so much of a probability of theft?
In regard to the private transfer of firearms, I own several weapons and enjoy shooting them, when I can. I am not as young as I used to be and can’t get to the range as often as I like. I would like to be able to pass these firearms on to my grand children and nephews when the time comes. I would look on any attempt to prevent me from doing this with a jaundiced eye. I am sure my thoughts on this are shared by many whoa rereading this.
Hasaf, you have stated “I am very pro gun-owners rights”. I will take your word for this. However I have some doubts as to your true feelings in light of some of your suggestions. As gun owners we are subject to threats of losing our 2nd Amendment rights every time some criminal of mentally ill person commits an act of terrorism. If we have been convicted of a crime or if we are accused of be a danger to ourselves or others we either cannot own a weapon or can have it taken away from us. Those of us who legally own weapons and follow the law in possessing and carrying a weapon are placed on the same scale as criminals and the mentally ill every time one of these crimes are committed. We are being punished for the crimes others are committing. We become collateral damage of the criminal acts of others. I have lost friends because they do not understand that owning a gun is just as much of a hobby as model trains, golfing or owning a bow and arrow set. I lost one friend because he could not understand why I carried my weapon off duty. (I was in law enforcement on the federal level for 27 years).
Punish the guilty, not the law abiding.
Hasaf, we have both had our say. I do not wish to turn this into a debate, although I have been a bit long winded on this subject. Lets leave it at that, and go together in peace. After all that is what we both want.
Let’s keep looking for an answer, Spider1.

1 Like