What can be done to stop gun violence

The politicians seem to be gridlocked over what they can legislate to make us safer from gun violence.
Universal backgrounds checks, red flag laws, outlawing of assault type weapons and implementation of a buy back plan for those who currently own such weaponry, and closing the gun show loopholes would seem sensible.
Though there are some who do not believe these thing would work, I believe we must try something to stem the tide of mass shootings around this country.
Are there any other things that could be tried?

1 Like

None of the things you mention above cause gun violence. It is impossible to legislate away violence. Look at Chicago, some of the strictest gun regulations in the country and they have horrific gun violence.

To restate an old cliche, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a problem with our society. Marriage is defined as anything goes, families are defined as anything goes, gender, sexuality, morality are all defined as anything goes.

We have a couple of generations who have been taught the only rules are the ones you set for yourself. They’ve been taught truth is relative and values are optional.

What is needed is to come back to traditional family values, traditional societal values. We need to have firm standards to live by and quit making bad behavior acceptable. We need to teach our young people what it really means to respect others, to have compassion for others, to value others. We need to express to them there are real consequences for all behavior. We need parents to learn to tell their kids no, to instill values, to actually parent their kids, not supervise the kids parenting themselves.


Ban guns.

Nothing else will work.


What can be done is what is being done increasingly since that dreadful day in El Paso—See something? Hear something? Say something:

It is a crime to threaten to commit a massacre, full stop. It is intimidation, or menacing, depending upon the applicable statute.

Call the police.

1 Like

By you and I loving people, that is how we stop violence. Love more. Be love to people.


None of this is going to stop gun violence.

Reason: gun violence is committed by criminals and mass murderers. These people are going to get what they need to kill people regardless. If they don’t use guns (which criminals often get on the black market anyway), they will use home made bombs, knives, machetes, driving car into crowd, etc.

The real solution is to get to the bottom of WHY do these people want to commit mass murder. We know it’s not the gun’s fault because people didn’t do this in the past. It’s also not poverty, because the world (and the US) has had lots of poverty throughout history.

To me, I find it very interesting that as God has slipped away from our culture, the number of mass killings has increased.

The thing that we have to understand is this: when someone wants to commit domestic terrorism, they are going to do it with or without a gun.

So if you really want to stop violence… we need to understand and fix the underlying issue that causes someone to want to want to commit mass murder.



What we are trying to do is reduce crime This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:

• Targeting. The biggest payoff comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.

• Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.

• Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement.

We target the violent criminal through two laws;

  1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

  2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal

We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.

We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.

A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.

If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.

We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these crimes to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.

They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.

They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.


There is a book out now called The Boy Crisis which examines the epidemic of the boys and young men who are acting out in mass shootings, terrorism, and other ways. I saw an hour long interview with the author on C-Span. It seemed like a well researched book. I found it interesting.

A lack of involvement by the father of a boy (or a girl) was the common factor, and overwhelming theme, in many destructive behaviors. It manifests in girls as well, but is much more prominent with boys.


I and other law enforcement officials have been saying this for a long time. Legislation needs to be aimed at criminals and those who use weapons illegally. The majority of the NY SAFE act is nonsense because it targets primarily law-abiding citizens who own weapons that some liberals with no firearm experience have arbitrarily deemed “dangerous”. We don’t typically enforce those provisions anyway. What we do enforce are the sections of the law that create higher penalties for possession of weapons by convicted felons and for those who use firearms to commit crimes. If banning firearms worked then Chicago and DC would have the lowest crime rates in the country (we all know the reality). On the other hand, according to liberal logic Vermont should have the highest violent crime rate in the world, as not even permits are required to carry a firearm in that state (again, we all know that Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation). Anecdotally, as I’ve said before, the neighborhoods in my jurisdiction with higher rates of (legal) gun ownership have drastically lower crime than those with few or no firearm owners. Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe not.

Interesting note: In Svalbard, an island archipelago belonging to Norway, it is mandatory to carry a firearm if traveling outside of a village due to threats from polar bears. Svalbard also has fairly low crime rates.


Bingo! People get hipped on a simplistic solution, “gun control” and completely ignore violence control.


And long ago, we set up a system that drives fathers out of the home – I believe in 2012 we crossed the line with more children being born out of wedlock then in wedlock.

And we wonder why we have violent young men running around.


I do not think other things will do much, when we “skip” the giant white elephant of the room, easy access to guns and so many guns in civilians hands.

Both of the above directly relate to a high amount of mass shootings.

1 Like

Too late. Guns are here to stay.

You could limit ammunition but that’s about it.

Joe, penalizing me is not the answer. Focusing on career criminals and mental health is. I’ll admit that it does not feel as good.

You do not like firearms. OK, but why the knives in your kitchen? Knife attacks and murders are on the rise. Knife sales and possession/carrying are absolutely unregulated! Close a door, the perp finds a window.

How many amendments to the constitution will we shred? I suggest we jettison the First Amendment first. If that works out, we can move on to the Second, and so on.


Why are you afraid of being penalized? Do you think you wouldn’t pass a background check?

We already HAVE background checks and waiting periods. I had to submit to them when I carried badge and gun! Riddle me that one, Batman!

The goal. Look at the goal.

Disarmament - not of criminals - they are not subject to the law. But of the citizenry. And that IS a threat. What is going to ensure the First Amendment? Trump’s military? AYKM? Standing armies oppress. Citizen militias, as per the founder’s desires, ensure freedom.

Where are the highest US crime rates? Where they have the tightest gun control. Crime has measurably increased with each and every “gun control” measure. What do we want, more victims?

Let’s think this through and not let CNN dictate our thoughts.


Change of attitudes.


Nothing can stop it 100%. Perhaps teaching kids in every public school they’re the random result of an explosion isn’t having great results.

I have relatives no longer living who took guns to school every day. On their way home they shot things to eat. There’s been a change in society, not in access to guns.

Banning guns has always resulted in homicide rates going up. England, Ireland, DC, Chicago, Jamaica, it’s played out the same no matter if it’s a city or a country.


Not Vermont.

And not VT’s contiguous neighbor New Hampshire either, or Maine, right next to NH. All three of these states form a small region where no permit is necessary to carry guns, concealed or openly. And it is among the safest regions on the earth, as quantified by murder rate (murders /100k ppl).



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.