Sure it will. It will make the next violence easier to accomplish.
One problem a lot of people may not be aware of is that its extremely difficult nowadays to force a mentally ill person to get treatment. It used to be easier but laws changed out of compassion, fear, and a lack of knowledge.
I say this as a bipolar person who’s been hospitalized before. I’ve also been close to people who desperately needed care and couldn’t consent to it because they couldn’t think clearly.
Usually a person has to directly admit to a doctor that they’re going to kill themselves or someone else to get held for 72 hours against their will in a treatment center. Occasionally a very aggressive psychotic person can be held, but often they’re just arrested. Getting even a 72 hour hold is very very very difficult to accomplish & even then usually isn’t enough care for a severe chronic condition that inhibits rational thought & impulse control.
The way these laws have changed isn’t the kindness it seems. It leaves people to spend their entire lives in chaos and often homeless when medication could give them freedom. Even institutionalization for the very severe is a huge kindness compared to a life of fear danger and homelessness.
Usually its the patient & their families that suffers the most, but occasionally untreated mental illness ends up in mass shootings.
None of this is a kindness.
The thing is, mentally ill individuals are more less likely to commit a murder. The El Paso shooting, specifically, was motivated by the hate towards Hispanic individuals living in the States.
However the media continues to showcase mentally ill individuals as such, as this is causing a really, really huge stigma.
However, we seriously need to implement mental health services for the survivors or the surviving families of the victims. I have C-PTSD, a form of post-traumatic stress from my childhood years with long-term abuse at my elementary school. Violence frightens me as it only reminds me of what teachers did to me.
Trauma is a really horrible thing to live with.
Well, which is it? More likely, or less likely?
They do try to do that, however, there is no actual method of doing that successfully that doesn’t impinge on the rights of the overwhelming majority who are completely law abiding. Short of precognition, crime, much like the poor, will always be with us.
The legislative system has never operated in such a way and the is no reason to think that will change.
Sometimes there is no cure. But, assuming there is, it is not necessary to try all the obviously bad options until someone comes up with a good one.
I agree with father that it is a symptom of our culture and not a consequence of the existence of the weapons. If you want to stop gun violence evangelization is the best cure.
Less likely. Sorry for the confusion!
I’m not from the US so I’m not going to comment on your firearms regulations, but I think there are a few things you could do that might help reduce mass shootings, particularly in schools.
The typical “active shooter” is more similar to a serial killer than most people realise, watching for stressors and triggers related to serial killers, particularly the fact that those people drop hints before they start killing might help prevent a problem before it starts.
The second and I think more useful would be to teach boys (statistically most shooters are male) safe coping strategies. Too many boys decide to take their pain out on others and this is causing major issues.
A final thing is break the ridiculous notion of the gun being the ultimate symbol of masculinity. It looks completely pathetic from the outside.
What is it about American culture that does encourage this violence?
The other developed nations do not have this type of gun violence and yet they are even more secular than the USA.
The shootings are a symptom of increasing loss of hope, loss of a sense of individual value, and increasing pent-up anger. There is a suicidal impulse in each case. In many cases, 24/7 media attention only drives the suicidal to carry out their plans. Virtually every suicidal person is also homicidal. If their life does not matter to them, ours also means nothing. Our society and culture have steadily devalued human life. What do we expect?
Now, as to the shootings, there are innumerable things that we can do without penalizing or stigmatizing the law abiding citizen. Since murder is illegal and always has been, another flurry of bad legislation will not and cannot help. From the Dallas Morning News:
Once you relinquish or surrender a freedom, you never get it back without bloodshed. And, isn’t bloodshed the very thing we wish to avoid?
You’re right they don’t have that type of gun violence, they just have knife stabbing sprees, radicals running innocent people over in trucks, and constant acid attacks.
Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does not solve the problem, it makes it easier for criminals to kill people. Have you ever noticed that a majority of the gun violence and mass shootings ( that are publicized and sensationalized) happen in gun-free zones?
However, they don’t know you’re carrying, and you have the advantage of surprise. In many such incidents the mere appearance of an armed opponent has caused the shooter to desist or commit suicide.
In any case, a gun is like a parachute – you’ll probably never need one, but if you do need one and don’t have one, you’ll never need anything again.
But unlike a gun, a parachute is not used to kill people or to kill oneself to to kill a child by accident.
What can we do about the shootings?
Support strong families.
Those horrible weapons that Beto wants to grab have nothing to do with the much more severe problem that the US has too many murderers living here. Those horrible weapons are used to murder a small fraction of all the murder victims. And since guns don’t cause murder, or ppl to become murderers, “grabbing” them will not convert murderers back into innocent ppl again, nor will the process of generating murderers in the US (whatever sociological process that is) slow down. So the population of murderers will not change even if Beto and others like him get their wish.
And before anybody says it, I know that those horrible weapons are being targeted because it is easier for a mass murderer to murder more ppl whenever they do decide to commit a massacre. What I said above still holds, even if we should agree with Beto’s threat (which I don’t, but even if I’m wrong on that, what I wrote above stands).
But even the countries that do have those things (at least the Western countries that are comparable to the US) pretty much don’t, per capita, have nearly the rates or the death tolls from them.
And other western countries still pretty much have every single one of the reasons that has been given as an explanation for gun violence in the US. So what is the difference?
Mental heath, perhaps? But that would come down to that evil socialised govt funded healthcare that you hate so much.
But that’s It. You’ve got one small edge that you can use once, and if you with that small edge manage to miss your target, for example, then you’ve used up that small edge, and now you’re outgunned.
Much better to be properly armed. Much better still to outgun your opponent.
“It’s better to have a gun and need it, than to not have a gun and not need it.”
Can’t deny it.
I do not mean to insult you, but goodness, where do you live that you would have to carry this deepen concern for your safety? I understand that there are areas of the country were violence is an epidemic. But, I think you can agree that the neighborhood is not any more safe with a stock pile of weapons.
Many people’s reason for owning a gun is that if a criminal attacks you; you want a weapon to gun him down. This is the main reason given for ownership of a handgun; assault rifles are another story. This answer has doubled in surveys since the 1990s’. During the same period, the chance that you would have such an encounter has decreased by half. The prospect of protecting oneself against random attacks are nearly none.
There are dozens of laws that encourage “citizen showdowns”; conceal carry, stand your ground are driven by hysteria rather than by reason and prudence.
I have to agree with the majority of people. This is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed.
I live in the US, in the world. I also have read history enough to know that decades of peace are not a reason to conclude that we’re therefore doing anything right. Centuries are a much better gauge of how things are going. And we do not have centuries behind us to support that weapons of war should be restricted from civilian hands, which is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment’s prohibition against infringing the right to bear arms. Weapons of war have basically been out of civilian hands since the 1934 NFA, and yet here we are still fighting about restricting even irreversibly less functional replicas of real weapons of war.
Law enforcement has a stock pile of weapons, in every neighborhood.
No, same story.
I agree with that.