PSA: What to do during a mass shooting

[OreoRosies86]

And I’m still waiting to hear what your practical solution would be. We have gun laws in Chicago for example, and yet our gun deaths are the highest in the nation. To be clear, I’m not advocating more guns. Please tell me your ideas on how you think this can be controlled and reversed.

I have stated my opinion on steps to prevent gun violence on this board many, many times. You're not waiting to hear what I said, I've already said it and it's not the answer you want. So you'll keep asking as if you're interested when you aren't. I do not support the gun industry by buying guns. I actively vote for gun control laws. I'm off the carousel ride. The onus is not on me and others to fix this. It's on gun owners. You have no interest in that.

 

[redwood66]

No it's on courts, law enforcement - including the FBI/DOJ to prosecute, convict, and sentence for laws we have and have stricter penalties (that people actually do time for) on weapon charges. Pleading to lesser charges when a weapon is involved should be disallowed. People doing straw purchases on weapons should do serious time. But that increases the prison population that so many have an issue with. So which do you want?

 

[Bonfire]

I don’t see how deflecting my question with defensive personal comments is an answer Elliot86. However, Taking a complicated societal problem and just lobbing insults across the bow is not a solution. You don’t Converse, you bite.
@Arkteia my question was respectfully directed to you. I really am interested in what you have to say.

 

[t-c]

And I’m still waiting to hear what your practical solution would be. We have gun laws in Chicago for example, and yet our gun deaths are the highest in the nation. To be clear, I’m not advocating more guns. Please tell me your ideas on how you think this can be controlled and reversed.

You know for a fact that current gun laws are at best band-aid on a hemorrhage. Even when fully enforced, they won't make a dent on the number of guns out there, because they don't address limits on gun numbers, which is the heart of the issue.

You're not advocating more guns...so answer this: what limits to gun ownership are you willing to accept? Are you willing to have limits to the number of guns people can own? Limits to the kind of guns people can own? Do you think others are?

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Both countries my children went to school in have significantly lower homicide rates (1.58 * resp. 0.85 * per 100.000 inhabitants) than the US (4.88*). Both have strict gun control laws.
Almost ALL EU countries have extremely strict gun laws and significantly lower figures than the US, most under 1.

We still have two drills twice a year (one presented as "hide and seek" to the kids for a shooting /terrorist attack/hostage scenario and another one as an evacuation drill.
In both countries this is organized by our states w/ law enforcement professionals.


*UNDOC intentional homicide rate

 

[OreoRosies86]

I don’t see how deflecting my question with defensive personal comments is an answer Elliot86. However, Taking a complicated societal problem and just lobbing insults across the bow is not a solution. You don’t Converse, you bite.
@Arkteia my question was respectfully directed to you. I really am interested in what you have to say.

I have been on this site for five years and I have never cared about how my tone is interpreted. I continue not to care. As yesterday's election events unfolded I found myself very encouraged that the Smart people are getting things done. Maybe that trend will trickle down into gun law reform.

 

[kenny]

Elliot, kudos for not giving in to social pressure to post "the only proper way to post".

Be yourself.
AFAIC we're all welcome here just as we are.

Often harsh tone itself is an essential part of the point being made.
Water it down and you are not communicating authentically or effectively.

 

[Bonfire]

You know for a fact that current gun laws are at best band-aid on a hemorrhage. Even when fully enforced, they won't make a dent on the number of guns out there, because they don't address limits on gun numbers, which is the heart of the issue.

You're not advocating more guns...so answer this: what limits to gun ownership are you willing to accept? Are you willing to have limits to the number of guns people can own? Limits to the kind of guns people can own? Do you think others are?

To answer your question, sure. Can I speak for others? No.
What would YOU propose for cities like Chicago where illegal guns are everywhere in hands of gang bangers? How have the laws helped? What would you suggest? Please read my tone as curious not snide or condescending.

 

[Bonfire]

Elliot, kudos for not giving in to social pressure to post "the only proper way to post".

Be yourself.
AFAIC we're all welcome here just as we are.

Often harsh tone itself is an essential part of the point being made.
Water it down and you are not communicating authentically or effectively.

However, it doesn’t answer the posed question. It’s empty snark and deflection. I assume by now everyone has forgotten the original question.

 

[OreoRosies86]

However, it doesn’t answer the posed question. It’s empty snark

It’s kind of funny that you attempt to knock me down a peg for “lobbing insults” and then equate my “I’ve already made my case for what to do about this” stance with “empty snark.”

How about this. You continue to act like you’re above snarky posts, and I will continue to remain unbothered with what you think.

 

[Bonfire]

It’s kind of funny that you attempt to knock me down a peg for “lobbing insults” and then equate my “I’ve already made my case for what to do about this” stance with “empty snark.”

How about this. You continue to act like you’re above snarky posts, and I will continue to remain unbothered with what you think.

Sure lets.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Sure lets.

 

[redwood66]

What does the number of guns a person owns have to do with anything? Plenty of people own many weapons that never shoot any person except in a rare case of self defense. How many is too many and what would this do to stop shootings like Texas (or Vegas)? Actual adherence to the existing law should have prevented him from legally buying the four weapons he had purchased. If one has a certain arbitrary number of weapons is that an indication of mental instability or some other deficiency in your (anyone) eyes? The argument of number makes no sense to me.

 

[Bonfire]

@t-c I agree about limiting and restriction on types of gun ownership.
Mass shootings are happening with more frequency. It’s horrible. We have become a culture of guns. Everyday there are gun deaths in Chicago. Several hundred a year! People with criminal intent will always get the weapons. Gun laws are not working here. No one seems to care unless it’s a mass shooting that gets their attention. My question that no one seems to want to answer is, how do we as a society get the guns out of the hands of criminals? It’s not as easily done as just making them illegal to own. That’s not working. Not to be misconstrued as advocating for no gun reform.

 

[redwood66]

@t-c I agree about limiting and restriction on types of gun ownership.
Mass shootings are happening with more frequency. It’s horrible. We have become a culture of guns. Everyday there are gun deaths in Chicago. Several hundred a year! People with criminal intent will always get the weapons. Gun laws are not working here. No one seems to care unless it’s a mass shooting that gets their attention. My question that no one seems to want to answer is, how do we as a society get the guns out of the hands of criminals? It’s not as easily done as just making them illegal to own. That’s not working. Not to be misconstrued as advocating for no gun reform.

I would like to know what you mean about limiting and restriction. Can you elaborate please? I am trying to continue a respectful conversation. Thanks!

 

[Bonfire]

No it's on courts, law enforcement - including the FBI/DOJ to prosecute, convict, and sentence for laws we have and have stricter penalties (that people actually do time for) on weapon charges. Pleading to lesser charges when a weapon is involved should be disallowed. People doing straw purchases on weapons should do serious time. But that increases the prison population that so many have an issue with. So which do you want?

I agree with this in theory, but there are still too many guns on the street. There is no way our court system can handle it.

 

[Bonfire]

I would like to know what you mean about limiting and restriction. Can you elaborate please? I am trying to continue a respectful conversation. Thanks!

I don’t see the reason for military type weapons in anyone’s hands unless you are law enforcement or in the military. No one needs them for hunting or target shooting or home defense imo.

 

[redwood66]

I agree with this in theory, but there are still too many guns on the street. There is no way our court system can handle it.

It is a start though because if the criminals who use them are behind bars rather than let go on a lesser charge and that is one less on the street. Barring house to house confiscation you will never rid all the guns from the streets. Profiling and busting known illegal gun carriers would rid us of many of them because the cops in cities and towns know the general locations. But there is the little problem of the 4th Amendment that puts a damper on that. Criminals get hardly any time for possession of a stolen or modified (serial numbers scratched off) weapon. Sure the weapon is confiscated and hopefully destroyed but how tiny of a dent is that in the millions of illegal weapons.

I am not a person who thinks we should do nothing but I definitely disagree with "doing something" just to make people feel better that really ends up doing nothing.

 

[Bonfire]

Chicago was doing gun turn-in events a few years ago. Turn in a gun no questions asked and get $100 gift card. They got hundreds of guns. But our streets are still saturated.

 

[liaerfbv]

@t-c I agree about limiting and restriction on types of gun ownership.
Mass shootings are happening with more frequency. It’s horrible. We have become a culture of guns. Everyday there are gun deaths in Chicago. Several hundred a year! People with criminal intent will always get the weapons. Gun laws are not working here. No one seems to care unless it’s a mass shooting that gets their attention. My question that no one seems to want to answer is, how do we as a society get the guns out of the hands of criminals? It’s not as easily done as just making them illegal to own. That’s not working. Not to be misconstrued as advocating for no gun reform.

Please take the time to educate yourself on why Chicago's systemic segregation, classist economic factors, and generational poverty have led to the levels of gun violence it has.

This is an excellent article from The New York Times that delves deeper into why segregation and poverty are the main contributing factors to the violence on the South side:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html

The way to "get the guns out of the hands of the criminals" here is to take the time (years, not months) and money (millions, not thousands) to develop economic opportunities on the South side. More economic opportunities = more racial integration = less gang activity = less guns = less murders. It's a very simple formula. In so many neighborhoods, literally the only job is "crime." White people ignore this and move to River North, never go further south then the Loop, and then complain about gun laws not working here.

 

[redwood66]

I don’t see the reason for military type weapons in anyone’s hands unless you are law enforcement or in the military. No one needs them for hunting or target shooting or home defense imo.

Our one "military" type weapon (I assume you mean AR15 style) that we have fires the same rounds and capacity as my Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle that was never on any ban list. The looks don't make them any more deadly than other rifles. Banning "assault" weapons will not remove any that are currently in circulation which numbers in the tens of millions.

It sounds like Chicago has many problems that should be addressed. A gun turn-in is a way to get free money for a criminal because there is always another one to be had for nefarious purposes.

 

[Bonfire]

Please take the time to educate yourself on why Chicago's systemic segregation, classist economic factors, and generational poverty have led to the levels of gun violence is has.

This is an excellent article from The New York Times that delves deeper into why segregation and poverty are the main contributing factors to the violence on the South side:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html

The way to "get the guns out of the hands of the criminals" here is to take the time (years, not months) and money (millions, not thousands) to develop economic opportunities on the South side. More economic opportunities = more racial integration = less gang activity = less guns = less murders. It's a very simple formula. In so many neighborhoods, literally the only job is "crime." White people ignore this and move to River North, never go further south then the Loop, and then complain about gun laws not working here.

And the fact that our state is on the brink of bankruptcy doesn’t help. It may be a simple formula but it’s not an easy one to implement. It also mentions what Red was saying about convictions and longer prison time. Chicago is too lenient.

 

[lyra]

I don't get why the US is immune to the possibility that a gun ban is off the table. Australia did it. Many other countries have done it. I don't care about your right to bear arms. I support the right for people to live without fear dictating every move. More fear, buy more guns?? I don't get that. Thinking a gun makes you safe? I don't get that either. Ban guns. There are countries where the police don't even have guns. It might take 100 years to accomplish something like this, but make an effort.

From what I'm seeing, basically anyone in the US can get any kind of gun, tons of ammunition too, whether legally or illegally. Tons of loopholes and inadequate sharing of information. There is no registration or insurance, like with cars. This is ridiculous. It shouldn't be this easy. Take a page out of Japan's book, please. At least make some part of this whole process harder. Anything. Otherwise, the whole country continues to look stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world. The US isn't supposed to be like any third world country.

 

[liaerfbv]

And the fact that our state is on the brink of bankruptcy doesn’t help. It may be a simple formula but it’s not an easy one to implement.

I agree - but the answer is there. It doesn't change because the people in power aren't affected by the problem, but lamenting there's nothing to be done is factually incorrect.

 

[t-c]

@t-c I agree about limiting and restriction on types of gun ownership.
Mass shootings are happening with more frequency. It’s horrible. We have become a culture of guns. Everyday there are gun deaths in Chicago. Several hundred a year! People with criminal intent will always get the weapons. Gun laws are not working here. No one seems to care unless it’s a mass shooting that gets their attention. My question that no one seems to want to answer is, how do we as a society get the guns out of the hands of criminals? It’s not as easily done as just making them illegal to own. That’s not working. Not to be misconstrued as advocating for no gun reform.

The reason I ask is because it doesn't really matter what I (or other gun control advocates) say, because it will be met with things like what you or @redwood66 say: laws don't work / aren't being enforced, it's too expensive, lots of people with guns don't kill people, it takes too much time, etc...

So I thought why not approach this a different way: what limitations can gun owners live with? I'm operating on the assumption that gun owners are reasonable and willing to accept some limits to gun ownership to reduce the killings and deaths. The gun control advocates have lived a long time with the current situation, where people can amass hundreds of guns, some modified to act like automatic weapons; it's hard to compromise further. So it's the turn of the gun owners / lovers: what limits can you accept?

I'm serious. Because we need to see whether there's anything to work with. Because, being realistic, getting guns out of the hands of criminals means getting guns out of the hands of non-criminals as well.

 

[E B]

draw gun
seek cover
return fire until the threat is neutralized.

“Return fire until the threat is neutralized.”

This seems like a recipe for disaster, no? It seems like more often than not, there’s a ton of confusion when gunshots ring out. So say I, cowering in my corner, pull out my gun (because in this fantasy, we’re all packing) and I see you ‘returning fire’— but how do I know you aren’t the active shooter? How does the person seeing me aiming and shooting at you know *I’m* not the active shooter? How are police supposed to know who to take down when there are half a dozen people shooting at each other in absolute panicked confusion? We’re all active shooters at this point!

The Wild West fantasy of it all falls apart when you consider the real-life circumstances. As it usually goes.

My children’s public school does lockdown drills and every time they describe it to me, I sob.

 

[redwood66]

What limits or restrictions on guns will actually reduce killings and deaths in Chicago or Detroit for example?

 

[liaerfbv]

What limits or restrictions on guns will actually reduce killings and deaths in Chicago or Detroit for example?

None. Poverty must be addressed before anything will change in the inner cities. Gang violence is a completely different problem than mass shootings.

 

[ksinger]

To think that this is even possible is being naive. There is no way to get this genie back in the bottle and I wish people would realize this and move on to better solutions. Bonfire is right and barring door to door confiscation in every house in the US there is no way to rid every firearm from the country. If you want confiscation of every firearm then you are living in a fantasy world with all due respect. These extreme views do nothing to further any kind of solutions. People have to be realistic.

And I wish you would quit taking equally extreme positions and addressing straw men. Yours is equally naive, to think that a few frothing liberals who know zip about guns or (in this case, often) the constitution, are an actual threat. Who cares what extreme fantasy they're having? They can't have that pink pony, you know it and so do I. You need to quit saying your response is in response to that. You know as well as I do that what drives most of the objections to gun regulation is not that it won't be effective, but the ideological position that government is mostly evil and ultimately ineffective and individual rights should trump all. That and too long staring of the boogieman flogged to a fever pitch by the NRA that any registration and regulation, no matter how narrowly applied, and to only certain types of guns will inevitably lead to mass confiscation. In fact, the mere use of the word "confiscation" by gunners means I can assume they're not talking about guns anymore. Since we have history since the founding of the country to look at for evidence that there is no real danger of mass confiscation, not to mention the glacially slow ebb and flow of most legislation of any kind, forget about gun legislation, believing that confiscation is a real threat, is actually the definition of paranoia.

To both you Red, and Bonfire, the reality is there is a working model of a gun control system that works right now, and has since 1934. In all that time, there have been no mass confiscations of legal class III weapons. They're registered, they're monitored, they're left alone. So leave the "all guns" verbiage out of it and just address the guns that are most lethal on a mass scale in a single incident, right now. Anything else should be a battle for another day and likely another generation. Now apply the logic that was used to classify earlier weapons as class III, meaning, the ability of an untrained individual to be lethal on a mass scale, to the AR and AK platforms. It gets somewhat clearer.

Will it mean no one gets shot? No. Should that be enough to not try? No, because it will probably help. Over time. Of course, much like we want a pill for every ill and a Harry Potter wand, we're not terrifically good at taking the long view in the US. But at this point, with the next perfectly-legal-until-he-isn't-hyper-violent-white-dude on a near weekly schedule to shoot up the next whatever, we've truly got little left to lose making the attempt. Should your objections be any of the following: "Nothing will make shootings stop therefore we can/should try nothing other than hand-wringing a limping along as we have", or ideological fear of the surveillance state and mass confiscation, or "I'll be inconvenienced"? No, because the first is defeated already, the second has no basis in reality, and the third because it's morally stunted.

 

[t-c]

What limits or restrictions on guns will actually reduce killings and deaths in Chicago or Detroit for example?

If all you're going to do is shoot down any effort to constructively talk about this, then kindly spare us. I thought my question was pretty reasonable. I mean if you don't want any limits to your gun rights, then have the courage to say (and defend) it. If you can accept some limits, why not just answer the question?