How Do We Stop Mass Murder? What Is Fact & What Is Fiction?

Opinion

How Do We Stop Mass Shootings
How Do We Stop Mass Shootings

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- After the murders at the Pittsburgh Synagogue, I keep seeing this question on Quora and other social media; ‘How do we stop mass murder?’

Most of the people asking this question feel strongly about things they don’t understand. They have not studied the issues of physical defense or contemporary mental health. I’m sorry to give them the bad news, but there is no magic button to fix the human condition.

We can not eliminate mass murder, but we can reduce it.

  1. We grew mass murderers after we developed mass media. Stop rewarding narcissistic murderers with a billion dollars of publicity.
  2. Almost all mass murders are in so-called “gun-free” zones. Make the government strictly liable for every injury in a government-mandated “gun-free” zone.
  3. Make owners/operators strictly liable for every injury in a privately mandated “gun-free” zones.

I’m tempted to add that we should hold bureaucrats responsible for the crazy people they release back into society, but we have never found a way to hold bureaucrats accountable. To claim that would be a solution is magical thinking and this isn’t an article about fantasy fiction.

The three things I mentioned won’t end the problem of mass murder, but they will help a lot. If you doubt that conclusion, then please consider this;

Is there any “gun-free” zone where we have not found a gun? I have not found a single one.

I’ve also heard people propose more background checks and more bureaucratic “no-buy” lists. That sounds too good to be true..and it is. Gun prohibition would disarm an honest citizen like me, but bans have not stopped criminals or determined murderers.

Do you agree?


Slow Facts

About Rob Morse

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 32 thoughts on “How Do We Stop Mass Murder? What Is Fact & What Is Fiction?

    1. No offense to the author, but we are the government. So penalizing the government, just penalizes us. Now if you’d like to penalize the politicians that do not create and enforce laws that reduce the number of incidents, then I concur. As for the media, I cannot go into a public event and yell fire, so why can the news media broadcast and glamorize shootings. Of course the answer is clear for many in the media. It is their own personal political agenda. Failure to hold the sponsors of this rhetoric accountable, creates an atmosphere of freedom that allows one to say I am stating facts when I am just spewing my unprovable personal opinions.

      So vote for change! Remove all the people who enjoy those wonderful paychecks and benefits while telling us to shove because they know better. The days where the politician is smarter than their voters has long expired. Do your duty and VOTE!

    2. I’ll really believe that leftists politicians are serious about gun violence when they get rid of their armed bodyguards. Until then they can STFU.

    3. “Gun prohibition would disarm an honest citizen like me, but bans have not stopped criminals or determined murderers. Do you agree?”
      No, and yes: Gun prohibition WILL NOT disarm an honest citizen like me, and it should not disarm you. Gun prohibition by definition is but mere “color of law” and is prohibited to the federal government by the 2nd and 10th Amendments and is prohibited to the State governments by Article VI Clause 2 and by the 2nd and 10th Amendments.
      But you are right, of course, than bans have not stopped determined criminals.

    4. According to FBI data mass shootings are actually down over the past 25 years. Dana Loesch ferreted this out. What is happening is that it’s being played over and over for weeks on end, so it seems they are on the rise.

      Bottom line is the Founders addressed this directly; Arm Everyone!

    5. I’ve been pushing #2 and #3 for years. People with no skin in the game don’t mind spending your money or spilling your blood. If the people who support “gun free” zones were held responsible for what happens in them attitudes would be different.

    6. I, too, believe in the second amendment strictly as it was written in the late 1700s. I believe you have the right to own a musket…..not an assault rifle.

      1. I too believe in the first amendment. Please send any replies to me on parchment written with a quill pen.
        Damned idjits have never read the federalist papers or any supporting documents to the constitution.

        Show me where it says the right to keep and bear muskets.

      2. Then you really do not understand the 2nd Amendment as James Madison and George Mason wrote it and the states adopted it during the Constitution’s adoption. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when colonists had weapons superior to those of the British Army because they were created for different purposes. Army weapons were not designed for accuracy. They were designed for a mass of soldiers marching toward another mass where firing into the mass inflicted wounds without the necessity to single out targets. Colonial weapons were made for hunting where distance and accuracy were positive attributes. Animals seldom gather in masses in the colonial forests.

        Self defense was the right of every human, so there was no need to write an amendment which granted that right. The same is true of hunting to put food on the table. The 2nd Amendment was written to afford the people the ability to defend all of their rights against a tyrannical government which no longer recognized nor protected the rights of individuals. Remember, the colonists had just fought a war against a government which had ceased to afford them the same rights held by English citizens residing in Great Britain. This was also a common problem under the governments of European nations where leaders believed that they ruled by divine providence, and were authorized to grant or take away rights as they saw fit, with or without the people’s consent. Such was the nature of the colonists/Founders experience with government’s which were destined to control the masses.

        As an aside, the whole of the population was considered an irregular militia, ready willing, and able to respond to any threat to the nation since the Continental Army was disbanded following the Revolutionary War. This came into play during the War of 1812 when England invaded the United States.

        Today, since the 2nd Amendment has not legally (in accordance with the Constitution) been changed, it still stands as it was written. Any and all infringements, including the National Firearms Act (1934), Assault Weapons Ban, and the actions of the State of California, technically are without merit and violate the right of the people.

        1. Oldmarine >>> DaveW
          GOOD Comment…Applying History can help understand this situation. There are many who just can understand History though. The basic rule of life is Survival and that requires certain tools and foremost of those is a weapon to defend yourself. If anyone does not believe that that is still true today with all the criminals in our society. then they will become the forgotten victims of life. I think the leftist don’t want friends, they want admirers. They think they can control others like a Dictator and that they have all the answers. I find that they have the emotions and not the answers. They demand that they can improve anything but don’t really know how to do that. That is what frustrates them into violence with emotions getting the best of them. The problem with that is the pragmatist see them as a threat to the basic human emotion, the desire for survival. A never ending story of life. Emotionalism is not prepared for life and the Pragmatist are prepared. Sad but true.

      3. A gun, when used as a counter measure, will stand up only if it is class restricted. So, show up with a musket and see where you stand against someone who is not restricted. You’ll lose 100 times out of 100.

      4. Jon, I see you are a history buff and a constitutionalist. As a historian you are certainly aware that pistols, derringers and rifles were considered ‘arms’ at the time of the writing of the 2A. You must certainly be aware that the ‘well regulated militias’ often owned artillery pieces. Since there were no restrictions, you could buy sell or trade for ‘arms’ with no regard for criminal activity, mental disturbance or domestic violence history. ‘Arms’ could be shipped via common carrier across state lines and even internationally without question. Since there also is no restriction on how you could ‘bear arms’ you would be able to covertly or overtly ‘bear arms’ anywhere you care to including churches, schools, businesses, buses, trains and even airplanes. You could tow your artillery piece right into Times Square if you wanted. I will trade my access to an ‘assault rifle’ for removal of the 20,000+ restrictions on weapons. Is it a deal?

    7. It is not about gun control , but , people control. they can’t force armed people into cattle cars. Think about that ! Wake up America !

    8. I live i n a western state. We mark distances between towns in time, not miles. 1/2 hour, 1 hour, 2 hours or more. These towns don don’t have law enforcement in them, just people. Law enforcement is MILES AND HOURS away. They arrive in time to take pictures and write reports. The politicians can’t get this through their thick skulls! Or simply don’t care about us. We are “fly over country “!

    9. Only GUN OWNERS can save the Second Amendment . To do that they MUST get off their dead asses and vote . NO vote NO saving the second .No one to blame but THEMSELVES.

    10. I read a comment from a viewer wanting more gun restrictions claiming that the founding fathers would have been appalled by seeing weapons in restaurants, stores and churches. I had to remind him that at the time of our founding fathers weapons in public places was a common occurrence. We should return to this attitude in which is is accepted to defend yourself. As to #1, the social media blitz surrounding any horrific event is the cause for more to occur. We’ve all heard of copycats and the instant celebrity provided by electronic media feeds them. Our latest generation is being brainwashed by the devices in their hands.

      1. Right on. What faster way to get your picture on the 24 hour news cycle, and every nutcase in the country looking at you as some sort of ‘role model’. It’s been about 20 years, but I doubt anyone here doesn’t remember the name “Dylan Kleibold”. (spelling?). The nutcase that planned to shoot up Fair Haven VT high school had every article and picture ever published about him peppered on his walls. He was his ‘hero’.

      2. Oldmarine
        The politicians have some protection but that has limits. They are not protected from a criminal act as many end up in prison. That protection is also a form of Predigest against citizens. A good Lawyer should be able to defeat much of that protection according to the circumstances. Many times they are involved in criminal acts but no one challenges them and they get away with it. We can only blame ourselves for that. For-instants many violate their Oath of OFFICE. THAT IS A FRAUDULENT ACT AGAINST THE PEOPLE and purgery under Oath also, all for monetary gain ( fraud ). These are charges that they are not protected from. As a citizen you still have power to control politicians that are criminals. Go get them citizen.

    11. Some of these shootings are fEd gOv creations . When you have msm that supports this kind of deception then it’s hard to sparate fact from fiction .

        1. I think that Patrick’s notion is false flags. Have to agree Wesley, unless we have tangible proof, back away.

          However, the most vile, highest body count mass murders are via government. Even in this country, think Waco.

    12. I had not thought about your number 1.
      It IS a good idea.
      Number 2 and 3 are the ones I have been saying for many years.
      No one outside of the LEGAL WEAPON OWNER has ever agreed with me.
      GET OUT AND VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL DEFEND OUR God GIVEN RIGHTS.
      Theses RIGHTS are RESTATED in the Constitution and the Amendments when the Constitution was accepted across America.

    13. I think when you look at defensive gun uses among law-abiding Americans, the evidence is clear: Mass shootings CAN BE STOPPED at the outset AS LONG AS THERE’S A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN. Professor Lott is right, more guns = less crime!

    14. I’d think getting the government to re-open the shuttered mental institutions would be a step in the right direction. Also, returning the law allowing the police to arrest someone suspected of being violently mentally ill, would be nice too. But this time, each police department must maintain an on-call panel of three psychiatrists to make the determination for a mandatory mental health evaluation. Because when the police had that law previously, they abused it.

        1. Well, Superman, it is not the Police Officer that is the problem. It is the Bureaucrats above his pay scale. ie Mayors, Judges and the ilk.

        2. I live 40 minutes from the closest police/sheriff station. The far end of the county, I see a LEO (law Enforcement Officer) once per shift. What are the chances that he/she will be near enough to protect me during a robbery or break in? I have a better chance of winning the lottery. It’s amazing how many celebrities are against anyone owning a gun but all have armed security Why? because they can afford to, I can’t can you?

        3. Oldmarine >>> Clark Kent
          That really is not a very logical answer. If you really want to do something that will help there are several ways to do that.
          1. Place Charges against any Law maker in your state that is against the 2nd amendment with violating your civil rights and conspiracy against the constitution.
          2. If anyone in your family is killed or hurt then charge any signer of a law NOT allowing their defense with Aiding and Abetting in the crime. Easy to prove because they signed a illegal law according to the Constitution. This has already adjudicated and determined that any law that is repugnant to the constitution is not a LAW. THAT MAKES THAT LAW ILLEGAL. and can be construed as a crime in its self.
          The only way to correct Gun Grabbers is to make those who violate the 2nd to be held personally responsible and subject to the law themselves will this problem be resolved.
          When they affect you personally then go after them to make them pay for breaking your Constitutional and Natural rights.
          In some ways any Law against or for the 2nd is really an attack on the 2nd because one word in the 2nd. ( Infringed ) This can not be interpretative by opinions that would be illegal. Even if the Supreme Court gave and opinion on the 2nd. then that would be against the Constitution because it would be only an opinion. The Second Amendment is a clear statement that to many people read the way they want to. Law makers are protected pretty much but on a personal basis they are just the same as any other citizen. Actually Many Gun Grabbers actions could be seen as Racketeering and Subversion of the Constitution. This borders on Treason and always violates Constitutional rights. In court go after the violator personally not the position or title. There seems to be no agency that really looks out for Constitutional violators so it is up to the citizenry to do so. If you are harmed in any way because of a law then go after any person that approved it personally for an attack on you stressing the their actions have do this to you. To much ratchet jawing so think it over. A personal attack on you and yours should be repulsed in the same manner. Its called Defense.

          1. Oldmarine
            Voting ALONE will not correct the violations. You Must go after those who violate your rights and most of those are politicians making laws against the Constitution. The more people that do that the more the left will see that they will suffer the Law. Form a sort of Vigilante organization oversee your representatives in all of you local and state government. Interview them . Ask them if they represent you and if they support All of the Constitution. Let them know that people like you want only good public servants. Do NOT threaten them or voice anything other than your concerns and that you are part of a strong voting block. A good citizen has more options than a public servant, remember you are the BOSS. Semper Fi

          2. Legislators are immune from prosecution. They have enacted laws protecting themselves from what you are proposing. They can enact legislation that conflicts with the constitution with no repercussions other than being voted out of office. Unfortunately the damage has already been done. Don’t think I’ve ever heard of relaxing of gun restrictions.

      1. And who decides what is the criteria for declaring someone “suspect of being violently mentally ill”? Nancy Pelosi? DiFi? Chucky Schumer? Kamala Harris? Shannon Watts?
        I don’t think creating a thought police is where we need to go.

    Leave a Comment 32 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *