How do we prevent these mass shootings?

To establish a union between those 50 states. Primarily it was agreed to so those individuals states could interact with other countries as a more powerful entity. Also, to establish a framework for a system of commerce between the states. The purpose was not so that one state could control another.

The judicial system was never in question. It already has the tools to prosecute the people who commit acts of mass murder. The intent, however, seems to be to use law to prevent mass murder, which is certainly not how law in a free society is structure to function.

The issue has nothing to do with how you feel. The reality is that you are restricted, and these restrictions inhibit your individual freedom. Oddly you choose to accept these limitations, not because you're concerned that you might become a mass murderer, but because you think it will inhibit someone else from becoming one. That, my friend, is a false argument.

Again, this is not about feelings. Liberty is the ability to make choices. Remove a choice, and you become less free.

 

I hate ping pong and don't like playing it over political issues. However if it's against the law in Chicago, especially for gang members, how is it they have guns??? I'd suggest 90% of gang member have criminal records and I don't know ONE district where then having a gun is legal, to begin with. Seems to me, taking guns from them first would make more sense, than some old guy or gal, just wanting some kind of protection for themselves.

As for asking, mush less demanding law abiding people, to turn over their guns or face criminal charges, conviction and jail time, is a made up policy, by people wishing to choose who are authorized, is a little foolish. I'm imaging who Obama would want having guns over some local official who is a gun rights advocate.

 

Correct! So why not stand for effective mental health care?

I mean we all only have a 1/7th brain. That is a term which can be used to describe the proportion of cognitive potential to unconscious.

We use the term "1/2 a brain" commonly, but it's really not even that much when referring to cognitive, rational capacity. Not sure I can say folks here are even using 1/7th. I mean its obvious, but they keep evading the fact.

Mental health needs to treat the unconscious mind directly, period. That is the ONLY way interventions can preempt extreme violence.

American media uses semiotics to subliminally influence instinctual control over the public. That is unconscious for the public. The less contact with people that are coherent of that and cognitively offset it, the more chance of extreme divergence occurring. Isolation has been a side effect of commercialism on TV, basically corporations and government only want people associating with controlled or paid events. Accordingly it is very logical that these kinds of extremes would develop in a small percentage of the population and be completely unchecked.

If treatment direct to the unconscious was developed, and the effects of it publicized so the public realized how they were induced to have the thoughts and feelings they have, and when they go awry, there is a direct cure or option that is EFFECTIVE, they will seek that rather than kill and die.

Our society is afraid of the unconscious, unconsciously. We are a post crusade nation that is completely ignorant of what the crusades were about, and we THINK we like it that way. Europe knows, they don't talk about it, but they know. It is a politically in correct topic because of links between church and state.

I mean its soooooooo bad, that our dictionaries work to cover up the connection between our unconscious and how it controls behaviors.

These are facts!

If you have 1/7th of a brain that works, you will confirm it by looking up the definition of IDIOT. You will see that NOT ONE DEFINITION goes to the root of the word. The "Id".

Why?

The reason is because it defines people that are automatically controlled by their unconscious mind. The church cannot allow that notion to be understood, so it's control over academia prevents a full understanding of the word.

I hate to state it as broadly as it must be stated, but it is a fact; that all those posting in this thread IGNORING the fact that extreme violence, mass murders are cause by unconscious disorders; LOGICALLY, (a cognitive function BTW) call for an ability by psychology to treat the unconscious mind directly; are idiots.

They are automatically acting on their unconscious fear of socially acknowledging the unconscious mind and it's near total control over behaviors.

Ironic that their own behavior confirms it. But also very sad because it creates a social helplessness to oppose the illicit control that can cause mass murders, and FAR WORSE.

 

Making it as difficult as possible to obtain a firearm would help, as opposed to 'sign this, wait x hours, take your arsenal home'.

 

But the argument is that tough new laws will help prevent gun violence but the demographics do not support this idea. In America the Rural areas are generally very well armed and have the least amount of violence. Meanwhile are inner liberal cities have the most violence and the toughest gun laws. The idea that they city folk can go get guns easily can explain guns in a city but it can not explain how they are misused. The truth is a lot of guns or a little guns criminals do not care about laws. The murder rate in the US is in fact a problem of poverty in inner city mainly ethnic minority neighborhoods.

 

When was the last mass shooting in Britain, for example? I'll tell you; 2010. You seem to have one every month. Shootings of any sort are rare enough here that they make headline news for days. America? Probably not even worth reporting.

 

Yeah but we do not violate millions of peoples rights for the sake of a relative few mad men. We are not a constitutional monarchy where the government tells us what to do. We are the government here. That's what you Europeans will never understand.

- - - Updated - - -

We average 17 per year. So 1 every 1.5 to 2 months. Also you have that freedom restricted because you live under the authority of your government.

 

Which governments are out to get you? Or is this just your average gun nut paranoia?

 

We don't want guns, we don't need guns, we have never had a culture of mass ownership of guns. You'll have noticed the complete absence of any group lobbying for a repeal of our firearms regulations. We have never had a 'right' to own guns so nothing has been violated.
A constitutional monarchy has no legislative power, and no parliamentary authority whatsoever. We keep them for gullible tourists to gawp at and they certainly don't tell us what to do. They 'reign' by consent of the people, and almost exclusively in a ceremonial capacity.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/howthemonarchyworks/whatisconstitutionalmonarchy.aspx

 

1. ban 'gun free zones' as a failed and dangerous scheme
2. mandate universal reciprocity
3. Actually jail folk found guilty of real crimes committed with guns.

 

If you can target that imposed difficulty on crazy people and criminals, I'm with you. However, if you make it more difficult for ME, then you've failed, because the criminals will always choose the path of least resistance. And there are currently lots of paths that can not be regulated by law, only punished after the fact, when it's too late..

 

and crime rates are rising even faster than their illegal immigrant population.

 

Once you figure out how to stop people from acting violently you can stop mass killings.

 

I don't think that would improve things very much. I think the root of the problem may be the competitive nature of American culture, the winner takes it all and to hell with the losers.

 

isnt violent crime seriously out of control in the eu? the only reason you dont have more gun deaths is because your people are all on leashes and still mugging and robbery is a serious problem. hey by the way when can i walk down the street without being mugged by sharia patrols?

 

more guns on the street, will not solve this problem.

if anything, it might make it worse

 

disarming innocent people wont protect innocent people. we call it "the theory of duh"

 

Why? How could one be more helpless?

 

........

These are

 

more guns means more chances of them being used for the wrong reasons

 

do you have an open border with a country that is willing to ban guns? didnt think so

 

You don't prevent them.

 

we can if we try.

with much more mental health professionals, better access to their help, and folks calling the cops when a friend/relative/neighbor seems on the brink

 

Wont stop people. You may catch a few more, but not everyone has a slow burn into craziness. Some people live a perfectly normal life and than just snap. Then you have to account for the fact that if they cant legally buy a gun, they can steal one from someone they know or find an illegal way to purchase it. Not everyone shows outward signs of being on the brink, and sometimes it only takes 1 incident for someone to snap. Also, sociopaths are just are likely to do something similar and they are way harder to spot and track.

 

there is no way to 100% prevent it, any more then preventing crimes of passion from occurring

encourage people to seek help, make mental healthcare accessible for free to anyone that needs it

.