How to stop mass shootings. Master's Degree Capstone

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Daredevil0911

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 28, 2017
    7
    3
    Elkhart
    Hello, I am currently writing my capstone for my Masters Degree in Criminal Law. My topic is How to stop mass shootings in the U.S. (not the exact title). I am asking for serious educated input on how we, as legal gun owners can attempt to put a stop to the mass shootings, especially in schools. What are your opinions on Arming Teachers, retired police or veterans, mental illness and so on. Do you think that people really need an AR-15 or other "assault type rifle" (I have several myself). I would like unbiased opinions from real gun owners, not just CNN and anti-gunners.

    I may use your quote, but obviously not your name or handle.

    Thank you for your time.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I think we have to recognize that "we" can't stop them. Evil has always existed and will always exist. And certain mental illnesses that are manifested in behaviors that result in the same effects as evil.

    Fewer - or no - gun free zones (GFZs) would allow law abiding citizens a greater opportunity to mitigate the damage done by the evil/mentally ill.

    The type of gun is irrelevant. The best tool for the job in the hands of the operator, in the discretion of the operator, is what the "test" should be.

    I believe I do need an AR. It is a type of tool particularly well suited to home defense and certain kinds of hunting. That other tools are available with similar characteristics does not mean the AR is an illegitimate choice.

    (My 5.56 ARs have taken more deer and hogs than my .308 bolt action.)
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    To build on T.Lex's good observations:

    Banning guns would not work; there are too many in circulation, and places that have banned guns still have them available through the black market. Also, if firearms are not available, other weapons are pressed into use by the evil/mentally ill. For example, edged weapons assaults are over the top in the UK (scarcity of firearms/knowledge that your victim is likely unarmed, IMHO).

    As for arming teachers/others in school- this should be available, but only for those who want to take the responsibility for the weapon and undergoing the training. My wife is one of the "special" people who works for the legislature, but will not carry in the statehouse because she 1) knows she lacks the training and proficiency, and 2) does not want to be responsible for a handgun throughout the workday.

    An AR-15 is a tool; many of us are very comfortable with them from military service, and they are reliable, can be inexpensive, and effective for what they do. My AR-15 carbine, which began its service as a law enforcement patrol rifle, is for home defense and coyote control.
     
    Last edited:

    91FXRS

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    May 6, 2011
    606
    63
    NWI
    As T.Lex said you will not stop evil. The one thing that comes to my mind every time is to STOP MAKING THESE SICK ****ERS FAMOUS!!! Stop printing their names and pictures and just refer to them as the mentally unstable animals they are.
     

    GNRPowdeR

    Master
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Oct 3, 2011
    2,588
    48
    Bartholomew Co.
    T.Lex has made possibly the best assessment... "We" can't stop them, but the desire / "How To" mitigate the damages from the attacks is the direction we should think. As has been stated several times, though many channels, if legal firearms owners were the "problem" then the world would know it. Having GFZ / "soft targets" permeate the nation has provided targets of opportunity. Allowing those that understand a firearm / tool is not a safety blanket of protection, but a means to defend themselves and those around them is a great path, IMO.

    The fact that there have been some whom want our legally owned firearms (including AR pattern rifles) to be removed from our possession by THOSE CARRYING FIREARMS and / or desire harm to come to all legal firearms owners simply so they "feel" safer blows my mind. I've even had blood family screaming in my face that I'm a "murderer in waiting" for owning / carrying a defensive firearm... Yeah, I've seen it first hand...
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,790
    150
    Avon
    Before the invention of gunpowder man found he could kill with rocks and pointy sticks.
     

    Double T

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   1
    Aug 5, 2011
    5,955
    84
    Huntington
    A very interesting statistic might be to look into the institution of zero tolerance policies around 1994 and the prevalence of school violence before and after. BOTH children are to be expelled in the event a child sticks up to a bully, which reinforces that the bullied child has inherently done something wrong. I went to school during both "schools of thought". Simply telling kids that bullying isn't wrong isn't enough, and I'm not advocating for bully beatdowns, but the only time in school I saw any relief against a bully was when a kid stood up to them. Had a kid doing it to another kid in high school because the kid was poor, he had clothes that were far to small for him, and his parent couldn't afford any new clothes for him because he went from 5'2" to about 6'3" overnight. One day, enough was head and I took the bully kid and smashed his head into a locker and told him to pick on someone else. He left the kid alone, then moved onto me. In an english class, the kid kept flipping me in the ear. Day in, and day out. I had told him to knock it off repeatedly, and one day I told him no more. He did it again, and I turned and pushed him and his desk over on top of himself and told him to get up and do something if he really wanted to. The teacher told us both to go to the principal's office. I was given in school suspension and the other kid, I have no idea what happened. He didn't really **** with me again though. The whole "zero tolerance" is great and all, but I stood up for someone. Refocused the attention, and then had to decide when enough was enough. I was picked on, and bullied, for coming from a single family home nearly all my life. We'd have "Father's Day" events and I'd get teased because my uncle would come in because he had filled that role in my life. It was kind of like being born with the name of Sue, yet my name isn't remotely close. My mom made me go to anger management because she didn't understand why I was always on the defensive and seemed to lash out angrily as a child. It was impossible to explain the turmoil I had because of these things. Karate finally helped me develop discipline, and to control my emotional outbursts. My character, and convictions, I don't believe would be anywhere remotely where they are today, had I grown up in our current state of affairs with the education system. Growing up, it was never the defender who go into trouble, even after 94'. I believe things have changed now, where both people are kicked out either permanently or temporarily. We want to talk about how these kids are outcasts, and bullied. I don't think we will ever stop bullying, we have workplace bullies and bosses for crying out loud. The school violence problem is multifaceted, and until we truly start talking about it's etiology, we will never find a solution. We have to look at not only the gun free schools act, but also at the school's zero tolerance policies. I was raised to never go looking for a fight, but to understand and be willing to finish one. Sometimes, you have to be the initial aggressor, especially against unrelenting psychological abuse. When zero tolerance policy doesn't allow someone to stand up for themselves, is the leadership to blame? Are we teaching kids they don't have a right to defend themselves? When did this change occur? I know it happened in my school years, or shortly thereafter. I graduated in 2002. In the last 16 years, in the same school system. Zero tolerance is not working. One of my son's is autistic, and has been bullied by someone. Have raised him the same way, except now we have gone through the school and it seems that zero tolerance has mitigated no bullying, but instead has taken away the victim's right to defend him/herself. My son has not gotten into any fist fights, but he has been punished for shoving a kid over who was repeatedly kicking him in the shins to antagonize him. He knows he can fight if he has to in order to defend himself without any repercussion at home, but he hasn't had to. Don't start it, but be able to finish it. Shoving the kid on his ass seems to have dissuaded him from picking on him. I'm not advocating for boxing gloves in the gymnasium, I'm advocating for the old school lunch time fist fight that lands them in ISS and teaches the bully that people can and will stand up for themselves. If we are teaching kids they can't defend themselves, it's no wonder they're advocating for gun bans. They don't understand the right to self defense. And if they can't defend themselves, they definitely have no will to stand up or defend others.
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    Heck, forget the other students, the teachers aren't allowed to do anything to the bullies either. The worst it ever gets for a bully is that he gets suspended and stays home from school for awhile, which only seems to motivate him to try to get suspended again. I have seen an instance where a kid got so bad that the police were brought in to try to "scare" him, but they weren't allowed to actually do anything to him either and he just laughed at them.

    I have personally heard the parent of a 3rd grader explain that she had no way to control her kid, she was afraid of him. Let that sink in.
     

    GlocKnuckle

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 6, 2018
    36
    8
    Charleston
    What can we as legal gun owners do to put a stop to mass shootings…
    Vote, call your senators & representatives and encouragethat they take responsible action and push for protecting our schools WITHOUT disarming law abiding gun owners. The evil people in today’s society have little fear for the consequences of their actions… because the consequences are not severe enough to act as a deterrent.
    We must push our legislators to take action against evil. History tells me that the deathpenalty works. One could argue that when the number of states that have the death penalty reduced, mass shootings increased. (It would be an interesting study to see ifthere is a direct correlation – OR do states that retain the death penalty have mass shootings?)
    So far as my opinion on arming teachers… I have but one. They should have not ever been disarmed in the first place. Gun safezones infringe on the teachers’ rights FIRST. Who are we to render them defenseless in their workplace? Should not enough teachers want the responsibility, retired military & LEO would be a most excellent option should they be interested in such a job.
    Do I need an AR-15?Well, that is and should forever be only MY DECISION. I do my darnedest to notimpede anyone else’s pursuit of happiness. All that I ask is the same in reciprocate.
     

    ScouT6a

    Master
    Rating - 92.9%
    13   1   0
    Mar 11, 2013
    1,732
    63
    A short piece that I wrote and posted on a social media site, a few days ago. Feel free to use anything out of it.

    The reality is, there is no bill that Congress could pass today and the President could sign into law tomorrow, that would prevent the next school shooting.
    That is like saying we need to pass a law to stop terrorism, drunk drivers, identity theft or insurance fraud.
    I read several articles, last night, on school stabbings, here in the U.S. and abroad. They don't make the top headlines in the mainstream media because no one wants to sound like an idiot calling for knife control, waiting periods, background checks, raising the minimum age to purchase knives and the label "assault knife" isn't as scary.
    Whether you love guns, hate guns or could care less about guns, they are not going away, in our Country. This Country was founded with the aid of guns. For the last 250 years, there have been millions of guns manufactured in this country, imported in this country and purchased in this country.
    So, you are going to sign a bill to make them illegal and they will magically go away? Murder is illegal. Drugs are illegal. Drunk driving is illegal. Has our government or society even been remotely successful in stopping ANYTHING that is currently illegal?
    Believe me when I say, IF they did make guns illegal, you will have millions of hard working, peaceful, law abiding citizens that will quietly become felons, overnight, before they turn over their guns.
    If you think that someone could go door to door and collect them all up, you are delusional. Most in our military would never participate in that. Many in law enforcement wouldn't either.
    Why? Because they know what soon follows, after a government disarms their citizens. They are students of history.
    So what is the answer? We, as a society, may never find it. You can't make parents go back in time and instill morals, respect, values and compassion in a whole generation.
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,920
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Hello, I am currently writing my capstone for my Masters Degree in Criminal Law. My topic is How to stop mass shootings in the U.S. (not the exact title). I am asking for serious educated input on how we, as legal gun owners can attempt to put a stop to the mass shootings, especially in schools. What are your opinions on Arming Teachers, retired police or veterans, mental illness and so on. Do you think that people really need an AR-15 or other "assault type rifle" (I have several myself). I would like unbiased opinions from real gun owners, not just CNN and anti-gunners.

    I may use your quote, but obviously not your name or handle.

    Thank you for your time.

    Shoot and eliminate the murderous thug before he shoots you?
     

    bgcatty

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Sep 9, 2011
    3,021
    113
    Carmel
    With all due respect, since when will an academic come up with a conclusion that does not favor the libtards and the further erosion of the 2nd Amendment? Academics by and large could care less about the 2nd Amendment and given their usual beyond liberal socialist ideas would love to see all gun rights abolished for their "heads in the sand" vision of socialist utopia. Remember Stalin, Hitler and the rest of their ilk who disarmed their populations. Pray, people pray that these types of idiots do not come into power in the USA; otherwise we are all screwed. Peace.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    If you believe that in a free society that we have the right to life then we have the right to be able to defend ourselves. The most effective way to defend ourselves is to use the most efficient means to do so. For many people that is a semi-automatic rifle, such as the AR15 platform. It is a weapon which is typically accurate, easy to aim, has very manageable recoil, and may be more easily tailored to the individual. These rifles are not high powered, and many common hunting rifles used for deer fire a more powerful cartridge. This allows the AR15 to be used in a safe and responsible manner by allowing an individual to accurately engage their attacker(s) with a minimum risk to bystanders. A selective ban on cosmetic features, which do little to affect the mechanical operation of the firearm, typically make common semi-automatic rifles more difficult to use, thus putting the owner at greater risk of harm by aggressors and increasing the harm to innocent bystanders.

    We had an "assault weapons" ban before. The net result of infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens for a decade was that there was no discernible impact to violent crime. During that time we had mass shootings too, and the attackers used handguns, proving that those intent on creating havoc will use whatever tools are at their disposal.

    It is an inescapable fact that while the police exist to protect and serve their communities that in strict legal terms the police do not owe a duty of care to a given individual. What that means is that each person is their own first responder, and must choose how they handle this responsibility. According to the American Police Beat the national average time to respond to a 911 call is 10 minutes. When confronted with an attacker that is an eternity if you have surrendered your self defense to someone that you hope arrives to prevent serious injury or death. If you would like a thought experiment set an alarm on your phone for ten minutes. Now walk around your home, or if you are a teacher your classroom or school. Observe all that you can touch, see, and how far you can go. Now imagine what someone with malicious intent could do in that time.

    After unspeakable evil acts from a individual the temptation has always been to do something in the heat of the moment in an attempt to legislate the problem away. Many of these legislative efforts have been misguided, and lead by individuals with little understanding of the device they seek to regulate. In very few others spheres of discourse would emotion over objective reasoning be seen as a virtue, and criminalizing or otherwise penalizing an overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens be seen as a desirable outcome. Influenza kills over 55,000 Americans a year yet we do not have mandatory vaccination programs, or compulsory quarantine for those exhibiting symptoms. Motor vehicles kill more than firearms do each year, even when we include suicides in the total for firearms (which artificially increases that figure) yet when a malicious individual uses a vehicle as a weapon we do not call for the banning of privately owned transportation.

    Talk of magazine bans are similarly unhelpful. The recent school shooting in Florida had the attacker use ten round magazines. In Newtown the attacker reloaded his weapon frequently and did not exhaust any of his standard capacity magazines. Even the act of reloading is not a sufficient inconvenience to anyone intent on causing harm. All this type of ban will do is criminalize the law abiding.

    The problem of gun violence is a multi-faceted one that cannot be tackled by banning semi-automatic weapons, magazine limits, gun free zones, etc. Dealing with this issue requires an open, honest, and data driven approach to the issue. Most deaths by firearm are suicides, and most individual who attack schools have a documented history of mental illness. This suggests that the best way to reduce this facet of the issue in better availability of mental health services, more information for the public on mental health issues, a focus on removing the stigma of mental health for individuals, and a better way for the NICS to be informed of individuals who have been adjudicated as being mentally unsound.

    The next biggest cause of firearm related deaths is from crime and gang related activity. To tackle this issue we must look seriously at inner city areas where these problems stem from, and also look at the legacy of the War on Drugs which has helped create the black market conditions for gangs and related crime to thrive.

    Another area to look at are deaths caused by negligent handling of firearms, or their improper storage. The best way to solve this issue is by working with gun advocacy groups to educate those who choose to exercise their right to bear arms, and also assisting in programs which provide child proof locks for firearms.

    All of these facets will take time to resolve, and improvements in these areas will help in the long term. In the short to medium terms we have a number of steps we can take. Some of the most recent mass shootings have happened when there have been wholesale failures by various government agencies to properly communicate or record information on individuals who should have been ineligible to possess a firearm. Looking specifically at schools and the question of armed teachers we are seeing the waters get muddied. I think clarity is needed. No one is seriously suggesting that all teachers be armed. That is an unrealistic expectation. Instead those teachers who wish to be armed to protect their students should be permitted to do so. It should also be done in the least burdensome way; manufacturers could offer a discount similar to programs for LEOs and military, training classes could be tax deductible or subsidized by the state. No one is expecting that teachers will be trained to breach and clear rooms. But when a classroom typically only has one point of entry it is very easy for a teacher to defend their students from an aggressor.
     

    Bravo619

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2017
    17
    3
    Tulsa
    Here ya go check this out. I've done a bit of digging, but not enough to deflect every miniscule argument, so take it for what it is..

    Stolen from a friend

    And now, the numbers.

    Deep breath.....exhale.

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

    So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

    This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

    Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, and sexual assault are all done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

    But what about other deaths each year?
    • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–Where's the excuse for that?
    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
    • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

    Now it gets good:
    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

    So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
    Taking away guns gives control to governments.

    The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution.

    So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

    Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    CraigAPS

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 26, 2016
    900
    18
    Muncie
    With all due respect, since when will an academic come up with a conclusion that does not favor the libtards and the further erosion of the 2nd Amendment? Academics by and large could care less about the 2nd Amendment and given their usual beyond liberal socialist ideas would love to see all gun rights abolished for their "heads in the sand" vision of socialist utopia.

    That is categorically false. Just because someone has advanced degrees does not mean he will automatically take the side of liberals. To say so belittles what this young academic is doing. Just because the majority of academia is liberal or left-leaning does not mean that no one in academia can or will make a meaningful stand in favor of the 2nd Amendment or firearms in general. The only way to fight the misinformation in MSM is, in fact, with the truth in the form of fact-laden, well researched counter-arguments.
     
    Last edited:

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    John Lott began his research somewhere between indifferent to gun rights and semi-anti.

    The product of his research moved him to pro-2A.
     
    Top Bottom