Please present disinterested evidence that press coverage of school shootings helps angry youths to get a gun and kill people at school.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. While you might be able to take away the guns you aren't going to be able to take away all the weapons. We aren't going to take away all the cars!
However, going after the motivation doesn't require removing all the weapons.
Look later in the thread, you'll find an example of what I have in mind actually working.
Look, this is a red herring, and one the right uses way too often, and Loren you should be ashamed of using it. Yes, there are other ways to kill people.
The point is there are other
effective ways to kill people. A truck in a crowded pedestrian area can easily rack up quite a kill count.
But the amount of people that die goes up as access to easier means to kill them goes up. This is true whether you're talking about suicide or homicide. Semi-automatic weapons that can fire at a high rate with large capacities for ammo make it easy to kill large amounts of people, quickly. Yes bad people that are determined to kill will do bad things. But the easier you make it for them to do this, the higher the body count will be. Bombs kill a lot of people. But they're difficult to make and the materials can be hard to acquire, evidenced by how many would be bombers have killed themselves or had a misfire with the bomb.
I do agree that bombs aren't all that practical given the stupidity of the average such attacker.
Cars are sometimes a popular choice, but again, in some instances you can mow down mobs at a time, but those that can get out of the path and into a structurally sound area or place that cannot be transversed by the vehicle can survive easily. Choke points make these more deadly than usual. Knives can be used, but are limited in their utility and defensiveness to the user.
Attackers generally choose their targets fairly carefully. While there aren't as many good targets for ramming attacks that doesn't mean they can't find them. Off the top of my head, opening time on Black Friday on the south side of our local Fry's. It's a parking lot but lined up with a long row, I would think I could get a truck up to 30 mph before reach it. There will be some minor barricades but they're for pedestrian guidance, they won't stop a truck. One side is a completely blank wall, not very far away is a completely blank fence. Racking up a kill count higher than any mass shooter doesn't strike me as hard.
Next you'll cite lousy half attempts like the gun buy-backs in New York. (Voluntary!) They really expected a major drop in gun deaths from a mandatory gun buy? That only separated guns from those that really didn't want them much anyway. The California law against AR type weapons and large magazines? Great, but not very effective with Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon bordering the state.
Gun buy-backs are an example of gun-grabber nonsense. They will get zero crime guns unless the amount offered is more than the street price and in practice they mostly get broken guns that can't fire at all.
First things first. We need a gun registry. A real one, not the bullshit reporting system we have now where it's VOLUNTARY for the state to comply. So the government knows you have a gun now, so what? You're not defending the country from tyranny and if you think you may have to, then I suggest you join the sovereign citizen movement, convert all your money into gold and join a compound somewhere. Eliminate the gun show loopholes. If you sell a gun, someone in the authorities must sign off on it. Right now, if authorities find a gun at the scene of a crime, and it's traced to me, they can ask if it's mine and I can say yes, sorry bud, it was stolen about 6 months ago. Did I report it? No. Will there be any consequences because I couldn't be bothered? Nope. Hit people with a stiff fine for that shit at minimum and see how fast people start locking up their firearms.
And you will encounter major resistance because the gun people know this is step one towards confiscation. (And, yes, it has happened in the US, don't pretend that's only dictatorships.)
Eliminate self defense as a reason to own a firearm. One may own a firearm for hunting and collecting purposes. That's what police are for. If you live in bumfuck egypt and the police can't reach you for a half hour, you still have guns because you're a hunter or collector or both. If you own a gun, you must be insured, we insure cars for bodily harm and property damage, and no one bats an eye about the poor having to insure their vehicles in those cases.
Yeah, better for the innocent to die.
COMPETENT testing with stiff fees to own and operate a firearm. You must demonstrate REAL gun safety and use knowledge. You must show understanding of the law and the responsibility to own a firearm.
I have my doubt as to what you want to include in "competent" but note that I have proposed gun licenses which amount to doing this.
Many types of criminal or mental health issues should disqualify you as a weapon holder. Trump's last bill he rescinded which I posted the tweet about is a perfect example. That law would only have added about 75,000 people to the no gun list. It restricted those on Social Security for mental health reasons or those deemed unable to handle their own finances as a disqualifier to owning a firearm. The 2nd amendment, despite stupid right wing attempts is NOT absolute. Obviously just because one is mentally ill or suffering from dementia does not mean they are not deserving of human rights and constitutional protections, yet those mentally ill that are dangers to themselves or others ARE locked up or kept from materials they could use to cause harm.
Criminal, yes. Mental health, no--most mental health issues have no bearing on safe gun handling. I have no problem with banning guns for those with a mental disorder that actually is relevant, it's just few are.
Accessories merely designed to increase lethality in military applications should be outlawed. No high capacity magazines, bump stocks, silencers, etc anywhere other than gun ranges.
High capacity magazines have very little effect on lethality. Silencers have a slight
negative effect on lethality--they make the gun more awkward and thus harder to aim--more misses. Banning them is a case of overreaction--in most cases it's still very obviously a gunshot, just below the threshold of hearing damage. The only time they get in the ballpark of what Hollywood portrays is when you're using a .22 rifle with subsonic ammo and at long range--a varmint rifle. And that's a good use of a silencer, it lets farmers nail two or three rabbits instead of just one.
These are all common sense measures. They don't take away anyone's guns, but if they were all implemented we would see a good reduction in mass shootings.
For values of good approximating zero.
