Washington Post Has Ideas On Solving Mass Shootings Or Something

They end up missing the mark on what’s going on and how to solve it by a tiny bit a mile

Mass shootings are becoming routine. It doesn’t have to be this way.

THE TIME of mourning for the victims of mass shootings in America, including those a week ago in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, may never end. The time for policymaking action, though, has definitely arrived. It is long overdue.

The United States faces a grave threat to public safety. The Post reports that mass shootings took place roughly twice a year between 1966 and the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999. Between Columbine and the slaughter at a predominantly African American church in Charleston, S.C., in June 2015, the pace was roughly five times a year. Since the white-supremacist attack in Charleston, there’s been one almost every six weeks. And these data reflect a restrictive definition of mass shootings: those that claimed at least four lives, not including perpetrators, in public places or large private gatherings. GunViolenceArchive.org’s broader definition, which encompasses a wider-range of multiple-victim shootings, fatal and nonfatal — including those tied to such crimes as robbery and domestic abuse — produces 254 just this year, through last Wednesday.

The majority of those “mass shootings” actually occur in the streets of Democratic Party run cities and states with heavy gun control.

Background checks and so-called red-flag laws, the subject of another bill backed by Sens. Lindsey O.Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), represent only the bare minimum of reform. To tackle the specific, acute problem of mass public shootings, Congress must address the actual hardware: assault-style firearms, along with large-capacity magazines. Both should be banned, as assault weapons were at the federal level between 1994 and 2004, and as the law in several states already provides.

Would this include banning the weapons and mags currently owned after being purchased legally? They don’t say. If history is to be believed, there would be a blanket ban on “large” magazines for current owners, like in California and New York. And when those bans do not work? What’s next? Ban all semi-autos, including handguns and hunting rifles? Perhaps with almost impossible to get permits? The Australia/New Zealand solution? New Zealand banned pretty much all semi-autos excluding .22 rimfire rifles. So, cannot even have a big hunting rifle unless it is bolt action. No semi-auto handguns. Even pump-action shotguns holding more than 5 shells are banned.

What’s next? Revolvers? Because criminals will just go with those next. How about those .22’s, when they are used for crime. The gun grabbing never ends.

In emphasizing measures to stop mass public shootings, we do not forget that the vast majority of gun-related death occurs in — alas — more ordinary contexts. Suicide, street crime and domestic violence are chronic problems, and they also cry out for intelligent response. But what we must refer to as “conventional” homicide has waned even as mass public shootings have increased. Swift action aimed specifically at this socially destabilizing phenomenon is a must, lest our public spaces become places of permanent latent anxiety, subject to random lethal attack — or, as occurred in Times Square the other day, panicked stampedes at the sound of a motorcycle backfire.

So, what are they going to do about those? Taking away guns will not stop suicides. Democrats have been uber-soft on crime for decades. The last one who cared was Bill Clinton. Since then, their policies are like over-cooked pasta or ice cream in the sun. And, again, if “gun violence” has increased tremendously in super-gun restrictive areas like Baltimore, Chicago, New Jersey, and California, among others, how does taking lawfully purchased items away from law abiding citizens, turning them into criminals if they possess them, make a difference?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Washington Post Has Ideas On Solving Mass Shootings Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH asserted, without supporting evidence: “Democrats have been uber-soft on crime for decades.”

    Yet, the homicide rate in the US has been halved over the past few decades.


    Even the abortion rate has dropped over the past few decades, especially during the Clinton terms:


    The ten states with the highest homicide rates (2017) are:

    Louisiana (#1), Missouri (StL), Maryland (Balt), Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Illinois (Chi), South Carolina, Tennessee…

    New York (NYC) is 37th. California (LA, SF, SD) is 27th. Even Michigan, with uber-violent Detroit, is 20th. Why are “Democrat” run NYC, LA and SF so safe? Why are “Democrat” run California and New York so safe?

    Why are red states LA, AR, AK, AL, MS, SC, TN so violent without the massive “Democrat” run cities of StL, Chi or Baltimore? All but one of these violent red states are run by Republicans! Even Missouri and Maryland, with their violent major cities, are governed by Republicans!

    • formwiz says:

      The Baby Boomers are aging, nitwit.

      The largest demographic cohort we’ve ever had, so, of course, crime and abortion have reduced themselves.

      As for your numbers, why go with biased Lefty sites? Unless, of course, you need phony stats.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Maybe some Republicans are uber-soft on crime.

      Wasn’t it a Republican prosecutor (and recently disgraced trump cabinet Sec) who gave serial rapist Epstein a slap on the wrist, allowing him to continue raping young girls?

      How many Koch Foods’ managers were arrested the other day?

    • Jl says:

      Or we could phrase it in a totally different way by saying- by far the largest percentage of homicides are committed by blacks. Blacks by a large percentage are Democrats. Why do Democrats commit most of the homicides in this country?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Or we could look at it like a scientist. About 0.01% of Blacks are arrested for murder. That leaves 99.99% who are not. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the few thousand Black men arrested for murder are Democrats? Or political at all?

        Since almost all murderers are men, and since white men are mostly Republicans, are most white murderers Republicans?

        Since most Americans are Christians, why are Christians commit most of the murders in America?

        • Jl says:

          Sorry, in the 2016 election black voters went 89% for Clinton, so yes, there is proof most are Democrats. “Why are most white murderers Republican?” Again, most homicides are committed by blacks while being only 13% of the population. And as shown, blacks overwhelmingly vote democratic.

  2. JGlanton says:

    This article on SPD/autism and how it might be a factor in the El Paso shooting is well worth reading.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10583 access attempts in the last 7 days.