"It Takes a Village to Prevent Mass Shooters"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think a federal program of ‘mass mentoring’, run by the govt, will have any impact over what is already in place.
I don’t think s/he was referring to any federal programs, and that certainly isn’t the topic of this thread. After all, federal intervention defeats the purpose of “It takes a village.” Such a program, even if it accepted federal grants, would be a lot more effective at a local level, where those running it would understand their community better.
 
Oh great (sarcasm) making gross over simplifications and imply negative intent on people because of their skin color and gender. Please don’t
 
most of the shooters come from broken homes ripped apart by divorce
Well, the Catholic Church has relaxed its requirements for marriage annulments. Before the marriage annulment is granted, the couple is required to obtain a civil divorce. Take a look at the statistics. In 1929 there were about 10 marriage annulments granted in the USA. Whereas in recent years it has been running as high as 60,000 per year in the USA. This is an increase which is not seen in other churches. What should be done about that?
Then someone mentioned armed security guards at a Church. Yes, if you are not going to have stricter gun controls, then I guess that you are going to have to beef up the security at schools, including walls around the building, metal detectors at the entrance, frisk and search everyone entering the building, armed security guards and snipers ready to defend students who are there to study.
But I would also recommend that each gun be required to have grip recognition technology so that it could be fired only by the person to whom it is registered. That way, if the gun is lost or stolen, it could not be used. A 14 year old who stole his parent’s gun and brought it to school would not be able to fire it. It would work only for the parent to whom it was registered.
And further, each gun would be required to have insurance just as the car you drive must be registered and have insurance in case of an accident. Families would then be able to apply for financial help to pay for the funerals or for the medical expenses of the victims of gun violence. There are more than 30,000 deaths per year in the US due to gun violence. As Amnesty international has said, this is a human rights crisis. How do we insure the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless we end gun violence. In the USA, many innocent people are being gunned down and shot dead. Amnesty International has a program of public education and advocacy to reduce gun violence. Please see:



 
The idea of having a digital recognition system was already floated in the 90’s but the majority of gun owners stopped it in its early stage. And even if it somehow became law, there is no practical way of getting all current firearms retrofitted.
On the statement of making a person be required to have insurance for owning a gun just like insurance for driving a car. These two things are not comparable, firearm ownership is a right whereas driving a car is a privilege. Under the 2nd it would be viewed as infringing on the right especially to poorer American. Could other Constitutional rights require insurance (like freedom of speech to stop abuse, freedom of religion to protect against a religion that is against current culture)? I also don’t see how it would decrease gun violence (for example Chicago where most of firearms used are illegally purchased)
 
A lot of people are living on the edge, socially. They’ll probably never become violent (or maybe they will), but they’re lonely,
People live in isolation, often estranged from their own families. We have been conditioned to believe in extreme independence and self-reliance. This prevents us from sharing and accepting help from others. It is a hellish life.
 
I don’t think people are bad because of their body. I rather say that Statistics says non-politically correct things.
 
Red flag laws seem to make sense. Most law enforcement agencies seem to support red flag laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top