What is the best way to prevent shooting sprees, do you think?

Certainly one of the more pathetic and narcissistic "excuses" for a spree killing I've seen.

Spolt rich boy not getting any?

Just go off some blondes for revenge, then.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/california...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/seven-dead...

What's the solution to incidents like this, if there's any?

Better gun control? More proactive mental health legislation? Stop the saturated press reporting of the spree killers themselves and turning them into figures of infamy and notoriety?

I know it's the US (where else?), but surely those with mental health conditions like Aspergers syndrome shouldn't be able to have easy access to firearms. He was receiving treatment.

20 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Quite difficult in America, short of general disarmament - at which point the loonies and thugs would turn to arson and home made bombs, edged weapons etc, as used by loonies and thugs in countries where access to firearms is more difficult.

    Perhaps ultimately by fostering a more caring society, and silencing the sort of media that makes this type of action seem heroic to fools and people with serious mental health problems.

    There would still be no harm in tight regulation of handguns, and a restriction on mag. capacity to 5 rounds*, all the same.

    *OK, I agree that a Lee-Enfield has a 10 round mag and a Luger 8 - but working historic arms could always be kept in club armouries, and issued to members on range days.

    Source(s): UK firearms user.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Rich and not getting laid eh, clearly he wasn't looking in the right places or flaunting the cash enough. Some women offer their services for money so if he wanted to get laid it really shouldn't have been a problem.

    What can be done? Well, seeing as Americans have a constitutional 'right to bear arms' not a lot unless they amend the constitution. You can't allow some people to have guns but others not unless those others have been convicted of offences already. A person with Aspergers syndrome has a right to protect themselves in a country where more people than not have a firearm. The Aspergers didn't preclude him from owning a motor vehicle and driving it on the streets of California, it didn't preclude him from being able to attend the University and be amongst other people who did not have Aspergers syndrome and so why should he not have been allowed a firearm? Well, obviously now one could answer that quite easily but at the time when he applied for it as far as I can see he was of good character and had no form.

    This means that the right to bear arms must be revoked, that's the only way to start the clear up operation, but it'll take an eternity to clear America of guns. When you create a monster you must expect it to run amok sooner or later

  • 7 years ago

    Just get the law makers to watch 'Minority Report'.

    It's not possible for a "Pre-Crime" safety net to work, but that's no reason to remain lax on public protection. People with pyschiatric disorders should not freely be allowed firearms unless, maybe, some kind of chip was implanted in the weapon which the Police could activate to disable the weapon. It could be done with a warrant, and it might just help stop mass killings by crazies.

  • 7 years ago

    Far, far more Americans die of curable diseases than gun violence.

    I realize its not interesting, and doesnt allow people to advocate disarming the population (ALWAYS a bad idea), but how about a REAL health plan instead of Obama's insurance scheme?

    Perhaps mental health screening could have made the difference here.

    And since many die from work-induced disease or on the job accidents, how about a little "boss control"?

    I realize that people dont see things mathematically, but high profile news items aside, with a population over 5 times yours, AND guns, per capita, we still kill each other less than you do.

    People who see the general population as "those people," or as children, or who indulge their uglier and less intelligent impulses with national chauvinism ("those Yanks"), are of course free to advocate forcible civilian disarmament, regardless of the physical impossibility of it (thank goodness).

    An armed population has positive uses. Bushes and Obamas dont.

    Disarm THEM.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Enable easier access to firearms

  • 7 years ago

    Unfortunately, the best solution for the Government is to enforcing Japanese Militarism so that every gun owner can use guns respectfully.

    Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, so do ye to them likewise

  • 7 years ago

    You do not seem to understand aspergers or treatment for that matter. And who decides who is too mentally ill to have a gun. Everyone is in treatment or should be. Who is going to decide who is too mentally ill to own a firearm. Are we going to take away any other rights from the mentally ill? We already have laws to protect us from harm. We do not need more.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    You identify the two points I would raise ,,1/ mental health screening.

    2/ gun control.

    Those measures will only address the Law abiding population though,and there are reportedly 2 guns for every American,already in circulation.

    So America seems to be locked into a high gun crime future.

  • 7 years ago

    Gun control would solve the problem, as it has in other countries, but most americans are too stupid to understand the concept.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.