MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Greg Gutfeld: How To Stop Mass Shootings Without Gutting the 2nd Amendment

The Fox News host offers good-faith ideas worth engaging.

Last night on his compulsively watchable weekly show, Fox News' Greg Gutfeld laid out an interesting set of ideas on how to stop mass shootings, especially at schools. Take a listen to his brief monologue:

His points include:

  1. Harden soft targets with security and training. Gutfeld notes that this is already being done by a wide swatch of business, entertainment, and political figures, plus many companies and organizations.
  2. If you see something, say something, should be followed with do something. "The punk had a zillion red flags. The FBI were tipped off and blew it." Gutfeld suggests a new motto: See something, say something, do something. Gutfeld explains that part of the problem is that neither of the two main sides in the gun debate trusts the other. "Common-sense gun control" is mostly a euphemism for taking away or harshly limiting gun rights, he suggests, while also implying that gun-rights maximalists are willing to let deranged "creeps" to get weapons as the cost of maintaining their own freedoms. "We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Cruz from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Cruz the minute they start acting off. Violation of the database would result in a felony conviction.
  3. Address mental illness seriously. "Bring back psychiatric hospitals," says Gutfeld, who notes that of course they still exist but that they "house less than one-tenth of the people they did back in the '50s."
  4. Re-examine the media's role. "If you look at [mass-shooting] killers, you'll find an interest in those who came before them." Gutfeld argues that the media should not report the names of mass shooters or show their pictures as a way of tamping down such incidents. "We advertise infamy," which he says has an impact.

While I disagree with many, perhaps even most, of the points he makes, I really admire and respect his willingness to actively put forward ideas that might reduce the number of mass shootings. Gutfeld's a strong Second Amendment defender and (rightly) recognizes that the sort of sweeping, confiscatory programs some are calling for will never happen. If they did, they would have the result of disarming the law-abiding population even as violent crime is reducing and shooting incidents are not increasing (though they may be producing more victims).

I'm skeptical of seemingly obvious and commonsense reforms such as locking up more people in mental institutions or widening the number and purview of databases. As Jacob Sullum has reported, around 25 percent of the population meets the defintion of "mental illness" often bandied about by proponents of cracking down on psychiatric issues when it comes to gun ownership. Various states have laws on the books that allow law enforcement, family members, and others to enjoin an individual's gun rights. The effects of such laws are not fully clear and in a case like Cruz's, it's not clear it would have mattered.

Gutfeld is right that state mental facilities have essentially been emptied over the past 60 years. In 1955, they held about 560,000 patients. Today the number is 35,000. At the same time, prisons have become the new psych wards, with 44 states having more mentally ill people in jails and prisons than in mental wards. While those prisoners should be treated with dignity and actual counseling, we should be in no rush at all to bring back mental hospitals, especially ones built around involuntary commitment. For all the sins attributed to "emptying the nut farms"—homelessness, aggressive panhandling, and other disruptive behavior—we depopulated those places because they were expensive, ineffective, and civil-liberties nightmares. If you count those of us who are on anti-depressants, see counselors of some sort, and the like, more people than ever are getting psychiatric care. In any case, society is far less violent than it used to be. Similarly, when it comes to expanding no-gun lists or creating new databases, the fact remains that current laws are not being well-enforced. The former military man behind the Sutherland Springs church shooting, for instance, should have been disallowed from purchasing a gun, but the Air Force didn't comply with existing reporting rules. Actually locking down existing procedures should be the first step rather than the creation of new ones.

Gutfeld's take on the media is interesting to me, especially since he speaks with the authority of a leading cable-news personality. Live-shooter events are ratings bonanzas for the cable nets and Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and their less counterparts spend countless hours showing the same footage and staging the same Kabuki debates over causes and fixes. It's always disturbing to suggest that the press should curtail its own freedom, but he is surely right that much true-crime coverage is essentially prurient rather seriously pursuing the public interest. At the same time, I'm not convinced that shooters are in fact motivated by a quest for glory or infamy. In any case, very few of the shooters have actually achieved anything like that. The names and images of the shooters in San Bernadino, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, and even Las Vegas have already mostly faded from collective memory. It's rare when killers actually stay in our mind.

I do think Gutfeld is basically right when he talks about hardening soft targets. Like Robby Soave, I'm deeply concerned that mass shootings will be used to justify vast, ineffective expenditures that simply increase police presence at public schools. There are many reasons to be wary of that, including the dark legacy of the old D.A.R.E. program, which disgraced former LAPD chief Darryl Gates used to get cops on campus. But surely there are ways to teach and possibly arm key school personnel to be effective in ending or limiting violence.

More important than his specific proposals, though, I think is Gutfeld's willingness to lay out ideas that aren't simply a repeal of the Second Amendment. In the biggest sense, I tend to agree with most libertarian analysis that holds we will never stop mass shootings and that most attempts to do so will cause more problems than they solve. At the same time, simply to repeat that in the face of potentially more fatal incidents is no way to win the hearts and minds of those who disagree with us. Libertarians shouldn't be chucking principle out the window on any issue, but we also should be trying to figure out ways to improve public policies that respect individual rights and autonomy while improving social calm and peace.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As far as hardening soft targets, that doesn't have to mean a swat team at every school. With today's inexpensive security technology you could eliminate a great deal of risk in targets like schools. Malls and large corporate offices have security. You could buy 2 dozen HD cameras, recorder, a couple monitors, motion detectors, remote locks, etc for probably less than 10K (without the graft). Have school employees take shifts or just hire a security guard to watch. All doors are locked. Most doors are emergency only exits. Doors that are not will have 2-way communication and visitors have to be buzzed in. You could get metal detectors if you wanted to spend the money. I think some schools already have them. We have more security now, guarding the perfume counter at Macy's. Is it perfect no. Nothing you do will be.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This would be a local level decision and expense. Feds need not be involved.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Newtown had basically these procedures (the locked doors and buzzing in) and Lanza just shot his way through the door. So you'd need to have bulletproof doors. There's also the question of how you can keep all the doors locked when kids are entering or leaving the school at the beginning and end of the day and for recess.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Like I said certainly not perfect but having the security cameras would at least let you see approaching visitors, and limiting non-emergency exits would let you focus more on those entry areas in those times when students are coming and going. There are clearly limitations on what you can do. That's going to be true with any building. I can rob an armoured car if I'm committed to it, but that doesn't mean banks are going to start transferring money using Uber.

  • IceTrey||

    Well you can try to rob an armored car.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It would be tough due to the fact that banks secure things that are valuable to them which was my point. Nothing is 100%.

  • Palatki||

    To EOA: you would not need bullet-proof doors, just bullet-proofing around the bolts. A 1/2" thick steel plate (about 2"X4") over the bolt would stop a bullet, and there may in fact be other even cheaper solutions. i'm not sure of what point you are trying to make. Is it that we're helpless, and our kids are just going to be slaughtered no matter what we do, unless we adopt "responsible gun safety legislation"? Is this the tune you're playing on your dog-whistle, or am i hearing it wrong?

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    I sell access control systems for a living and Newtown had a basic security system which only has a standard lock and a door contact to alarm when it's opened. If you put an access system on there with a 600 lb maglock he aint getting in unless he drives through the doors. And the systems are fairly inexpensive as well. A lot of municipalities are requiring them now.

  • IceTrey||

    Then they will just shoot them as they are milling around outside waiting for school to start. I mean do you want schools to be even more like prisons? What you described is a prison.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No I want my gun rights infringed because local government entities can't come up with simple site security that exist in every corporate building. Especially when the camera security is affordable to the average homeowner. Building security does not equal prison.

  • IceTrey||

    Corporate security is as much a joke as the TSA. There will always be a point at which a lot of people congregate that you can get a gun to. If they have a metal detector shoot the people in line waiting to go through.

  • FlameCCT||

    They need to do a threat/vulnerability assessment for the facility similar to the other government facilities. Also include the school staff and families as they know more than the admin about day-to-day operations and issues. This provides the data need to reduce the potential threats and vulnerabilities as well as getting the cooperation of the community.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As far as red flags go, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal. You have somebody making the kinds of threats this Florida AH was making that the FBI knew about, he gets put in NIC's to flag for 90 days. That's time to alert the school and local authorities and look into it. The NIC's entry expires automatically in 90 days without the person having to do anything. There would need to be controls in place over that and it should not be a rubberstamp process. If in that time he's arrested or deemed a danger by a mental health expert than he would go into NICS through the normal process just as is supposed to happen today with existing rules. Today corporations scour social media to see what people are saying about them. I'm sure the NSA does something similar. The technology to monitor stuff like that is readily available. The FBI could maybe focus on their actual job instead of being political hacks.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    My question would be how many of these tips do the FBI get already? Was procedure not followed because they were sloppy, or because they simply can't follow up on 10000 complaints a month about angry kids.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This last guy was on the FBIs radar twice. I'm just throwing out ideas that don't involve violating my second amendment rights. I'm not really that fond of any of them. It sucks I have to think about this at all.

  • Presskh||

    I agree. I don't think this was an FBI or local law enforcement "failure". The FBI probably has 100's of thousands of people on their watch list, ranging from drug gang members to potential ISIS terrorists. They have to prioritize who they pay attention to - do they spend their resources following the recent ISIS convert who is asking about large truck rental prices or spend them following the loner living in his parent's basement?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Actually locking down existing procedures should be the first step rather than the creation of new ones."

    100% this

  • SQRLSY One||

    See
    The Science of Good and Evil, January 2018 National Geographic, by Yudhijit Bhattaharjee , see http://www.nationalgeographic......ttesville/ ...

    We know enough about brain science by now, that we can MEASURE good (empathy) v/s evil (lack of empathy, psychopathy); that we could test for it!

    Fixes to what we have now:

    All police men and women (TSA agents, border guards, FBI, yadda-yadda) must pass the brain scan test before getting a badge. Period!

    Leave civilian "gun control" off of the list... Guns are too easily hand-made or stolen, etc.

    HERE comes the most radical part, but I am serious: ALL of those civilians who pass the brain-scan test with colors flying (are clearly of high degrees of common sense, intelligence, and empathy) should, if they volunteer, be paid $100 or $200 per month, from our taxes, to encourage them to carry a gun or two, EVERY TIME THEY GO ANYWHERE in public! Including schools, hospitals, etc. ... ALL of the current "free-fire zones for the criminally insane", AKA "no self defense allowed" zones, AKA "gun-free zones".

  • Jim Logajan||

    Interesting article; thanks for pointing it out. It discusses the fundamental problem - pretty much everything else I see seems to be addressing symptoms.

    Your idea of testing police for empathy using brain scans has merit, IMHO. Though I strongly suspect the science needs to be more certain (NatGeo articles aren't terribly technical so impossible to get an idea about the strength of correlations the researchers are seeing.)

  • Edwin||

    yeah,

    but I'll bet that empathetic thinking inversely correlates to rational thinking

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I'd like to see a male female breakdown...

  • Longtobefree||

    You got a couple of citations for empathy = good, individualistic (lack of empathy to you) = bad?

  • SQRLSY One||

    See
    The Science of Good and Evil, January 2018 National Geographic, by Yudhijit Bhattaharjee , see http://www.nationalgeographic......ttesville/ ...

    Many citations are given there of people who "shot them up"... If you or your loved ones have been "shot up", you will not question whether being "shot up" is good or bad!

    Citations are given there, also, of people who have been saved from death (including death from bad kidneys) by people who are "high" on empathy. If you or your loved ones have been saved from death, you will not question whether being saved from death is good or bad!

    I am a libertarian, and I believe in voluntary charity, not forced charity. But those who question whether empathy and voluntary charity are good or bad, need to have their noggins examined, or, at the very least, be sharply questioned, by those who are better humans than they are.

  • d_remington||

    "If you or your loved ones have been "shot up", you will not question whether being "shot up" is good or bad!"
    "If you or your loved ones have been saved from death, you will not question whether being saved from death is good or bad!"

    Of course not, because those are expressions of pure selfishness. "Being saved from death is good because it's good for me and was good for me at that point".

  • SQRLSY One||

    So if I donate a kidney to you, to save your life, that was just entirely selfish of me? What does "selfish" mean, any more? What do words mean? Are we both writing English?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Very interesting article, thanks! I have been fascinated by the concept of neural tribes, such as why different neural tribes evolved, what their survival advantage is, and how we as a society should deal with them. Examples of neural tribes include psychopaths, empaths, and autistics. One could even say that individualists/libertarians are a neural tribe.

    I also like your idea of brain scans. And no doubt, we are heading in that direction. And, also no doubt, there are all kinds of civil liberty violations coming along with that as well. But it might be a price people are willing to pay. Psychopaths are terrifying.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I'm pretty sure that I belong to the neural tribe of the empaths. I think we should have empathy for everyone... Except the psychopaths, where we should have empathy for their next potential victims instead!

    Take the psychopaths, take them out back, and shoot them in the head... What's this crap about years-long trials and appeals processes, even if millions of us saw them do it on live television?! If we know darned well exactly who it was that done a heinous deed, double-checking the facts and punching their tickets should take a week, at an absolute max! 3 days should usually do it...

  • VinniUSMC||

    Do you have any sort of evidence at all to support a need to Take the psychopaths, take them out back, and shoot them in the head? You are implying that all psychopaths (although you really need to worry more about sociopaths) not only have the capacity to commit violence or even the propensity to commit violence, rather that they are so likely to that they should all be summarily executed. How old should we start scanning and executing potential psychopaths exactly?

    Talk about thought crime.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...even if millions of us saw them do it on live television?! "

    Does that sound like I am talking about thought crime? How does one witness thought crime on TV? Please explain... As you would, to a child!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Similarly, when it comes to expanding no-gun lists or creating new databases, the fact remains that current laws are not being well-enforced,
    All infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional [period]

    No background checks. No lists. No bans of weapons. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from doing anything that prevent Americans from buying, owning, and having in their possession any armament.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Completely agree. Also, the Constitution says nothing about warehousing children, calling it "Pulbic Edukashion Dat Teeches Hou To Reed And Writ" and then making it mandatory under penalty of being placed in a cage.

    In the meantime, what to do to at least reduce the possibility of a potential next massacte from happening? My advice is to allow teachers to carry and defend their students, but the kind of tactical training required to recognize and act with the least harm to others is extensive and expensive. There's no silver bullet.

    Despite what Marxians fap about, people simply don't like it when someone talks about taking their things. That's why not even getting rid of the 2nd Amendment will ever work.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Also, the Constitution says nothing about warehousing children, calling it "Pulbic Edukashion Dat Teeches Hou To Reed And Writ" and then making it mandatory under penalty of being placed in a cage.

    Compulsory education and public schools are state functions, so they don't have to be in the federal constitution.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "Compulsory education and public schools are state functions"

    Show me where in the Constitution it says that.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    And that position would have the logical conclusion of imposing no limits on State government.

    If that is your position, fine, but then you're left with the same court who insisted Public Education is a right ALSO saying State power is in fact, limited.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Except that the states gave up unlimited power to form the USA.

    Federal law preempts state law when a power or protection is mentioned in the US Constitution. States are forced to provide full faith and credit to other states, privileges and immunities in other states, no treaties, keep troops and ships of war without the consent of Congress.

    It is also ridiculous to think the protections mentioned in the BoR that don't specifically apply to Congress, would not apply to the states. If all original 13 states decided to outlaw guns, it would gut the 2nd Amendment except in D.C.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    It is also ridiculous to think the protections mentioned in the BoR that don't specifically apply to Congress, would not apply to the states. If all original 13 states decided to outlaw guns, it would gut the 2nd Amendment except in D.C.

    The BOR was a pacifier for the anti-federalists. It was intended to limit the power of the eeeeevil new federal government, not the states. 2A in particular was primarily intended to keep the feds from centralizing military power under their sole control. George Mason would have laughed at you if you said the bill of rights would be used by the federal courts to protect people from their state governments.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, George Mason had little to do with the actual Bill of Rights being ratified. Mason was a firm advocate of protections for the people and refused to sign the Constitution because it did not include a Bill of Rights.

    Mason is quoted: "the Laws of the United States are to be paramount [supreme] to State Bills of Rights." Mason drafted the Virginia Bill of Rights

    You are correct about the BoR being a compromise to anti-federalists like George Mason. It is telling that the 1st Amendment is the only Amendment mentioning Congress. The 7th and 10th Amendments mention the United States.

    If the BoR only applied to Congress and every Founder agreed with that, then why was Congress even mentioned at all?

    The states already had their state Constitutions but states could change their constitutions. The US Constitution's BoR guaranteed that states would have minimum rights for its citizens.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The states have their own constitutions that limit their power.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    And that position would have the logical conclusion of imposing no limits on State government.

    Obviously your public school failed to teach you reading comprehension: "nor prohibited by it to the states"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That does not give states unlimited power. Your schooling was seriously deficient.

    US State's powers are still limited by the US Constitution, their respective constitutions, and the unenumerated rights of the reserved for the people.

    So whether you limit state power to ban guns by the 14th Amendment, unenumerated rights of the people, and the 2nd Amendment it keeps the state and federal government from grabbing guns or restricting them at all.

    Most gun restrictions are racist unconstitutional attempts to keep guns from blacks who would protect themselves from Democrats, government and the KKK.

  • LarryA||

    the kind of tactical training required to recognize and act with the least harm to others is extensive and expensive

    Not really. All but eight states have shall-issue licenses to carry, and a dozen don't require them. There are 16 million of those licenses issued, with training from zero to NRA Basic to a one-day class. Those licensees are doing pretty well, and in fact make fewer mistakes than law enforcement.

    Texas just instituted civilian instructor training for a "School Safety" class, 15-20 hours of Avoid-Deny-Defend instruction for school employees, which should be all that's required. Indeed, according to the Texas Association of School Boards, more than 10 percent of Texas school districts already have employees carrying, with no problems reported.

    You don't have to be a special forces ninja to carry a gun for self-defense. Basically:
    1. If you see someone killing unarmed people, pull your gun and shoot him until he stops;
    2. Don't shoot anyone else;
    3. When a cop tells you to put your gun down, put your gun down.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    In my class, they said step 1a. Reload.

  • prolefeed||

    What if it is a cop killing unarmed people?

  • Cy||

    Depends, are they poor or ugly people?

  • Robert||

    What good will teachers do carrying their students?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I don't opposed it, but I agree. I think effort would be better spent on getting the outcast students to develop more of a sense of community with the rest. Not sure how, as people tend to shun them for a reason. But I think if this kid had a few more friends, it teachers who talked to him, maybe things don't escalate in his mind so quickly.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "No background checks"

    Too late for that. I don't see that ever being repealed unfortunately. There certainly also keeping list even though its not legal for them to do so. Which is why I didn't support them in the first place.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Regarding the psyc wards, I would overall agree with Nick on this. It's a topic much larger than just this. Prisons are not outfitted to deal with the mentally ill. Since they can't handle them, they often end up spending a lot of their sentence in solitary, which certainly doesn't help and often makes them worse before being unleashed again on the public. I do think its something being addressed in some states. I also think their is a huge difference between the average person seeing a psychiatrist and the crazy homeless people talking to spaceships living out in the fridged cold who clearly don't know any better. Not sure we're really helping them, but I would be skeptical about giving the government any powers of involuntary committal that they could abuse.

  • Iheartskeet||

    A great book on this topic is "My brother Ron". We used to have a reasonably sound institutionalization process that was abandoned, with disastrous results. I am ashamed to acknowledge the role libertarians (Thomas Szasz) played in this. In any case, the institutionalization process was heavily family driven, and not a top down government effort. This of course won't eliminate shootings either, but Gutfeld's #3 is spot on.

    On his #1, it well past time we allowed concealed carry in schools and indeed everywhere.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Book sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.

  • Edwin||

    "he institutionalization process was heavily family driven"

    so what you're saying is, I would be hospitalized by my family quite simply because I didn't finish college?

    You do realize family are the WORST people to give an honest, unbiased opinion on people, right?

    People in general have lost all common sense, and genuinely can't see the difference between eccentricity and genuine conditions/issues. You do realize that, right?

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    Like so many things, it's one of those situations that doesn't have a free market answer. Yeah, it sucks putting people in mental hospitals. But we're learning the hard way that it sucks even worse having the streets populated with crazy people.

    Yeah, you might get hospitalized by your family for not finishing college. I saw exactly that happen, many times, before the hospitals were put out of business and commitment requirements were toughened up.

    I don't really know which alternative I hate worse. I hate them both. But those seem to be the only real choices available in the real world.

  • Diane Merriam||

    How about being hospitalized by family to keep you from being able to tell the things that were going on at home? To be able to tell police that their child has mental problems so don't listen to them?

  • Iheartskeet||

    The Thomas Sasz/Libertarian position was there was no such thing as mental illness. There clearly is, and our current method of handling it is appalling. It all but denies reality. Actually it does deny reality.

    Back in the day, each state had a process. I am sure some of them weren't very good, but yeah families seem like a pretty good start. Would you rather it be cops ? Cops pointing guns at a "strange" person ? This is our current norm.

    Tell me about people being committed for not finishing college. That isn't right, but I wonder what the facts really tell us. In the book I mention, the subject character developed mental illness late in life, and IIRC could not complete school. For some, this could be a leading indicator of issues to come. That's not meant to be advocating locking people u for that.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    My mother was committed by her parents involuntarily. She was given shock treatments at the time and other bullshit. I say that so that my next sentence will mean a bit more even though it was detrimental to my mother. I agree family should be one of the deciding factors in getting help for mental illness. Letting the family be part of the decision will at least add a human factor that big government can't do.

  • Cy||

    This tragedy, just like the Florida night club shooting, the Aurora Theater and EVERY other school shooting is clearly the fault of gun control advocates.

    Gun control advocates, as a group, created and enacted legislation that TOLD these people, under penalty of law, what they could and could not do. They told them how they would allow them to defend themselves. They made these people defenseless and are now refusing to take responsibility for their safety.

    These incidents were created by the very people calling for more gun control with, surprise surprise, the very incidents they created as evidence.

    If it weren't legal for government and private parties to remove people's right to bear arms, none of these mass shootings would've happened.

  • Duke of url||

    This^
    Would you permit me to save some time, and allow me to 'cut 'n paste' this elsewhere verbatim?

    I home school my three little girls, so a mass school shooting is not my biggest concern.

    However, I live in a rural area that was absolutely terrorized by a pack of dogs, (pitt bulls), and I was able to protect them when they attacked, thanks to a riffle that had detachable magazines and that 'thingy that goes up'.
    I'm a decent shot, but being restricted to ten rounds, when there are five fast moving demons trying to kill my offspring seems retarded.
    Why should I be made a criminal for merely possessing the means to protect my children?
    I would give my life to save my girls, and my neighbors.
    Why should I be punished through the unconstitutional dictates of people, whom force us to pay for their armed security?

  • Cy||

    Go ahead Duke. I'm surprised I don't see this pointed out more frequently.

    I know better than to tell people how I'll allow them their freedoms, because I know that's not freedom.

    I sure as hell am not going to point fingers at everyone else and demand that everyone continue to do more of what I say after something I've ordered someone else to do get's them killed.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I agree. If very state had 'No Permit' carry (which should be the only constitutional carry law), and if there were no "gun free" zones (same), we would have a lot less violent crime.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The Tucson Safeway where Gabbi Giffords and others got shot wasn't a gun free zone. Indeed one of the witnesses was concealed carrying but he didn't take a shot because there were other people behind the shooter.

    The Aurora theater gun free policy was not really enforced, and none of the witnesses has come out and said they would have been armed if allowed. Also that would have been a pretty tough "shot in the dark", literally, for someone in the theater to make. Holmes had the advantage that he wasn't shooting at any particular person and didn't have any problem with missing.

  • Iheartskeet||

    ...and none of what you just said disproves Cy's point.

  • LarryA||

    No one in the crowd around Giffords was carrying. (She was a Democrat.) The person carrying ran up after the shooter had been disarmed, and didn't shoot because the shooter was already being restrained.

    However it was enforced, the Aurora theater had the no-gun policy, making it criminally risky to carry there. The licensees I know would respond to such by patronizing any of the dozen other theaters in the area without a disarmament policy. So if they were seeing Batman, and armed, it was in a theater the shooter didn't select.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Maybe I misheard the Tucson carry story. But fact remains it was NOT a gun free zone.

    However it was enforced, the Aurora theater had the no-gun policy, making it criminally risky to carry there.

    No. The most they could do, in the very unlikely event you were caught concealed carrying, would be to sue you for civil trespass. (And no business in their right mind would ever sue a customer over something that petty) There was no criminal law forbidding carry in movie theaters.

  • marshaul||

    Larry is much closer to right on this one. In most(?) states, violating a previous trespass is a criminal offense, which means state can (and very often will) assume the role of "victim" and prosecute. Moreover, many states consider violating clearly posted trespass warnings as violating a previous trespass, and thus automatically criminal. In even more states (e.g. Virginia) this is ambiguous and without clear precedent.

    As a result of this, the general tendency among "self-defense gun carrier culture" (i.e. OC- and CC-oriented forums etc.) is to simply boycott prohibitory places rather than worrying about and risking all this.

  • Longtobefree||

    I am still waiting for a courageous ADA somewhere to charge a politician with accessory before the fact to murder because they disarmed a victim.
    I am also waiting to win the lottery, where I have better odds.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    From what I've seen of statistics for mass shootings, there certainly does appear to have been a cyclic pattern which suggested a copycat effect was at work. OTOH, it appears to have vanished about 10 years ago.

    Perhaps because continual reporting of terrorist incidents disrupted the dynamic?

    In any event, the news value of the name and face of a mass murderer is very limited, the media really ought to consider adopting a norm of simply referring to such people as "that clown", and using a generic clown face graphic, instead.

    But they won't, because each such shooting provides an occasion to promote gun control, and the media are generally in favor of gun control. They really don't have a good incentive to adopt policies that might reduce the frequency of such events.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I would agree that there is a copycat effect and that these AHs look to "out do" other AHs. Not sure how much media coverage matters though considering its public info and its going to be all over the internet anyway which is more the world they live in than cable news is. But yeah, to your point they don't need to have their faces plastered all over their screen for weeks on end.

  • Diane Merriam||

    #4 is the one I like the most as well. Media, fame, even if it's infamy, is a significant driver. And while the number of mass killings hasn't gone up, the body count has. My guess as to the reason is they need to be bigger and badder than the previous one to get the attention they want.

  • ejhickey||

    testing

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    S'up bro?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Cruz from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Cruz the minute they start acting off.

    There's a lot of spookiness that comes from this. Not the least of which is there is likely hundreds of thousands of people out there like Cruz who have not and will not ever do any violent act.

    But one thing that I feel should be emphasized the most is that any restriction of rights without full due process is vile.

  • Sevo||

    BestUsedCarSales|2.18.18 @ 2:54PM|#
    We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Cruz from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Cruz the minute they start acting off.
    "There's a lot of spookiness that comes from this. Not the least of which is there is likely hundreds of thousands of people out there like Cruz who have not and will not ever do any violent act."

    Yep, this is about 2 degrees from "Papier, bitte!"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Anything that gives progressives more power to control people's lives is a bad thing. And that's really what any kind of gun control, or other state power is ultimately about for them. They don't really give a shit about anyone's lives. Just their own power. Any other notion is just foolish naiveté.

  • shamrock||

    Maybe it's time for an extreme crackdown on bullying. Hundreds of kids are committing suicide, and a handful are committing mass homicide in part because they are outcasts, losers, nerds, etc, who have been bullied nearly every day for years. There are already school "rules" against bullying, start suspending and expelling mean kids. At the same time, identify these outcasts and intervene to help them cope and develop social skills before it reaches the end stage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bullies do the other half of what you are supposed to learn in school. The other half is "book smarts" that teachers pass on.

    Kids need to learn how to deal with assholes who are intent on taking from them and hurting them. Kids need to learn how to fight back against the socialists they will have to deal with later in life.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Is there an age cutoff for this? Should we allow muggers and rapists to operate freely, and force adults to inhabit the same space with them 8 hours a day, so that adults can also keep these skills sharp?

    I think there is some value in having kids face opposition and adversity -- something schools increasingly shield them from in other ways -- but turning a blind eye to bullying is not the answer. That creates all sorts of terrible side effects.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kids should not allow bullies to operate freely just like adults should not allow muggers and rapists to operate freely. Outside of actual violence or threats of violence, kids should have to deal with these other kids themselves. I should have been more specific that "taking from them and hurting them" in terms of mental "picking on" or "bullying". Bullying always seemed to be childhood tormenting which was not like adult violence.

    Schools expel bullies for yelling at other kids which adults are fully allowed to yell at other adults under the 1st Amendment.

    The zero tolerance schtick is out of control. The terrible side effects are that we now have a nation of pussies who are looking for safe spaces and are quite dumb.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Outside of actual violence or threats of violence, kids should have to deal with these other kids themselves.

    That's what bullying is, dumbass. Violence and the threat thereof. A kid merely making fun of another kid is not bullying and never has been.

    Schools expel bullies for yelling at other kids which adults are fully allowed to yell at other adults under the 1st Amendment.

    That's not really bullying, and of course adults have the option of avoiding people they don't want talking to them, while school students don't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are a moron. Some bullying involves nothing but teasing other kids or adults.

    Bullying does not necessarily involve violence or the threat thereof.

    bul·ly1
    ˈbo͝olē/
    verb
    use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
    "a local man was bullied into helping them"

    I really wonder how you people survive in life when you are so dumb.

  • marshaul||

    What the hell is intimidation other than a threat of violence. Moron.

  • MarkLastname||

    Do you get all your ideas from Chris Rock's standup specials?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I just saw that. Funny premise.I don't think schools should allow violence on other kids but the other parts of bullying toughen kids up.

    Its a tough one but zero tolerance has created its own bad consequences.

  • Edwin||

    that's bullshit, and you know it

    the problem with bullying is it's against the rules to attack the bully back.

    As an adult, no one messes with anyone else, because they'll get their ass kicked, or killed, and there would be no way to prosecute because of the high cost, or the other person just leaving the scene. You could fucking kill someone and leave and the cops would never find you (if you're just reacting to a dick).

    But school is an artificial situation. All the names are known, and if you fight back, you get in trouble. It's bullshit. I remember growing up being frustrated that I couldn't hit bullies back, because I had gotten in trouble before.

    Where does a lesson get learned in this? How does anyone learn anything in this bullshit artificial construct.

    The problem is we send all the kids to schools, which are basically like prisons. Surprise, surprise, people freak out and attack each other in prisons, too, and eventually the biggest strongest guys rule the roost.

    God forbid kids actually work and learn through work with intermittent school at lean, sharp, quick and effective privately owned schools, which are frequently changed up based on the kids job and/or interests and/or situation.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bullying has always been around, but the school shootings are recent. Two major changes in recent times that are causing this problem are the near complete emasculation of boys in the public school system, and the drugging of our children with substances often designed to help with the aforementioned emasculation.

    When boys weren't drugged, and had fights and acted like boys most of this shit didn't happen. And there were plenty of guns back then. Frequently more accessible to kids than they are now.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    I would add in the phenomenon of cyber bullying.

  • DenverJ||

    You know who else had mental issues?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every lefty socialist ever?
    (this does include Hitler)

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Mental Health Magazine?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Grigori Rasputin?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    A candidate who thought it would be a good idea to call half of the voters deplorable?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    That chick from NASA who drove across a few states in adult diapers?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Kreskin?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Every girlfriend ever?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Why is the call for gun control and not violence control?

    Even their main goal shows evidence of laziness and finding easy answers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialists are fine with violence they just cannot control America if Americans have guns and will fight back.

  • Jerryskids||

    I think we should just ban the all, get rid of every last one. Sure, most of them are fine and only a few will kill people and only a few of those few will kill lots of people, but it's better to be safe than sorry. And it's not like anybody really needs them anyway so nobody will miss them when they're gone.

    Oh, wait, this is the gun thread. My bad, I thought we were talking about Muslims. Nevermind.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Muslims don't kill people, people do.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Muslim people!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Only if you consider them to be people.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Lets ban the handful of extremely destructive weapons, such as gas, nukes, tanks, bombs, grenades, etc. but let people exercise their right to self defense with everything else.

    Oh wait, this is a Muslim immigrant vetting thread, I thought it was a gun thread.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I thought you were talking about kids.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Cruz from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Cruz the minute they start acting off. Violation of the database would result in a felony conviction.

    lol no.

    OT: : To Save Our Infrastructure, Make Every Road a Toll Road
    It begins:

    Few things exemplify the United States' disconnect between personal freedom and collective responsibility like our automobile habit. Drivers travel at will, as long as they have money for gas and road snacks. But what they pay for that privilege, in the form of gas and other taxes, doesn't come close to covering the costs of maintaining the roads on which they travel—let alone recoup all the productivity lost in congestion and the damage that tailpipe emissions do to our health. Compared to what society pays, driving is practically a free ride.
  • LarryA||

    But what they pay for that privilege, in the form of gas and other taxes, doesn't come close to covering the costs of maintaining the roads on which they travel

    Gasoline and other taxes would come a lot closer to paying for roads if a bunch of the cash wasn't siphoned off to pay for mass transit, light rail, bicycle paths, jogging trails, and other such.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    ... Studies on the gender of icebergs...

  • Longtobefree||

    Those are only expensive because it is very hard to get an iceberg to reveal it's true feelings - - - -

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Cold, rigid, uncaring--we know all icebergs are male. Until they want to change gender and get all melty and stuff.

  • Tony||

    Or we could do away with such a troublesome piece of law as a 2nd amendment that permits such frequent carnage and ask kindly if, to satisfy their need for a fetish, the gun nuts wouldn't perhaps prefer a big floppy black dildo.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Both of those things have uses, but are not interchangeable.

  • Sevo||

    "Or we could do away with such a troublesome piece of law as a 2nd amendment"

    A-2 is not a "law".
    Along with all the other rights humans are born with, owning means of self-protection was one the founders noticed was commonly restricted by governments, so they made it doubly difficult for assholes like you to do so, including it in the enumerated rights.

  • NYC2AZ||

    "Or we could do away with such a troublesome piece of law as a 2nd amendment..."

    And then what?

  • Tony||

    Give the gun fetishists big floppy black dildos and see if they can't make do with those.

  • NYC2AZ||

    And when that doesn't work?

  • Tony||

    They'll live.

    And so will more kids in schools.

  • NYC2AZ||

    Misdirection and avoidance of the question won't get you to your "oh so simple" solution. So again, when repealing the 2A and persuading gun owners to turn in their firearms doesn't achieve your goal of gun free fantasyland, what then? What plan do you expect from your Top Men that will peaceably pacify the inevitable non compliant population?

  • Tony||

    Same thing that happens to anyone else who breaks the law.

  • NYC2AZ||

    "Same thing that happens to anyone else who breaks the law."

    And how do you expect that to play out Tony?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Same thing that happens to anyone else who breaks the law."'

    We'll if we compare it to immigration law, I suppose they get a pass.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I seem to recall that a war started back in 1775 when a particular regime thought they could just come sieze a bunch of American firearms.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Good luck stopping any news media from taking a pass on the orgy. There's no way 24 hour cable news is going to resist giving the GOP and 2A a beating whenever possible. Not that it would make a difference, as who knows the true motivations of the mentally ill.

    Yesterday I was helping my old man with a project and he had CNN on. That network was not doing the gun control movement any favors by leaving the anti-gun violence rally on at length. Those speakers with their emotional pleas were going wildly off message and a few were, in fact, parroting the president's sentiments by focusing on mental health rather than gun control. The family the shooter was staying with was a target as well.

  • Tony||

    There are countries where guns are restricted that are no less free than the US, plus they don't have regular mass shootings. Talk more about which side is characterized by mental illness.

  • Sevo||

    "There are countries where guns are restricted that are no less free than the US, plus they don't have regular mass shootings."

    By definition, they are.
    I realize your mental limitations don't allow you to see that, so I would suggest you go back to your lollipop and leave the adults to discuss the matter.
    We don't need Mommy to let us do things.

  • Tony||

    More freedom necessarily means more dead children? Something's off here. How free are dead children, exactly?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    In some ways, freer than the prepubescent boys you sodomize Tony.

  • Myshkin78||

    If those prepubescent boys had guns, they could defend themselves. That's why Tony advocates banning guns.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.18.18 @ 7:14PM|#
    "More freedom necessarily means more dead children? Something's off here."
    How (not) suprprising that you try to put words in my mouth, you slimy piece of shit.

    "How free are dead children, exactly?"
    You tell me, shitbag, since you want to dance on their graves.
    Fuck you with turd's dick.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Examples, please.

  • NYC2AZ||

    All those counties where the government can jail you for saying mean things on internet forms or not using the correct gender pronouns.... obviously.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are zero countries that restrict guns that are more free than the USA.

    You lunatics and your lies to further the socialist cause.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which countries are 'freer' than the US? Please enlighten us commie.

  • Tony||

    Define free. If freedom means the ability to shoot as many children as possible as quickly as possible, the US is right up there.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You define free, Tony. You use freedoms as a subterfuge to end as much freedom as you can.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Luckily for you, in the US you are free to be a perpetual disingenuous shitweasel.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Let me tell you how to stop the gun violence.

    First, you round up all the gang ganders with their bang bang sticks and put them in camps. Camps were they learn some discipline, like, no bang bang sticks! Bang bang sticks bad! And you just keep beating them and beating them until they stop killing people! And then you tell them that they better not do it again or you'll put them back in the camp!

    It's not hard, people!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We can deport them or their parents for being illegals.

  • DajjaI||

    Just lock up everyone in the mental illness industry. They are the ones making us crazy in the first place. Also identify all their victims and make them the guards. This should be effective therapy to undo all the damage they caused.

  • SIV||

    The Fox News host offers good-faith ideas worth engaging.

    Gutfeld's "ideas" are mostly typical center-right authoritarianism. I expect we've heard the exact same thing across the Fow News opinion programs


    Actually locking down existing procedures should be the first step rather than the creation of new ones.

    "Enforce the laws on the books" as the NRA likes to say

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun laws are unconstitutional, so....

  • SIV||

    Yes

    But Nick Gillespie agrees wholeheartedly with the NRA, He should mention that at his next cocktail party.

  • XM||

    As a sheriff recently noted, high school kids used to bring guns to school - literally. Because they would hunt before school or they belonged to a rifle team. They didn't typically shoot people on campus in his days. Guns didn't change (I'm not talking about technological advances), people did.

    And mass shootings are only the worst case scenario of a declining culture. How often do we hear about students stabbing their professors to death? Or twitter driving people to suicide? After the initial shock wore off, we just shrugged off the fact that Hollywood turned out to be a den of rapists, pedophiles, and Aziz Ansari caliber creeps. Movies like Jumanji and Black Panther now make gazillions of dollars like nothing happened.

    The irony of American discourse is that they make a HUGE deal about representation and inclusion, and yet you can see that the nation is becoming increasingly isolated and disconnected. I see 3 year old kids burying their faces on their iphones while their moms are texting something. All these kids will grow up without the analog experience. Then they go to craptacular schools where the kids are super mean and clicky, and the teachers are just sort by the numbers. Later they'll play hours of COD games which are like exactly the same every time.

    When I first came to America my cousins told me "American dads take their kids hunting or fishing and teach team how to pitch tents and make fire and stuff". Do they even do that anymore?

  • Michael Cook||

    When I was principal of a small high school in Alaska, my students would bring guns to school--large caliber if they had been hunting or were going after school, small caliber if they were only going fishing. I also kept the biathlon rifles and ammo in my office, just laying around, but I did lock the door. When I was a high school student myself in Montana students would drive pickups to school with the rear window rifle racks that were once ubiquitous.

    There would often be long guns in those racks. My rack had shotguns intermingled with fishing rods. It was kinda a different universe back then. We had plenty of fist-fights and some inter-small-town sports rivalries that turned into road rage and fist fight melees, but no one ever thought to shoot anyone.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "When I was a high school student myself in Montana students would drive pickups to school with the rear window rifle racks that were once ubiquitous."

    That was true in suburban DC when I was a kid, too.

    Some kid was watching the "Pretty in Pink" on tv when I walked by, recently, and he said, "Did they really used to have smoking lounges for the kids in high schools?".

    It was only for upperclassmen.

  • 68W58||

    The year I graduated we had an assembly so student government candidates could talk about the "issues". They were doing away with the smoke hole, where students smoked between classes, and kids in the gym stands kept yelling about that. Plenty of gun racks with rifles in trucks as well-this was 1985.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Chain link and razor wire would have hardened this target sufficiently. He was confronted as soon as he was seen. They just need fewer access points.

    That said, talk is cheap. None of the ideas he espouses would survive contact with reality. Given the routine articles posted here about state bureaucrats run amok, are we going to let them start banning gun ownership unilaterally?

  • SIV||

    It's rare when killers actually stay in our mind.

    I see Reason search results don't display that creepy photo of crazy Jared Lee Loughner.

  • Robert||

    Creepy to you, but I always found it soothing & uplifting. All I saw was someone whose expression was, everything's going to be all right. Didn't find out until later what the significance of that person was, & even after I did, I decided, fuck it, I love the guy's puss.

  • SIV||

    Judging by its frequent appearance on this blog AND a cover of the print 'zine, Gillespie and Welch loved that pic.

  • SIV||

    Good to see the Cho selfies haven't all been memory-holed.

  • SIV||

    Not just a certain aviation attorney anymore.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Address mental illness seriously. "Bring back psychiatric hospitals," says Gutfeld, who notes that of course they still exist but that they "house less than one-tenth of the people they did back in the '50s."

    Generally speaking, people can now only be held in a mental hospital against their will 1) if they're sentenced after a trial by a judge, or 2) if they're a danger to themselves or others--in the latter case, even then, their status needs to be frequently updated with the court so that they're released as soon as they're no longer a danger to themselves or others. You generally get a 72 hour hold to evaluate--and then the court will check their status frequently.

    There's no good reason to start incarcerating people that haven't committed a crime and aren't a danger to themselves or others. For goodness' sake, if we start locking people up in mental hospitals--just for their own good--do you realize how quickly bureaucrats and partisans will start abusing that practice?

    The solution to mass shootings isn't to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the actions of some sick kid in Florida, and the solution to mass shootings isn't to hold the mentally ill responsible for the behavior of some third party sickos either. If you haven't committed a crime and a mental hospital can't document why you're a danger to yourself or others, then the government has no business incarcerating you--even if you're a loon.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Whole thread on this above. I used to feel the same way until I read a first hand account of what it is like to have a relative with a serious mental illness. There is plenty of room for improvement.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Very important piece from David Frum in The Atlantic: America Is Under Attack and the President Doesn't Care

    If the #BlueWave doesn't happen this November, it will be because of Putin.

    CIA Director Mike Pompeo predicted to the BBC at the beginning of 2018 that Russia "will be back" to help its preferred candidates in November 2018. To what extent does President Trump—to what extent do congressional Republicans—look to Russian interference to help their party in the 2018 cycle?

    Scary stuff. Read the whole thing.

  • ||

    I think it's time for South Park to spoof Frum.

  • DajjaI||

    Look. It was a choice between cyberwar with Russia and nukies for North Africa. I feel we dodged a bullet, it could have been much, much worse. Let them have their McCarthy hysteria. I actually look forward to being dragged up in front of the committee and blacklisted or facebook jailed or whatever they do to us for refusing to brand NRA a terrorist org that will eventually make for a good movie.

  • Dariush||

    "Read the whole thing."

    Remember when Barack Obama laughed Romney off the debate stage in 2012 over Russia? Romney claimed Russia was the biggest threat to the US and Obama responded-

    "The 1980's are now calling, asking for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years."

    You fucking pig ignorant ideologues can't keep your goddamn stories straight. No, I'm not going to read your stupid fucking linked story. Hillary fucking lost, get over it. Here's another quote from Obama, read the whole thing asshole.

    "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

  • Sevo||

    I do not recognize your handle, nor your 'style'; I am going to assume you are a new commenter here:

    "You fucking pig ignorant ideologues can't keep your goddamn stories straight. No, I'm not going to read your stupid fucking linked story. Hillary fucking lost, get over it. Here's another quote from Obama, read the whole thing asshole.
    "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

    And I think you are on to something

  • LarryA||

    If the #BlueWave doesn't happen this November, it will be because of Putin.

    Yeah. I guess if you don't win, you have to blame somebody.
    1. Why on Earth would Putin want Trump over Clinton, or whichever Democrat runs in 2018;
    2. Once again we have the "If only Wiki hadn't told people about all the bad things Clinton did, she would have won," and nothing about "Maybe she shouldn't have done all the bad things;"
    3. The IRS, FEC, SEC, and a whole bunch of other alphabet agencies, plus the anti-gun folks, watch everything the NRA does, like a hawk. That's the last organization Russia would funnel illegal contributions through.

  • Sigivald||

    Trump gets elected.

    US oil and natural gas exploitation and export continue to increase, lowering prices and directly undercutting GAZPROM.

    The US kills bunches of Russians and Russian-affiliated mercenaries in Syria, undercutting Russian power projection and making them look weak and vulnerable.

    Why's ol' Pooty-poot gonna help Trump get re-elected, again?

    This Russia dog don't hunt, bub.

  • Praveen R.||

    How about this? We have too many kids trying to become an entertainer when only a few succeed. We have too many lawyers and people in finance. We need more engineers, scientists , doctors. We need more spaces for medical students in colleges. No, it wont dilute the quality as I have seen many doctors who are very mediocre minds. They just happen to work hard enough for those 7 or 8 years to get into med school and get their residency. They are not really the brightest minds in the country. And Psychiatry should be expanded. Maybe a middle ground between psychology and psychiatry where we get more qualified practitioners to take care of the mental health issues that are prevalent in the country.

    And we really need to start funding child welfare agencies . We got overworked employees and the low pay also leads to underqualified idiots in those agencies. Quite frankly, this agency has the potential to keep america safer than some of our defense agencies by intervening in many bad family situations which give rise to psychos.

  • Verbum Vincet||

    The solution is simple. Give all schoolchildren a biochip and have them report to a specified location at a specified time. Have that area heavily guarded by police. Have the police scan the chips against an authorized roster of legitimate students. Then have the police lead the kids into school under armed guard. Once the kids are inside the school, the doors are closed and locked until school's out. Nobody in or out, for any reason, teachers and staff included. Reverse the morning formation process, and there you have it: problem solved! Someone else can work on securing the bus routes, but we'll make it work!

    Other ideas would be to keep a company of National Guardpersons on standby during school hours (in addition to a platoon of cops inside the school.) Issue the principal and the chief school police officer a set of codes akin to the President's "nuclear football." In case of a threat, the two call the guard HQ and alert them. If the codes match, it's a "go" for the guardpersons to cordon off a perimeter around the school in preparation for direct action raids or other appropriate kinetic responses. Maybe install an armored security hatch for severe medical emergencies, too.

  • IceTrey||

    It's obvious the FBI/government let it happen on purpose just like 9/11.

  • Sevo||

    ceTrey|2.18.18 @ 10:25PM|#
    "It's obvious the FBI/government let it happen on purpose just like 9/11."
    I hope that's sarc.

  • gad-fly||

    Mother Jones tracks real mass shootings and the number over the past thirty years is far fewer than people imagine. Mass school shootings, for example, number only 16 in that time period and the victims who died is 162. With 100,000 public school campuses to protect - complete with 50 million students and 6 million teachers - authorities are doing a magnificent job of containing the crazies. As demonstrated in Florida, lots and lots of money are being spent to control the problem.

    But the rote drills actually hurt in this case because the shooter knew what to expect. I would suggest that the liberal school authorities get off the "guns kill" idiocy being implanted into the minds of impressionable kids to be replaced with random, trained, gun-toting teachers who will be able to end the certainty as to what reactions can be expected in a real school emergency.

  • Sigivald||

    We live in strange times when Mother Jones is a comparative voice of reason on gun control.

  • Sam Grove||

    The widespread use of psychiatric medications needs to be examined. A relatively small percentage of patients have adverse reactions to these meds and noted side effects include: psychosis, suicidal tendencies, rage, and homicidal thoughts. These adverse effects are also produced by withdrawal from psych meds.

    A significant portion of mass shooters had been prescribed psychiatric meds.

    Search: psychiatric medications and mass shootings

  • Tina Marie||

    I wonder how many needed those medications and were noncompliant in taking them? Or were mixing them with illicit drugs? Sadly, even marijuana can interact with psychiatric medications, if used enough. I'm not dogging marijuana, as I'm all for legalizing it, it's just that it hasn't been studied enough for medication interactions. I believe. I had a friend who took a cocktail of psychiatric medications and smoked marijuana, daily, but was a vicious person if angered over even the most trivial thing!

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, no students were shot during the very highly emotionally charged integration of the Little Rock school system. So all we have to do is ignore the constitution a bit more and put the Army in all the schools. Armed, full combat gear.

  • chemjeff||

    The real solution here is to decentralize education.

    Fewer kids at crappy public schools means fewer targets for the mass shooter nutballs.

  • Michael Cook||

    You realize that your proposal would limit the need for school administrators? These officials make close to or over $200 per annum. Our local wonder boy made more than Veep Joe Biden. The education bureaucracy is the most powerful lobbying group in the USA. outspending the NRA, abortion groups, even greenies.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    ^ Exactly what the problem is.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Cruz seemed fascinated with killing animals....and then boasted about wanting to be a school shooter. People heard this and reported it to the authorities. It will be interesting to learn what exactly the FBI or local law enforcement could have done based only on you-tube or internet rhetoric. Being on their radar is different than being detained or closely watched so he could be intercepted enroute to a school. He was 19, both parents dead, living with a friend whose parents let him store his guns in their gun safe. Despite being odd and somewhat of a loner, they must have trusted him enough or were not aware of his social media rants. It still surprises me that police reaction was not more definitive....meaning, if they were on site within minutes, why wasn't Cruz impeded more or at least contained on the premises (which were admittedly expansive)? If armed SWAT couldn't stop him or contain him, will a handful of minimally trained armed faculty really change the result? Perhaps if they are at the right place at the right time...and have the courage to engage. Classrooms were locked down...outside doors were locked...but he was able to shoot his way in and pull the fire alarm. There are no great solutions here.

  • Tina Marie||

    Exactly! In the short time he lived with that family, he showed no signs that he would shoot up a school. He was nice to their pets, he didn't act up, he kept his guns in the safe, locked, and only asked to unlock it twice. A couple days before the shooting, the woman went to therapy with him, so the family felt he was doing well dealing with his mother's death. Something made him snap, or he was able to remain calm for that long!

    I read that one kid did hear him say he was going to shoot up a school, or something, and reported it to the FBI. Also, the YouTube comment. As for the animal abuse, I had heard of it, but had anyone seen it? Was that something he posted, online, somewhere? Or was it just told through word of mouth? I would believe it even if I had heard he did it, but would the police or the FBI? Or would they just think it was kids making up rumors?

  • eyeroller||

    It seems to me that the threat from mass shootings is too low to justify any kind of reaction.

    Am I the only person on earth who thinks this?

  • DesparateReasoning||

    No. Everytime a shooting happens, we have to "do something" which inevitably results in more 2nd Amendment freedoms being eroded to "common sense" anti-gun legislation that will do nothing to prevent the next one. Yet, these events are astonishingly rare. Even for gun deaths, more than 17 people have died on a bad night in Detroit.

  • eyeroller||

    Right, but Greg Gutfeld also wants to "do something". Everybody wants to "do something".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I want to do something. End all unconstitutional gun control.

    Then we don't have to do anything when there is a shooting in the USA because everything that can be done was done. People who want to carry weapons can.

  • Thane Eichenauer||

    Gutfeld's new show isn't a compulsively watchable weekly show. Red Eye was.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Agree. I think the main downer is Tyrus. He seems like an ok guy, but he just isn't funny or interesting. I get this odd feeling he KNOWS it, and is sensitive about it, and this makes him even more uncomfortable to watch. The others on the show seem to squirm and work around him.

    In contrast, Red Eye was fast paced and witty/silly almost non-stop.

  • Tina Marie||

    Yes! I have to agree with you on Tyrus! He's nice and all, but a downer. I like Kat, because I can laugh at what she says! Of course, Greg is the show, so he doesn't really need co-hosts.

  • technopitara||

    What good will teachers do carrying their students?
    also SMS Bomber apk

  • Sigivald||

    "We need a database" to keep people such as Florida school shooter Nikolaus Cruz from getting guns, says Gutfeld. But as important, he says we need to "tag" people such as Cruz the minute they start acting off. Violation of the database would result in a felony conviction.

    1) What's the due process procedure on that?

    2) How do you "violate the database"? What does that even mean?

  • JWC||

    As to point 4: there is certainly a copycat effect happening in regards to mass shootings, but it is not as simple as emulating previous shooters. It is an example of the contagion effect that Malcolm Gladwell and others have addressed so convincingly. The very fact of hearing and seeing and learning so much about a shooter and his crime makes it more likely that another individual will find it more possible, almost as if given permission. Gladwell compares it to mob mentality: it requires a certain type of person to throw that first stone, but once it is thrown, it gives permission to the next person, who never would have thrown that stone initially, to pick up his own rock, to select a target. And the next. And the next. Round the clock coverage by a media greedy for eyes and ears only exacerbates the likelihood that individual number two and three will find the idea of picking up an AK45 all the more possible. Since Columbine, this permission has been granted. After each of these tragedies, I am reminded of Sartre's take on Erostratus "who wanted to become famous, but could find nothing better to do than burn down the Temple of Ephesus." The narrator inquires, "And what was the name of the man who built the Temple?" His friend confesses, "I don't remember. I don't believe anybody know his name." The narrator, who will go on to attempt a mass shooting of his own, replies, "But you remember the name of Erostatus? You see, he didn't figure things out too badly."

  • H-daddy||

    I think Gutfield is on the right track. A multi-pronged approach might work.

  • KevinP||

    The vast majority of mass shootings in the US have occurred where law abiding citizens have been disarmed, left unprotected and unable to resist and shoot back.

    Would-be killers target gun-free zones


    Quote:
    Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. The suspect in the Charleston, S.C., shootings in June originally aimed to attack the College of Charleston. He chose a church instead because the college had armed guards.

    The diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. He decided against attacking an airport because of the "substantial security." Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment in 2012, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. That's the one he attacked.... Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page "manifesto." He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

    Americans seem to understand these points. A Gallup poll last December found by a whooping 63 to 30 percent margin that Americans thought guns in their homes made them safer.

  • Merl3noir||

    "...much true-crime coverage is essentially prurient rather seriously pursuing the public interest"

    I do wish the press spent less time trying to fill hours to get ratings, and more time actually digging into a story Not just on shootings but on all topics I am skeptical of the notion that the press creates these shooting. At the heart of the issue, is lonely kids, and a lack of means for venting those emotions. In other words the shootings are a symptom of society failing those on the margins, not cause by media, or guns.

    England banned reporting on the football game riots, in an attempt to stop the rioters. While most people believe it worked, because they are unaware of it, the football game riots still take place.

    Many people who are lonely and angry are a ticking time bomb, the press simply feeds into their existing issues. It would be interesting to have a panel discussion about what the press could do to limit the prurient aspect of their reporting. It is probably throwing fuel on the fire, and if the press was more willing to self regulate that it may work. But at the end of the day, it is very much news worthy.

    Reason had an article about schools banning best friends. In stead they should be mandating best friends, and making sure they have more than one firend. Also the article about schools taking recess away as punishment. As the article says this is exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Let these kids play and work of that energy.

  • Tina Marie||

    Gutfeld has a reasonable view on things. His presentations are usually serious but can be filled with sarcastic humor, which some don't understand nowadays. After reading his books, I became more aware of what was going on, politically, and more active in communicating with my Representatives. I also credit him for beginning my journey into Libertarianism.

  • iowantwo||

    I would like to see a serious program to have the govt just get the hell out of the way and allow those in the school building that have the skill set, or willing to get it, to carry a weapon. It only has to be a handful at any time, but the crazies would have no idea who would be armed.
    Why would the govt have laws and regulations that prevent the people from doing the heavy lifting of protecting themselves?

  • plusafdotcom||

    Pardon my simplistic, psychological "solution," but for a while, I've thought that the very IDEA that anyone employed by schools, from administrators to teachers to janitors should be allowed to VOLUNTARILY sign up for (and pay for) personal weapons training and qualification for Concealed Carry permits.

    Practically and psychologically, if a shooter had NO IDEA who might be packing heat when they entered a school or anywhere else with intent to harm or kill... just MAYBE that might be enough of a built-in deterrent?

    Or is that kind of thinking too far outside the box of the current "debate" about "solutions"?

    Like the idea? Pass it on or share...
    Thanks.

  • marriedtoaliberal||

    One thing no one mentions, nearly every mass shooter had been proscribed psychoactive drugs. Sure violent side affects are rare, but when you drug millions of kids...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online