EEF, I have been reading what you have been writing. Are you saying that more and more children are becoming more violent than when (let's say) I was a child in the 60's? Because this violence did not occur when I was a child. As a child I wouldn't think of acting out like this. I was too afraid of the consequences. So could it be the child's upbringing that is now different causing these violent outbursts? If so, and this is how I feel, I think the solution here is to make the parents responsible for what their children do. Both criminally and civilly. I think you will see a drastic change in how parents raise their children.

We used to have debtor's prisons why not family prisons? Put 'em all in jail together and let the parents deal with the consequences and the child. Let the MSM in to see how families are living. It is not perfect. And it is probably too simplistic for your complex problem theories. But I am of the idea that simple solutions, to even the most complex problems, are still the best way.

I know you are going to come up with more complex issues stemming from my solution. However, I feel like most here that we have to do what is best for the majority. I think when you start making these problems about the individual and not about what is best for the majority you make things unnecessarily complex. JMHO

I was a child of the 80s so honestly I cannot really say how it compared to the 60s. I think in some areas we have improved and parenting and in others we have got worse. Children without fathers show a fairly strong correlation to increased criminality so I think it certainly appropriate to question what role parental responsibility plays. I have not looked much into the parents of mass shooters so I don't know if there are certain patterns that have been recognized that we could address.

I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing so I would theorize it to be a social issue. Did parenting change enough over the past 60 years to explain this whole phenomena? Maybe but I am skeptical of that. I think the copycat aspect needs to be studied more. At least with this Florida shooter they will have somebody to interview and study.

While I do appreciate your fresh idea on the subject I am very skeptical about a family prison type thing working. Throwing mom and dad in jail because their child did something bad almost seems like it could snow ball. For the sake of brevity I will leave out specifics. It also sounds a little bit too much like North Korea where when one person screws up you put three generations of their family in prison. Wouldt it even be constitutional?

I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing

the shift in brain chemistry comes from psychotropic drugs
that has been documented in mass shooters, yet the MSM does not concentrate on that, because it does not fit the message of "child-killing evil black rifles sold by the NRA"

I focus on the bullying because that is something we on the outside can control. We can't stop a psychotic from being a psychotic we can decide how we interact with them.

I am not suggesting that standing up to bullies never works but I think overly simple solution to a complex problem given to an emotional 12 year old is always going to lead to the best outcome. What about the bullying that isn't physical what is verbal? Like I asked you earlier, how is this scared child standing up to a bully know where to draw the line between stabbing them and hitting them with a lunch box?

For example the witty kid who can insult someone less socially savvy? Should the bullied individual punch the bully in the face for making fun of him, responding to offense with violence? I don't want to make an assumption of what you are saying so I want to know if your solution of standing up to a bully by fighting them physically is something you would also suggest when standing up to a verbal bully?

Bullying can also be done as a sort of status thing, to make oneself look better at the cost of somebody else. It is not merely one person trying to exert control over another. Maybe these people are cowards or maybe they are opportunists seeing ways to increase their popularity at the cost of another's.
Standing up to a bully can often work, I will give you that but the reality is that not everyone will stand up to a bully and there be consequences as a result. So for those who can find the courage to do what you say great but for those who don't we will end up with other consequences, consequences we may have been able to help avert by treating them a certain way.

Exterminating evil after it has run its course does nothing towards preventing it from happening.

You can't "Control" bullying. You can only deal with it.

Your focus on "Control" is what leads you to complex solutions for relatively simple problems. Problems that weren't as prominent when we applied those "Overly Simple Solutions" back in the day.

You don't "Interact" with psycho's. You terminate them. They are not redeemable. Culling them from society prevents them from breeding more.

You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response. This is called "Parenting". You further teach them that they will need to rise to the expectations of society, not that society will dumb itself down to satisfy them. Work towards the highest common denominator, not the lowest.

What is "Status" but another form of dominance? We, as gun owners in this state, are being "Bullied" by those with "Status" as we speak. This country was founded on the idea that we can stand up to them.

Yes, there are those that won't stand up for themselves. Notice that I don't say "Can't", they can but for whatever reason they won't. You do what you can to protect them, but in the end if they refuse to stand up for themselves they are destined to become victims.
Predators seek out prey, it is simply the nature of the world, it cannot be avoided.

the shift in brain chemistry comes from psychotropic drugs
that has been documented in mass shooters, yet the MSM does not concentrate on that, because it does not fit the message of "child-killing evil black rifles sold by the NRA"

Sorry, what I was getting at was the biology of the human brain. I meant that I don't think the human brain suddenly evolved to create this phenomenon.

Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs. This is a question worthy of more in-depth study I think.

One of the questions that comes to my mind is a sort of chicken or the egg type question. Is it the psychotropic drugs that cause them to do this or are psychotropic drugs just a symptom?

You can't "Control" bullying. You can only deal with it.

Your focus on "Control" is what leads you to complex solutions for relatively simple problems. Problems that weren't as prominent when we applied those "Overly Simple Solutions" back in the day.

You don't "Interact" with psycho's. You terminate them. They are not redeemable. Culling them from society prevents them from breeding more.

You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response. This is called "Parenting". You further teach them that they will need to rise to the expectations of society, not that society will dumb itself down to satisfy them. Work towards the highest common denominator, not the lowest.

What is "Status" but another form of dominance? We, as gun owners in this state, are being "Bullied" by those with "Status" as we speak. This country was founded on the idea that we can stand up to them.

Yes, there are those that won't stand up for themselves. Notice that I don't say "Can't", they can but for whatever reason they won't. You do what you can to protect them, but in the end if they refuse to stand up for themselves they are destined to become victims.
Predators seek out prey, it is simply the nature of the world, it cannot be avoided.

I'm not sure how far you are suggesting we take culling Psychopaths especially considering mental illnesses exist on a spectrum, not simply a clear dangerous or not dangerous line. With many of these Mass shooters there may have been signs for concern but not always reason enough to lock them up. Regardless, your suggestion is really more of a post problem solution. By that time the bodies are already on the floor. The goal is to try and avoid having it go that far in the first place

You didn't really give me a clear answer on the issue of verbal bullying. Do you think it is acceptable for a bullied person to use physical Force against a verbal bully?

I think you can control bullying in so far as you can take steps to reduce it. A friend of mine who is let's say a little unskilled socially told me that he was bullied in his small town in the mainland that he grew up. He told me one time the bullies even hit him with their truck. He tried to report them but they were popular and on the sports team if I remember correctly so no one took any action. Those people who knew of the bullying but did nothing had a chance to control it but didn't. Kind of hard for him to stand up to a moving vehicle. I guess he could have found a gun and shot them so they would never try to do it again.

I do think there are those who qualify as being unable to stand up to bullies. Kids with mental or physical disabilities for example.

Sorry, what I was getting at was the biology of the human brain. I meant that I don't think the human brain suddenly evolved to create this phenomenon.

Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs. This is a question worthy of more in-depth study I think.

One of the questions that comes to my mind is a sort of chicken or the egg type question. Is it the psychotropic drugs that cause them to do this or are psychotropic drugs just a symptom?

I was a child of the 80s so honestly I cannot really say how it compared to the 60s. I think in some areas we have improved and parenting and in others we have got worse. Children without fathers show a fairly strong correlation to increased criminality so I think it certainly appropriate to question what role parental responsibility plays. I have not looked much into the parents of mass shooters so I don't know if there are certain patterns that have been recognized that we could address.

I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing so I would theorize it to be a social issue. Did parenting change enough over the past 60 years to explain this whole phenomena? Maybe but I am skeptical of that. I think the copycat aspect needs to be studied more. At least with this Florida shooter they will have somebody to interview and study.

While I do appreciate your fresh idea on the subject I am very skeptical about a family prison type thing working. Throwing mom and dad in jail because their child did something bad almost seems like it could snow ball. For the sake of brevity I will leave out specifics. It also sounds a little bit too much like North Korea where when one person screws up you put three generations of their family in prison. Wouldt it even be constitutional?

This is an excellent train of thought.

I would agree that this is a societal problem, on the whole.

With the decline of the nuclear family we have seen an attendant rise in criminality of young men. Without proper male role models and a two parent support system young men have increasingly fallen into gangs and other criminal enterprises to compensate for the lack of positive direction at home.
You can almost trace the increase in mass shootings back to the beginning of the demise of  the nuclear family back in the 60's and 70's. Before then single parent households were a rarity, now they've become mainstream. The rise in criminality and social problems is real and traceable.

I too disagree with the concept of punishing parents for the behavior of their children. As is obvious from my previous posts, I firmly believe that the individual should be held responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately, this is a long term solution. I think we should address it, but to see the concept bear fruit will take at least the 50+ years it's taken to get to this point. Not to mention the great societal shift that will have to take place to accomplish it.

No small task. But a worthy undertaking.

We are medicating our kids at an unprecedented rate.  What is socially acceptable now is dramatically different.  As a simple example, what was an R rated movie in the 70's-80's wouldn't even be PG-14 today.  In other words, the exposure and societal acceptance of vulgarity and violence have drastically changed.  Combine a mixture of many of these things, and it is no wonder why we are where we are.

I'm not sure how far you are suggesting we take culling Psychopaths especially considering mental illnesses exist on a spectrum, not simply a clear dangerous or not dangerous line. With many of these Mass shooters there may have been signs for concern but not always reason enough to lock them up. Regardless, your suggestion is really more of a post problem solution. By that time the bodies are already on the floor. The goal is to try and avoid having it go that far in the first place

You didn't really give me a clear answer on the issue of verbal bullying. Do you think it is acceptable for a bullied person to use physical Force against a verbal bully?

I think you can control bullying in so far as you can take steps to reduce it. A friend of mine who is let's say a little unskilled socially told me that he was bullied in his small town in the mainland that he grew up. He told me one time the bullies even hit him with their truck. He tried to report them but they were popular and on the sports team if I remember correctly so no one took any action. Those people who knew of the bullying but did nothing had a chance to control it but didn't. Kind of hard for him to stand up to a moving vehicle. I guess he could have found a gun and shot them so they would never try to do it again.

I do think there are those who qualify as being unable to stand up to bullies. Kids with mental or physical disabilities for example.

Did you read the part where I stated "You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response"?

Since you seem to need it spelled out in words of one syllable: No.

Sounds like your friend would've been justified if he had taken up arms to defend himself against someone using a car as a deadly weapon. I'm glad he managed to survive.

Psychopaths exist at the far end of the "Spectrum". you can't compare someone that picks their nose compulsively to someone that wants to commit mass murder or torture pets for fun. If they don;t give us enough reason to lock them up or even investigate them before hand, there really isn't much that can be done until "The bodies hit the floor" as you say. There is no "Pre Crime", you can't prove someone guilty of what they haven't done.

Yeah, people with mental and physical disabilities are going to have problems. You try and teach others that it's "Wrong", but unfortunately there will always be those that will take advantage of others weaknesses.

Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs.

perhaps you should look into it
and you will probably try and get out of your statement by qualifying "a fair number"

We are medicating our kids at an unprecedented rate.  What is socially acceptable now is dramatically different.  As a simple example, what was an R rated movie in the 70's-80's wouldn't even be PG-14 today.  In other words, the exposure and societal acceptance of vulgarity and violence have drastically changed.  Combine a mixture of many of these things, and it is no wonder why we are where we are.

That's my observation (a small sample size of course) and my opinion.
I'm guilty of it as I probably own funds that have drug stocks. Pharmaceuticals don't make money off of advice - they make money off of new drugs.
It appears that we commercialized ourselves to the limits and are always looking for new things to sell. More violence, more sex. We continue to push moral and ethical limits to expand markets. We attacked religion, schools, govt. and businesses to pave way for "progressive" ideas. There are many new societal ills that we experience: hoarding in many forms, addictions in many forms, gender confusion. Maybe a lot of these "new" problems are a result of poor parenting and/or guidance. Perhaps we haven't moved beyond the stage of self-awareness.
One example of social ills:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37586976/father-accused-of-killing-baby-after-losing-video-game

One day I came home crying at the age of 7 because I was bitten by a german shepherd. My grandfather asked me why I didn't bite the dog back.
I enlisted in the military later and was directed that if the enemy shot at me I shoot back. It was a new concept for some of the recruits.

I agree with the simple solution of arming teachers or whoever wants to on school campus. We guard superficial items such as cash with arms, so again, why is it so hard to understand that we must protect our kids with arms? This passive approach doesn't appear to work. The uncomfortable idea or "image" of having guns in schools with kids projected by thise opposed to it is rather immature and ignorant. These pacifists parents need to realize that this isn't a a superhero movie where someone is going to save their asses...parents are the ultimate solution to the safeguarding of their own kids

My wife's cousin has a small child in Manila. The child has a friend who is very rich. They have five horses in the metropolitan city. The cousin is concerned that if her child hangs out with the rich child, then both might be kidnapped at the same time. When they figure out that the cousin is not rich, the kidnappers will probably kill her child and ransom the rich child to the rich parents. These are the kind of problems that occur in other countries. Yes, kidnappings occur here but not to that extent and it's rarely national news. Why are kidnappings a big problem in developing countries and school shootings a big problem in our country?

My wife's cousin has a small child in Manila. The child has a friend who is very rich. They have five horses in the metropolitan city. The cousin is concerned that if her child hangs out with the rich child, then both might be kidnapped at the same time. When they figure out that the cousin is not rich, the kidnappers will probably kill her child and ransom the rich child to the rich parents. These are the kind of problems that occur in other countries. Yes, kidnappings occur here but not to that extent and it's rarely national news. Why are kidnappings a big problem in developing countries and school shootings a big problem in our country?

Because the crooks made it such a common problem, the victims decided to protect themselves by getting kidnap insurance.  Now the crooks just have to find out the limits of the policy, kidnap the covered individual, and demand the max amount the insurance will pay.  It's run like a business venture.

The victims guarantee there is a payday for the kidnappers, subsidized by the insurance industry.  Since it's the insurance company's money, the family is unlikely to refuse payment.  Guaranteed ransom beats being told the family is broke.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it.  If people refused to pay, kidnapping would drop to near nothing.  Similar to policies of non-negotiation with terrorists.

We created all these laws such as "gun free" zones that make it an open fish barrel for CRIMINALs. This is what happens when legislators cater to the irrational, illogical BAN THIS NOW crowd. No thought. Now look what we've done.
Another good example is airport security after 9/11. They banned box cutters, any kind of edged weapons, liquids. We've banned everything we can think of. Terrorists will find a way while we citizens are powerless because all we want to do is travel from point A to point B. Instead of empowering its citizens our govt. make us more less than sheep. We're fucking roaches in a roach motel.

perhaps you should look into it
and you will probably try and get out of your statement by qualifying "a fair number"

I have looked into it before and I know the numbers or statistically significant but I could not remember them off the top of my head hence I said a fair number.

A few examples, the Sandy Hook shooter showed no drugs or alcohol in his system when they ran a toxicology report. II Columbine shooter, Dylan Klebold, showed no drugs or alcohol in his system in his toxicology report.

The problem I see with the claim that the vast majority of these Mass shooters were all taking these drugs is that they were less than scientific. There was no analysis of doses nor was there a distinction between whether the individual was actually taking the medicine or were they simply prescribed the medicine.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this could not be a factor only that it is not decisive. I think more study is warranted before such a strong claim is made.

Did you read the part where I stated "You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response"?

Since you seem to need it spelled out in words of one syllable: No.

Sounds like your friend would've been justified if he had taken up arms to defend himself against someone using a car as a deadly weapon. I'm glad he managed to survive.

Psychopaths exist at the far end of the "Spectrum". you can't compare someone that picks their nose compulsively to someone that wants to commit mass murder or torture pets for fun. If they don;t give us enough reason to lock them up or even investigate them before hand, there really isn't much that can be done until "The bodies hit the floor" as you say. There is no "Pre Crime", you can't prove someone guilty of what they haven't done.

Yeah, people with mental and physical disabilities are going to have problems. You try and teach others that it's "Wrong", but unfortunately there will always be those that will take advantage of others weaknesses.

I agree that you set specifics to your children about how they can and should resist bullies. The reason I asked you for specifics is because you didn't clearly indicate where you drew the line and I didn't want to make assumptions about it. When it is a bully taking your lunch money in the playground I think it is a little clearer but when it has to do with verbal bullying then it becomes a little more hazy on where the line should be drawn on how to stand up to that type of bullying. That is why I asked if a physical response was ever appropriate in reaction to verbal bullying. Part of the problem I see is that if one is not skilled verbally then standing up to a verbal bully without using Force can end up backfiring. Imagine a kid who stutters trying to get out a savvy verbal response against a bully.

Again, I do think we need to teach our children to be tough and that we have sort of embraced a softening of our children in society. But I think the problem of bullying also needs to be tackled from the other side to teach and condition people not to bully because in those rare cases where someone doesn't gather the courage to stand up a few of them will end up reacting violently.

As for my friend, I think he was a juvenile and would not have been carrying a firearm at the time. Anything he would have done after of course would have ended up being a crime. I'm sure there are some other avenues he could have exhausted but I didn't ask for details.

For me I was never real seriously bullied. I was a good size kid so not one who could easily be physically picked on. I was a little socially awkward and sometimes teased. I never really thought of shooting up the school but I did find the fact that such incidences occurred a usable defense mechanism. If I made myself appear to be one who would shoot up a school then I would in effect sort of make people hesitant to tease me

My wife's cousin has a small child in Manila. The child has a friend who is very rich. They have five horses in the metropolitan city. The cousin is concerned that if her child hangs out with the rich child, then both might be kidnapped at the same time. When they figure out that the cousin is not rich, the kidnappers will probably kill her child and ransom the rich child to the rich parents. These are the kind of problems that occur in other countries. Yes, kidnappings occur here but not to that extent and it's rarely national news. Why are kidnappings a big problem in developing countries and school shootings a big problem in our country?

Some children in Manila who are at risk of being kidnapped are protected by .... you guessed it.. ARMED bodyguard(s).

I don't have the solution on how to prevent violence.  It's in human nature since the beginning of time.  It is a "software/humanware" issue and not a "hardware" issue.

To prevent violence, we can do our part if we are parents or teachers:
- teach a child about moral right and wrong (draw the line that they should not cross)
- teach a child empathy
- teach a child about consequences
- teach a child how to calm down
- teach a child how to deal with frustrations
- teach a child what is socially acceptable behavior
- help them to make friends and develop healthy relationships
- keep an eye on who they hang out with
- give your child attention
- form a bond with them
- help them develop their abilities and give them a healthy outlet

We can also teach them how to avoid and stop violence if or when it happens:
- teach them self defense (in whatever form is age appropriate)
- teach them situational awareness
- teach them to not be a victim
- help them to not become sheep and become sheepdogs instead

This is the best I can come up with.  Open to good ideas if there are any others.

EEF -- I was reading my last reply and wondered... is the original question too broad or is the premise of it wrong?

You're asking for "gun" violence prevention solutions. I responded that violence is not a hardware issue but is a software issue, so I am not really answering your question.

Could you narrow down the question a bit?   Do you just want a brainstorm of ideas specific to prevention of (1) violence/homicides involving firearms, or are you looking for (2) prevention of mass shootings?

EEF -- I was reading my last reply and wondered... is the original question too broad or is the premise of it wrong?

You're asking for "gun" violence prevention solutions. I responded that violence is not a hardware issue but is a software issue, so I am not really answering your question.

Could you narrow down the question a bit?   Do you just want a brainstorm of ideas specific to prevention of (1) violence/homicides involving firearms, or are you looking for (2) prevention of mass shootings?

It's a given that anytime someone used the term "gun violence", "gun deaths", or "gun crime", they are already being dishonest.  They are not interested in stopping violence, deaths or crime.  Their agenda is to enact gun control.

We don't talk about blunt force object violence, knife deaths or vehicular crime solutions.  it's always focused on the tool when gun-related issues are discussed.

When Cops kill someone, we focus on the Cop.  When someone stabs another person, we focus on the killer.  When someone commits murder using a gun, we focus on the gun.  It's an agenda, not a solution.

It's a given that anytime someone used the term "gun violence", "gun deaths", or "gun crime", they are already being dishonest.  They are not interested in stopping violence, deaths or crime.  Their agenda is to enact gun control.

We don't talk about blunt force object violence, knife deaths or vehicular crime solutions.  it's always focused on the tool when gun-related issues are discussed.

When Cops kill someone, we focus on the Cop.  When someone stabs another person, we focus on the killer.  When someone commits murder using a gun, we focus on the gun.  It's an agenda, not a solution.

Actually people do focus on deaths by other means. The FBI even keeps national statistics about it.