Last content update and data verfication was on Saturday, July 27, 2024, at 04:22:15 (America/New York — EST — UTC -5) by MEBMX (MEB MediaX) Webmaster or authorized designee.
Preventable Mass Shootings Database: Commentary
Note: This article is only our interpretation (opinion) of the factual data contained in the Preventable Mass Shootings Database.
Given that, we implore you to peruse the Preventable Mass Shootings Database and draw your own conclusions about what the factual data contained therein means.
If you’re like most of us, you just want the facts.
So, if you don’t want to delve into our Preventable Mass Shootings Database to cull out the bottom line, we’ll provide it to you. Here’s what we’ve learned so far about what America can do about curtailing, or better yet, stopping, mass shootings from happening. Granted, it’s a mighty tall order, but if we don’t learn from the past we’re destined to repeat it.
According to tallies of Preventable Factors, which are by no means are absolute due to inherent variables, it’s not at all surprising to us that it’s the perpetrators themselves and not their access to and possession of guns that pose the greatest danger to society.
It’s also not surprising that the lack of or nonuse of guns by (Civilians)/Personnel (Military/Police/Security) is nearly as problematic as access to and possession of guns by perpetrators.
So, what can we do?
First and foremost, and we’ve written about this extensively, we need more guns in the house. Check out what Soft Targets and Crowded Places (ST-CP): Hotels, Movie Theaters, Nightclubs, School Buses, Shopping Malls, Ski/Ride Resorts, and Summer Camps has to say about that.
It used to be important to have a doctor in the house—today that’s not as important as it used to be unless it’s an emergency room physician. Many doctors today are specialists and generally don’t have expertise in emergency medical care. So, while a doctor in the house is always a good thing, it’s more important today to have a gun—or guns—in the house. For you younger people house in this case doesn’t mean where you live, it refers to venues of all types.
It used to be important to have a doctor in the house … it’s more important today to have a gun—or guns—in the house.
Yes, we need a lot more good guys carrying guns. Physical security is a must, but it’s expensive, intrusive, and not always effective. Arming more Americans is costless, discreet, and can be highly effective. We must also remember that many venues are in remote areas, far from law enforcement resources. In the olden days, most every outpost or whatever had a sheriff or some keeper of the law, but that’s not always the case these days.
However, let me make it abundantly clear, arming more civilians could come with a price. Accidental discharge of firearms by civilians resulting in death or injury could increase, there might be a rise in civilians who otherwise would have used their fists who shoot instead, there might be an increase in civilians shooting bad guys when it’s unjustified. Worse, more civilians could be at grave risk and might get injured or killed themselves, particularly if responding law enforcement officers or security officers failed to differentiate them from the perpetrator, or there might be an increase in civilians injuring or killing other civilians or even law enforcement officers or security officers. No doubt armed civilian scenarios we can’t even imagine will probably increase. But all of it pales as compared to what we’re currently facing. The problems that arming a lot of civilians will create, perhaps serious ones, might just be the lesser of two evils.
Second, we need every law enforcement officer to have the ability and the steadfast determination to pursue mass shooting perpetrators immediately and without hesitation until they’ve neutralized the threat. Our research has identified several instances where law enforcement officers were present at incidents and either did nothing or did far too little to stop the perpetrators.
Those are the two things that have stood out so far in our exhaustive analysis. We’ll press on (keep analyzing), but we don’t expect our findings to change. Just as cream rises to the top, these two things are clearly evident as the only things that will effectively combat incidents. I know, you think tougher gun laws and red flag laws and the like, the so called system remedies, will win the day, but they won’t, and they never will. They’re too controversial, there’s too much opposition, and there’s far too many opportunities for perpetrators to fall through the multitude of cracks that exist using only those methods, mostly because of widely varying attitudes and opinions and because of the multitude of human and technical errors that can and often do occur. At best, they’re most often iffy. Those things are worthy of having, and in some cases, to some degree, they’ll no doubt be helpful, after all, we need as much in our arsenal of prevention as possible. But to hang our hats on system remedies, and system remedies alone, is naïve.
I know, you think tougher gun and red flag laws and the like, the so called system remedies, will win the day, but they won’t, and they never will.
It also needs to be mentioned that those system remedies, no matter how strong they are, are wholly ineffective for perpetrators that play their cards close to their vest and/or choose to steal or otherwise obtain their guns illegally, or who have guns furnished to them knowingly or unknowingly by others. The Preventable Mass Shootings Database has several such cases.
System remedies should definitely be our first lines of defense. But when they fail to materialize or fail to work, we need a fail-safe position, and the old adage that you have to fight fire with fire, literally, fits nicely. Whatever else it is, it’s not iffy.
We need more guns in the house and more no holds barred cops. Period.
Click here to access the Preventable Mass Shootings Database.