My solution to preventing mass shootings

The best way to prevent mass shooting is as follows:

Killing the shooter immediately if you can securely prove it was them. If they screwed up this bad then you don't owe them a goodbye to their family. Sometimes it is so obvious who did it that it would actually be bad to give them a trial because it would by delaying justice.

Then dispose of their remains in an undisclosed location. If the shooter killed themselves beforehand still do this. Cruel and unusual punishments need be brought back for cases such as this. The United states is just set up for failure by allowing these people to live long and receive a trial. They must pay immediately and drastically for their crimes.

I would think this should be incentive enough. Shooters won't be able to live long or say goodbye to their families and will be denied a decent burial. If this won't make people decide not to shoot up places, nothing will.

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 65 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • I think a problem is that some of them don't care if they get to say their goodbyes, some don't care if they get killed in the process, and some may have written a manifesto for that. I have no pity towards school shooters killed but this wouldn't prevent school shooters.

    Best solution is to have defenses for schools, gated, and guarded. If they see some schmuck heading over with firearms then I honestly would not care if the guards get the go-ahead to take a shot before the would-be shooter makes it to the gate.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • -The Israelis just spent $27.5 million on a school that'll protect the kids from rocket fire.
      -In 2021 Congress passes $1.9 billion Capitol security bill after January 6 insurrection.

      You'd think we can find the money to beef up school security.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Liberals: I dont want my kid to live like a prisoner.

        *puts up "gun free zone" sign*

        There that'll stop them!

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • “But we can’t afford to hire all the guards and safety protocols !” Cries the nation with the $800 Billion dollar military budget who regularly bails out the richest corporations in the world

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I could care less about a person’s life who don’t value other ppl’s lives. If they are a threat to others, they need to be killed immediately. They shouldn’t wait til they kill a little kid before justifying killing or injuring him to prevent further killing. I do know that police do everything they can to minimize casualties and at the same time catch the guy so he suffers the consequences but I do think they need to be more aggressive towards mass shooters because this is out of control! No mercy for the merciless! This is a terrible reality that all of us are facing, my heart goes out to those families.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Killing them would make the executioner a hypocrite. Not only that, it's completely pointless. You're attempting to take the moral high ground while being no better than the people you're spitting on. Furthermore, killing them as punishment makes no sense. Most people who do things like this don't care, and it's just an easy way out for them. It's like beating up a masochist. Also, how is this even relevant? This will do nothing to prevent mass shootings.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Unethical. No matter what the crime comitted The Constitution guarantees a fair and speedy trial anything that goes against the Constitution is unethical. Going against or compromising about the Constitution is a slippery slope.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • It it says fair and speedy then why are there people who have been on death row for decades? Some trials also take foreve. People who do something this bad need to pay today.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • They have already had a trial it's a grace period for them to appeal to make sure they didn't get the wrong person. It happens innocent people have been executed.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • nobody cares if they get buried properly theyre fucking dead

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • The shooter is usually inevitably stopped by a bullet. So why dont we get that bullet to him sooner? Instead of having guys with guns on call ready to come why dont we have guys with guns already at the schools and trained to shoot these ppl? That way you dont have to sit and wait for the police to get there. The sooner theyre engaged the better.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You show no understanding of how a shooter would think. Someone with that mentality likely does not care about saying their "goodbyes" or a proper burial. In fact there is nothing you can do to reason or persuade someone who is insane. They do not care about consequences. While I support the 2nd amendment, I do not believe insane people should be able to purchase guns. Anyone can go buy them and there should be some restrictions on how they are purchased. People don't like that because of "my freedoms" but some people ruin those privileges for the rest of us. They could also hire more armed guards and have better defense. There should be more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • "Insane"? Sorry, but insanity is when you don't know what you are doing. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of school shooters that know exactly what they are doing.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • You are correct by the description of insane, but what I meant by "insane" is mentally unstable in general. A person who is stable and of sound mind does not do those things. Yes a lot of mentally unstable people know what they are doing and do it on purpose. They still are not right in the head.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Just because someone does those things does not imply that they have a mental illness. I don't know why every time someone does something terrible and "out of the norm," people like you immediately scream "MENTAL ILLNESS!". Some people just do things sometimes.

          Mentally unstable does not mean "insane". Insane means mentally unstable, but mentally unstable does not mean insane because, as I previously stated, in order to be "insane," you have to have no idea what you are doing. You aren't insane if you're aware of what you are doing.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • I agreed that they are not the same term and that insanity implies the person does not know what they are doing is wrong. A mentally unstable person may or may not be insane. However doing things like mass shooting people does imply the person is mentally unstable.
            A logical person knows the outcome of doing something like that will not benefit anyone although they may do it for reasons such as fame or revenge. Those are not sound minded reasons to do something even if they are done aware of the consequences. I am aware the person may not be psychotic or have a chemical imbalance to do these things either. They may have a personality disorder which are legit psychological disorders despite what some people may think.
            A mentally healthy sound minded person does not commit mass shootings. Someone who is emotionally healthy would have no reason to commit such an act. The very mentality that there is any reason for it to be worth committing mass murder (not in a defense tactic such as war.) takes someone who is not of sound mind.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • A person who does things like committing a mass shooting may or may not be mentally unstable. But not every single person that does something like that is mentally ill. Again, some people just do things. Out of the norm does not equal mentally ill. Mental illness is not always the reason behind someone doing something "heinous". This idea that anyone that does something "out of the norm" has a mental illness or is insane is stupid.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Don't most shooters get killed by police though rather than caught alive? Even if not, the huge risk of being killed while shooting up a school shows that the people who do this don't care about dying.

    And regardless, harsher punishments don't deter these kinds of people, they never have. Crime has always been most prevalent in places and times with the worst punishments. If anything, severe punishment only makes the crime seem more thrilling, and it only boosts the ego of the people committing them.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Not even the torture methods back in the medieval times were enough to stop criminals.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • But it was the medieval times. Csi Hamburg was alot simpler. Hey I found a glove near a dead body! Letherworker who made this? John. John is shortly executed later for murder.

        Theres a reason why outsiders were immediately assumed to be the perpetrators.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • So? If that doesn't deter criminals, neither will public execution. But let's not forget that we have the death penalty, and it doesn't stop people from committing crimes. People don't care. Most people that do this don't really care if they die. That's why you see so many criminals that commit crimes like this unphased when they're sentenced to death. Executing them is actually doing them a favor. Furthermore, executing them would be extremely hypocritical.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • If the guy is caught in the act & there are plenty of witnesses to testify to the fact, I'm not against shooting the guy on the spot.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Most shooters buy guns easily. Make them harder to get and 18 year olds should not be able to get a gun. There's also banning guns altogether which would solve the problem overnight.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Unethical as it would violate the Constitution. It would just result in criminals buying black market guns and a disarmed populace that can no longer defend themselves from them.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Ah yes the old fight fire with fire tactic. This has only ever worked well in the past

    ^ note my sarcasm

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • If the KILLER IS ALREADY KILLING, have you prevented it? Better universal mental health care for all, and through all (family, friends, non-friends, co-workers, your neighbours, literally everybody needs an awareness and to help each other, the only time we stop is when mental illness is no more.) this is the only true preventative solution.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Hey, kids! Want to be a mass shooter?

    https://bestgore.fun/w/fr9wzXrXMqy4mTXsZ95yUG

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Holy shit what a dumb take. We don’t need to prove who it was because they’re still at the scene, and have no intention of getting away with anything.

    Mass murderers almost always intend to die at the scene. Us immediately trying to kill them is actually part of their plan.

    Catching them alive is almost always impossible as they’re also armed, and shoot themselves if nobody else carries it out for them.

    They are essentially just destructive and spiteful suicides. And if you think somebody that nasty and self centred cares about goodbyes you’re very much mistaken.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Although I'm normally far-left, these situations are why I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. School shootings and torture murders... There is no reason to allow a person to live if they're done either. They've proven themselves a danger to humanity. At the very least, we'll get this guy's DNA out of the gene pool. And no, killing a killer is not morally equivalent to killing innocent people. This isn't "an eye for an eye".

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • If you believe in the death penalty, you're no better than murderers. It's supports the exact same thing you claim to be against. Get off your high horse already.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Murderers murder innocent people. Killing murderers doesn't equate to killing innocent people. One has done something to deserve death and one has not. If you don't agree, then consider this: When forced to choose, would you kill Kim Jung Un or an innocent toddler? Without a doubt, you would choose Kim Jong Un. Why? Because he has done something wrong and there are a lot of people who would be better off without him.

        Your reasoning lacks complexity and nuance. Essentially, you're saying that killing is bad because it's bad. What makes killing bad?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • It doesn't matter. You're still killing. Therefore, you are just as bad as the murderer. That scenario is irrelevant because we're not in a situation where we are forced to choose who gets killed off and who doesn't. You have free will. And how do you know I'd choose to Kim Jong-Un simply because he has done something wrong? I personally do not care.

          No, it really doesn't. If you support the death penalty and say killing is bad, you are just another hypocrite. You support the same thing you claim to be against.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Yikes... You don't care who dies in the scenario I gave you? You'd really be glad to see that Kim Jong-Un is still alive and a helpless child was dead? If so, you have no room to morally condemn me. Kim Jong-Un is literally holding an entire country hostage, and has killed many, many people. The world would, without a doubt, be better off without him. And yet, you would still be okay if the kid died instead? Big yikes.

            I'm not saying that killing is bad. I never said that, actually. Killing innocent people is bad. That is my stance and I have not contradicted it. I want guns to be banned because guns aren't typically used to kill those who are guilty of a crime... They're used to kill innocent people.

            Essentially, I am not against the act of killing itself and I have never claimed to be. There are a lot of people that the world would be better off without. Kim Jong-Un is one example. What do you think would have happened if someone killed Hitler in the middle of the Holocaust? It would have saved thousands of innocent lives. How about Putin? The war would end without the mastermind behind it. Thousands of innocent lives would be spared.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I never morally condemned you. I just said you were hypocritical. No, I wouldn't be "glad". I never said that, so don't even go there. I actually never gave a specific answer. I just asked how do you know that I would choose him and would do it simply because he did something wrong? But now i'll give an answer. Yes, I would choose Kim Jong-Un, but not because he has done something wrong. I would choose him because it's the adult vs The kid. Anyone would go for the adult, regardless if you they were innocent or guilty.

              Quit trying to take a moral high ground.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Said this before, arm and train the children in proper firearm use. If they're old enough to carry a gun, they're old enough to point and shoot. Look at the child soldiers in Africa.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Hey, I hate to burst your bubble, but that won't work. I thought we were talking about how to prevent mass shootings (impossible), not what the punishment should be.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment