How to stop mass murder
Here’s how to stop mass murder
By Kelvin Wade
From page A11 | December 20, 2012 | 13 Comments
A national conversation on gun violence has exploded in the aftermath of the ghastly Sandy Hook slaughter. But while we talk about stopping gun violence in general, our immediate focus should be on how to prevent mass shootings.
In the two most-recent major shootings, Portland, Ore., and Newtown, Conn., the perpetrators stole legally purchased weapons. No matter how stringent gun-purchasing procedures get and no matter what kind of mental exam may be required to purchase firearms in the future, neither improvement would’ve prevented these tragedies.
In 1989, a drifter named Patrick Purdy gunned down five children at Cleveland Elementary in Stockton with an AK-47. The public was so outraged the California Legislature passed the assault weapons ban. The problem was Purdy purchased his weapon in Oregon. If the ban had been in place prior to his shooting, it still would not have prevented it.
I’m not saying the ban was a good or bad thing, I’m just saying that if the point of it was to prevent school shootings it wasn’t the best way to go about it.
We know laws are circumvented to disastrous effect. Fairfield City Councilman Matt Garcia was killed with a gun purchased at a garage sale. By the way, private gun sales at garage sales are illegal in this state. That didn’t stop this sale from taking place with the resulting horrific results. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have that law in place.
You may have noticed that the conversation has broadened to include mental health. If only it was as easy as keeping mentally ill people away from firearms. Sane people commit most gun violence. They may be angry, vengeful, twisted or have poor coping skills, but they’re not crazy. Most all of them were “law-abiding citizens” before they broke the law. That phrase is so overused.
If we’re talking about safeguarding children at school or shoppers in malls or workers at the workplace right now, the conversation has to be more specific than gun control and the mentally unstable.
Even if we banned all new guns this instant, that would leave us awash in 300 million firearms and, as we’ve established, all the compliance in the world by a gun owner will mean nothing if someone steals their weapons or buys it through an illegal private sale.
So if we’re going to prevent or deter mass shootings, we need to rethink intelligence and security. Mass shooters have to be attacked like lone wolf terrorists because this is domestic terrorism. We need intelligence. We need people tipping off authorities. We need to pay attention to threats.
We need to do what the Secret Service does and that’s monitor threatening individuals. The majority of their protective work is keeping shooters from ever showing up. Schools and workplaces need to have procedures in place to deal with this kind of attack. We don’t do the “duck and cover” drills in schools but we, sadly, should be doing intruder drills at all schools.
Well-trained, armed security has to be part of the answer. Office buildings, malls and schools need trained professionals (not armed teachers). Joel Myrick, an assistant principal (and Army Reserve commander) stopped a school shooter in Mississippi in 1997. In 2007, a security guard stopped a shooter in a Colorado Springs church. In 2009, guards stopped a shooter at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. A security guard subdued a shooter at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., this past August.
Time and time again when these cowardly mass shooters meet up with law enforcement, they either give up or commit suicide.
How do we pay for it? What’s it worth to not have 6-year-olds hit multiple times with high velocity bullets? Peace.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ADDITIONAL NOTES: I'm trying to address something different than gun violence. I hear people talk about tighter gun laws and more money for mental illness. I'm not arguing those things. I'm asking how do you stop a mass shooting tomorrow? What is your idea? To have children wait under their desks hoping the police arrive before the shooter? Is hat all we can offer them?
I've heard it said that Columbine had an armed guard but the shooting went down so that argues against armed guards. That's silly reasoning. It's like saying since so many rapes, murders and robberies are successful, why have police? The cop at Columbine tried to shoot Eric Harris. He missed. Plus the rules were different back then. Back then the protocol was for officers to wait outside for reinforcements. That cop did what he was trained to do at the time.
I'm not thrilled that the NRA is saying some of the things I'm saying like I did in my ipinion columns calling for ground marshals. The NRA discredits ideas because they've been such an impediment to reason.
There are folks who honestly believe we can legislate 300 million guns out of existence. We have to understand that even in the bet scenario there will be times when deranged individuals will steal weapons or buy them from a garage sale, or the Internet and go on a rampage. What do we do? What is the answer? Is it bulletproofing more construction? Having classrooms that can be locked down and bulletproof like panic rooms? Have a trained armed person who has training specifically in armed shooter defense?
The gun show loophole, background checks, mental illness, high capacity magazines and the like are all long term solutions. What about mass shootings? What bout now?
Here are some comments from readers.
rlw895December 19, 2012 - 10:10 pm
We can start by not feeling powerless. Kelvin makes a number of good suggestions. There SHOULD be a national dialogue started with this incident, just like we had on the environment after the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969. That led to Earth Day in 1970 and the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Our national dialogue of mass killings and gun violence should have the objective of a cultural change followed by new laws that are an expression of that change. It's time.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 20, 2012 - 6:44 am
rlw, what new laws do you believe could be on the table? Kelvin accurately descibes how often times laws really have no impact on those who choose not to obey them. I also believe he's on point with the primary solution being security and intelligence. Maybe Director of Security should be a standard school admin position. Maybe annual evaluations would help identify those of risk of perpetrating these type of acts? If you look at the Newtown situation, had the school been aware of Lanza's mental condition, and had been engaged with the mother, it may have been preventable. Personally, I would like to see a six month moritoriom on legislation in response to Newtown to give everybody time, as you suggested, to continue the dialog and sort things out.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 1:13 am
Mr.P: Yes, you get my point. I don't know what the legislation should be; the dialogue has to come first. Civil discord is at a low right now in our country, so having a dialogue will be hard. In 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed a national teach-in on the environment that turned into the first Earth Day and presaged a lot of new environmental laws and regulations, but that was a different time. The laws and regulations that would result from a similar approach here might be gun restrictions, but it might be something else, like national funding for mental heath counseling and treatment regardless of age and income. That’s the kind of thing we have to do if we want to have a Second Amendment.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 6:00 am
I meant to say "civil discord is high right now."
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 21, 2012 - 6:19 am
rlw, the upside to civil discourse being high, is that people are engaged. Gun control is a slippery slope and is one of those arguments that will always be divisive, and to Kelvin's point, probably won't do much to prevent these types of incidents. Focusing on secuity and mental health is an easier discussion to have.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 1:05 pm
I generally agree, MrP. I can see restrictions on large magazines and types of guns and ammo, but not on guns that are for sport or personal protection or kept at home or at a gun club. I think any guy in possession of gun of a restricted type or in the wrong time or place should be commuting a crime and subject to arrest. If a cop had pulled this last guy over for speeding and survived, I would want him to have been able to arrest the guy and not let him go on his merry way with a ticket. Reasonable people with differ on what's reasonable in the area of gun restrictions. There is probably more agreement on dealing with mental illness better and security. It will cost.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 22, 2012 - 9:04 am
rlw, it seems to me the gun control debate tends to be all or nothing, should there by gun control or not. Outside of a handful of loud extremists, I believe most people would agree that citizens should be able to have a handgun for protection and that sportspeople should be allowed to own the appropriate arms. I believe most people would also agree that they would prefer that their next door neighbor not own a bazooka. The debate needs to focus on who should be allowed to own weapons, what requirements should there be on gun ownership (permit process, saftey courses, etc...)and where the line should be drawn regarding what what arms should be allowable to the average citizen.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 22, 2012 - 9:39 am
Mr.P: When you said "all or nothing," I thought you meant "take away all guns or leave things alone." But I see you don't mean that. We already have some gun regulation, so we're already at not "nothing." What's being considered is something more. My concern is there will be a fight over the shape of the table and then no meeting.
Reply | Report abusive comment
CD BrooksDecember 22, 2012 - 10:07 am
Good morning Mr. Practical! What do you think of the right to carry issue? I am on the fence but if it were to happen I recommend training, registration and mandatory certification renewal. IMO, those things should be in place now, but most definitely if that law were to be passed.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 23, 2012 - 7:36 am
Good morning CD! That's a tough question. I have no problem with the right, responsible person being able to carry, whether concealed or otherwise. I have serious doubts if it's manageable or not.
Reply | Report abusive comment
CD BrooksDecember 20, 2012 - 7:24 am
The degree of any crime committed is directly related to the perpetrator’s desire and resolve. The sad and simple truth is, we cannot stop the most determined among them. The media needs to take some responsibility for their part, the rush to be first. The sensational presentations are enticements and provide fuel or a “badge of honor” for deluded minds. Some prognosticators are saying the world will end tomorrow. For those in Newtown, their prediction is several days late. I agree the discussion needs to take place but not right now, let the world grieve.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Gus DavisDecember 20, 2012 - 12:15 pm
I love that this article in the Daily Republic is just three pages before a half-page gun ad featuring assault weapons! And the assault weapons ad is just two pages from the end of the "Newtown Buries It's Dead" story! Gotta make that nickel!
Reply | Report abusive comment
laffsatliersDecember 20, 2012 - 7:10 pm
There is not one "assault" weapon in the advertisement, period. "Gus Davis" displays a profound lack of knowledge concerning weapons and a much too eager desire to fan the flames of controversy. Phooey!
Reply | Report abusive comment
By Kelvin Wade
From page A11 | December 20, 2012 | 13 Comments
A national conversation on gun violence has exploded in the aftermath of the ghastly Sandy Hook slaughter. But while we talk about stopping gun violence in general, our immediate focus should be on how to prevent mass shootings.
In the two most-recent major shootings, Portland, Ore., and Newtown, Conn., the perpetrators stole legally purchased weapons. No matter how stringent gun-purchasing procedures get and no matter what kind of mental exam may be required to purchase firearms in the future, neither improvement would’ve prevented these tragedies.
In 1989, a drifter named Patrick Purdy gunned down five children at Cleveland Elementary in Stockton with an AK-47. The public was so outraged the California Legislature passed the assault weapons ban. The problem was Purdy purchased his weapon in Oregon. If the ban had been in place prior to his shooting, it still would not have prevented it.
I’m not saying the ban was a good or bad thing, I’m just saying that if the point of it was to prevent school shootings it wasn’t the best way to go about it.
We know laws are circumvented to disastrous effect. Fairfield City Councilman Matt Garcia was killed with a gun purchased at a garage sale. By the way, private gun sales at garage sales are illegal in this state. That didn’t stop this sale from taking place with the resulting horrific results. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have that law in place.
You may have noticed that the conversation has broadened to include mental health. If only it was as easy as keeping mentally ill people away from firearms. Sane people commit most gun violence. They may be angry, vengeful, twisted or have poor coping skills, but they’re not crazy. Most all of them were “law-abiding citizens” before they broke the law. That phrase is so overused.
If we’re talking about safeguarding children at school or shoppers in malls or workers at the workplace right now, the conversation has to be more specific than gun control and the mentally unstable.
Even if we banned all new guns this instant, that would leave us awash in 300 million firearms and, as we’ve established, all the compliance in the world by a gun owner will mean nothing if someone steals their weapons or buys it through an illegal private sale.
So if we’re going to prevent or deter mass shootings, we need to rethink intelligence and security. Mass shooters have to be attacked like lone wolf terrorists because this is domestic terrorism. We need intelligence. We need people tipping off authorities. We need to pay attention to threats.
We need to do what the Secret Service does and that’s monitor threatening individuals. The majority of their protective work is keeping shooters from ever showing up. Schools and workplaces need to have procedures in place to deal with this kind of attack. We don’t do the “duck and cover” drills in schools but we, sadly, should be doing intruder drills at all schools.
Well-trained, armed security has to be part of the answer. Office buildings, malls and schools need trained professionals (not armed teachers). Joel Myrick, an assistant principal (and Army Reserve commander) stopped a school shooter in Mississippi in 1997. In 2007, a security guard stopped a shooter in a Colorado Springs church. In 2009, guards stopped a shooter at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. A security guard subdued a shooter at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., this past August.
Time and time again when these cowardly mass shooters meet up with law enforcement, they either give up or commit suicide.
How do we pay for it? What’s it worth to not have 6-year-olds hit multiple times with high velocity bullets? Peace.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ADDITIONAL NOTES: I'm trying to address something different than gun violence. I hear people talk about tighter gun laws and more money for mental illness. I'm not arguing those things. I'm asking how do you stop a mass shooting tomorrow? What is your idea? To have children wait under their desks hoping the police arrive before the shooter? Is hat all we can offer them?
I've heard it said that Columbine had an armed guard but the shooting went down so that argues against armed guards. That's silly reasoning. It's like saying since so many rapes, murders and robberies are successful, why have police? The cop at Columbine tried to shoot Eric Harris. He missed. Plus the rules were different back then. Back then the protocol was for officers to wait outside for reinforcements. That cop did what he was trained to do at the time.
I'm not thrilled that the NRA is saying some of the things I'm saying like I did in my ipinion columns calling for ground marshals. The NRA discredits ideas because they've been such an impediment to reason.
There are folks who honestly believe we can legislate 300 million guns out of existence. We have to understand that even in the bet scenario there will be times when deranged individuals will steal weapons or buy them from a garage sale, or the Internet and go on a rampage. What do we do? What is the answer? Is it bulletproofing more construction? Having classrooms that can be locked down and bulletproof like panic rooms? Have a trained armed person who has training specifically in armed shooter defense?
The gun show loophole, background checks, mental illness, high capacity magazines and the like are all long term solutions. What about mass shootings? What bout now?
Here are some comments from readers.
rlw895December 19, 2012 - 10:10 pm
We can start by not feeling powerless. Kelvin makes a number of good suggestions. There SHOULD be a national dialogue started with this incident, just like we had on the environment after the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969. That led to Earth Day in 1970 and the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Our national dialogue of mass killings and gun violence should have the objective of a cultural change followed by new laws that are an expression of that change. It's time.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 20, 2012 - 6:44 am
rlw, what new laws do you believe could be on the table? Kelvin accurately descibes how often times laws really have no impact on those who choose not to obey them. I also believe he's on point with the primary solution being security and intelligence. Maybe Director of Security should be a standard school admin position. Maybe annual evaluations would help identify those of risk of perpetrating these type of acts? If you look at the Newtown situation, had the school been aware of Lanza's mental condition, and had been engaged with the mother, it may have been preventable. Personally, I would like to see a six month moritoriom on legislation in response to Newtown to give everybody time, as you suggested, to continue the dialog and sort things out.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 1:13 am
Mr.P: Yes, you get my point. I don't know what the legislation should be; the dialogue has to come first. Civil discord is at a low right now in our country, so having a dialogue will be hard. In 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed a national teach-in on the environment that turned into the first Earth Day and presaged a lot of new environmental laws and regulations, but that was a different time. The laws and regulations that would result from a similar approach here might be gun restrictions, but it might be something else, like national funding for mental heath counseling and treatment regardless of age and income. That’s the kind of thing we have to do if we want to have a Second Amendment.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 6:00 am
I meant to say "civil discord is high right now."
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 21, 2012 - 6:19 am
rlw, the upside to civil discourse being high, is that people are engaged. Gun control is a slippery slope and is one of those arguments that will always be divisive, and to Kelvin's point, probably won't do much to prevent these types of incidents. Focusing on secuity and mental health is an easier discussion to have.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 21, 2012 - 1:05 pm
I generally agree, MrP. I can see restrictions on large magazines and types of guns and ammo, but not on guns that are for sport or personal protection or kept at home or at a gun club. I think any guy in possession of gun of a restricted type or in the wrong time or place should be commuting a crime and subject to arrest. If a cop had pulled this last guy over for speeding and survived, I would want him to have been able to arrest the guy and not let him go on his merry way with a ticket. Reasonable people with differ on what's reasonable in the area of gun restrictions. There is probably more agreement on dealing with mental illness better and security. It will cost.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 22, 2012 - 9:04 am
rlw, it seems to me the gun control debate tends to be all or nothing, should there by gun control or not. Outside of a handful of loud extremists, I believe most people would agree that citizens should be able to have a handgun for protection and that sportspeople should be allowed to own the appropriate arms. I believe most people would also agree that they would prefer that their next door neighbor not own a bazooka. The debate needs to focus on who should be allowed to own weapons, what requirements should there be on gun ownership (permit process, saftey courses, etc...)and where the line should be drawn regarding what what arms should be allowable to the average citizen.
Reply | Report abusive comment
rlw895December 22, 2012 - 9:39 am
Mr.P: When you said "all or nothing," I thought you meant "take away all guns or leave things alone." But I see you don't mean that. We already have some gun regulation, so we're already at not "nothing." What's being considered is something more. My concern is there will be a fight over the shape of the table and then no meeting.
Reply | Report abusive comment
CD BrooksDecember 22, 2012 - 10:07 am
Good morning Mr. Practical! What do you think of the right to carry issue? I am on the fence but if it were to happen I recommend training, registration and mandatory certification renewal. IMO, those things should be in place now, but most definitely if that law were to be passed.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Mr. PracticalDecember 23, 2012 - 7:36 am
Good morning CD! That's a tough question. I have no problem with the right, responsible person being able to carry, whether concealed or otherwise. I have serious doubts if it's manageable or not.
Reply | Report abusive comment
CD BrooksDecember 20, 2012 - 7:24 am
The degree of any crime committed is directly related to the perpetrator’s desire and resolve. The sad and simple truth is, we cannot stop the most determined among them. The media needs to take some responsibility for their part, the rush to be first. The sensational presentations are enticements and provide fuel or a “badge of honor” for deluded minds. Some prognosticators are saying the world will end tomorrow. For those in Newtown, their prediction is several days late. I agree the discussion needs to take place but not right now, let the world grieve.
Reply | Report abusive comment
Gus DavisDecember 20, 2012 - 12:15 pm
I love that this article in the Daily Republic is just three pages before a half-page gun ad featuring assault weapons! And the assault weapons ad is just two pages from the end of the "Newtown Buries It's Dead" story! Gotta make that nickel!
Reply | Report abusive comment
laffsatliersDecember 20, 2012 - 7:10 pm
There is not one "assault" weapon in the advertisement, period. "Gus Davis" displays a profound lack of knowledge concerning weapons and a much too eager desire to fan the flames of controversy. Phooey!
Reply | Report abusive comment
Comments