[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Yes for wolves, but they mainly get shot when they are stationary with the !st shot. If there is ANY cover nearby the wolf will disappear before a 2nd shot can happen.
.......Antelope are a lot easier to shoot because their usual habitat is the flat open plains. Their only defense is their keen eyesight, but ANY hunter that can hit them at 200 yards will be successful. Incidentally, I hunted antelope with a bow for 2 weeks. I did not cheat and make a blind at a water hole and wait for them like a terrorist like most hunters do . I actually gave them a sporting chance by stalking them. Stalking in that case meant CRAWLING for 150 yards through thorny cacti to get within 50 yards of them. It was virtually impossible, but it was the greatest hunt that I ever involved myself with. Most of the time the herd spooked. It was hard to wait to they ALL had their heads done and eating. I got lots of cuts and discomfort in those 2 weeks and I never got one with a bow. But, it was great outdoor activity and a lot of meditation thrown in. Most people think that hunters just open the car door and the game is right there to be shot. But, hunting is much MORE than that. It transports you back in time to a period when man's hunting skills determined if he or she ate or starved. Plus hunting helps a person to understand and appreciate the environment.

Good points made.

Dad was a purist when it came to hunting. Early on, my brothers and I were taught three things: 1) Treat ALL guns as if they are loaded at all times, and NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; 2) shooting happens at the END of the hunting. Being a good shot does not make one a good hunter; and 3) the most important shot is the first one; a bunch of following shots usually means that you botched the first one.

They were all points well-taken. My brothers and I grew up knowing woodcraft, and in Northern MN where depending on the direction you might be looking at 10 miles or more of unbroken forest, that knowledge was invaluable. We learned the habits of the game we were hunting, the type of land and cover where they might be found, how they'd act in certain situations, etc.

We also learned to navigate the woods; no GPS in those days. Of course we carried compasses but we learned to tell direction without a compass as well. I used to play a game with myself where I'd pick a known point in my mind, then walk 2-3 miles through unbroken woodland (much of it muskeg swamp) without using a compass, and see how close I could get to it. I was rarely more than 100 yards distant from it when I came out.

I also did some archery hunting (not too successfully, but...). One of my goals is to hunt feral pigs down here, either with a bow or rifle. Haven't done it yet, but...

[Daxdog]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Daxdog

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

Right. Ordinary people should have the weapons being used in the Ukraine war right now. The Founding Fathers would have found that acceptable.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Daxdog

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

100% agree.

Similar to a lawyer argument...either use, abuse or hide behind the law....which ever is convenient to make a point or support a given agenda.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Yes, Australia did in fact disarm their citizens by taking away their arms by decree and force of law. Disarming its citizens to a certain point is disarming nonetheless.

Australias gun law (NFA) went into affect in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre. The US and Australia both define a mass shooting as 5 or more dead or injured. Since 1997, Australia has 17 mass killing events. Your claim of zero is false.

What you wish for is not a solution at all. Removing all semi-automatic rifles will not stop mass killings. Your proposal is to punish law abiding citizens while ignoring those with evil in their heart. Your proposal does not affect the bad guy but adversely affects the good guy. One man with a semi-automatic pistol stopped a mass shooter at the mall in Indiana. When the average response time for law enforcement is 10 minutes, can we estimate how many people would have died that day waiting for the Police? Jonathan Sapirman exited the mens bathroom and began shooting people in the food court. It took 15 seconds for a good citizen with a handgun to stop that threat. Sapirman killed 3 people and injured 2 while firing 24 rounds. When he was killed he had over 100 rounds on him. If Elisha Dicken had not killed Sapirman so quickly we can deduce that with the first magazine there were 5 casualties. He still had four more magazines. There would have likely been 20 more casualties and at the same rate in stead of 3 dead and 2 injured, the total would have been 15 dead and 10 injured. We can safely credit Dicken with saving 12 lives or more.

At this point I have to assume you did not go to any of the links I previously provided including the two videos. The two solutions I have proposed would virtually eliminate school mass shootings.

I agree with you that mass shootings will likely increase. That is because our Federal, State and Local governments have created the conditions. Along with the media, they have created the motive. Notoriety. This is a real world video game and these young men are vying for the high score. To stop mass shootings/killings we have to remove the motive. Their name should not be known. We have to stop glorifying these killings by adding another name to the list of famous killers. The lockdowns forced kids to stay home for nearly two years. What did they do for boredom and inability to be with their peers and to touch their peers?

Perhaps we need copy cat good samaritans? Millions of law abiding responsible gun owning Americans armed and trained to stop the bad guy in 15 seconds.

I said in a previous post that I agreed that schools should harden their perimeters. Also, large churches and all squares with entertainment in the US, which would be soft targets. Teachers should have bulletproof rooms where they could squeeze the students into during an emergency. This would mean increasing people's property tax and that would be a TOUGH sell. So, I agree with some of your post.
........As far as my being wrong about the zero Australian mass murders. Yes, if it was really 17 mass killing events since 1997. and I will take your word on that. Then, TECHNICALLY......I misspoke myself. BUT, big but........when you consider that 1997 is 25 years ago. Then 17 mass murders in Australia divided by 25 years is .68 mass murders PER YEAR in Australia. Now let us consider the population of Australia and the US. Australia has 27 million people. US about 360 million or about 13 times greater. So, to equalize Australia and the US to correctly compare mass murders we need to multiply Australia's mass murder rate of .68 per year by multiplying that rate by 13 which gives us - 8.84 So, call that about 9 mass killing events per year. In other words......if the US had the laws and social attitude that Australia has, then there would be ONLY 9 mass murder events in the US per year. Compare that to what the US ACTUALLY has, which is about 360 YEAR TO DATE this year. If we extrapolate out to the end of this year, we get 620 mass murder events.
.......So, when I said Australia had zero (and I thought I read that) ...... when you compare the number 9 to the number 620 .......that makes the 9 almost zero in comparison. And it makes me really wish that I lived in Australia with respect to mass murder events. But even more so and better, I would wish to live in the US and children's lives and adult lives were MORE VALUED like they are in Australia and New Zealand. Ask yourself is it better that my gun goes off.....bang, bang, bang real QUICKLY (SEMI-AUTO) or how about the trade-off of ......bang........bang..........bang a little bit slower to save ALL those lives -------------the 620 times 5 or more LIVES that the US will lose in THIS year alone.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by billethkid

100% agree.

Similar to a lawyer argument...either use, abuse or hide behind the law....which ever is convenient to make a point or support a given agenda.

What a "lawyerly" response.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Yes, Australia did in fact disarm their citizens by taking away their arms by decree and force of law. Disarming its citizens to a certain point is disarming nonetheless.

Australias gun law (NFA) went into affect in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre. The US and Australia both define a mass shooting as 5 or more dead or injured. Since 1997, Australia has 17 mass killing events. Your claim of zero is false.

What you wish for is not a solution at all. Removing all semi-automatic rifles will not stop mass killings. Your proposal is to punish law abiding citizens while ignoring those with evil in their heart. Your proposal does not affect the bad guy but adversely affects the good guy. One man with a semi-automatic pistol stopped a mass shooter at the mall in Indiana. When the average response time for law enforcement is 10 minutes, can we estimate how many people would have died that day waiting for the Police? Jonathan Sapirman exited the mens bathroom and began shooting people in the food court. It took 15 seconds for a good citizen with a handgun to stop that threat. Sapirman killed 3 people and injured 2 while firing 24 rounds. When he was killed he had over 100 rounds on him. If Elisha Dicken had not killed Sapirman so quickly we can deduce that with the first magazine there were 5 casualties. He still had four more magazines. There would have likely been 20 more casualties and at the same rate in stead of 3 dead and 2 injured, the total would have been 15 dead and 10 injured. We can safely credit Dicken with saving 12 lives or more.

At this point I have to assume you did not go to any of the links I previously provided including the two videos. The two solutions I have proposed would virtually eliminate school mass shootings.

I agree with you that mass shootings will likely increase. That is because our Federal, State and Local governments have created the conditions. Along with the media, they have created the motive. Notoriety. This is a real world video game and these young men are vying for the high score. To stop mass shootings/killings we have to remove the motive. Their name should not be known. We have to stop glorifying these killings by adding another name to the list of famous killers. The lockdowns forced kids to stay home for nearly two years. What did they do for boredom and inability to be with their peers and to touch their peers?

Perhaps we need copy cat good samaritans? Millions of law abiding responsible gun owning Americans armed and trained to stop the bad guy in 15 seconds.

I just read that Sapirman carried an AR-15-type rifle, which substantiates my opinion that those are the weapons of choice for US mass murderers. He probably would have killed more if he had chosen an elevated position and somewhere that offered protection from fire from citizens with pistols. I agree that the person that had a license to carry was INDEED a hero.
.........My conclusion is that it is great to have an armed hero available in this situation. But, what would cause fewer mass murders MORE armed heroes or LESS availability of semi-auto rifles in the hands of the demented mass killers? I would prefer the solution to be FEWER semi-auto rifles sold in the American market. In my opinion, MORE armed heroes is the weaker solution. It is like on the world stage........we all want FEWER countries to be nuclear-armed, not more.
........Allowing open carry in ALL states IMO would be good ONLY for the gun makers and terrible for society's safety. Even the Police are basically against that.
........And I agree that there are bad psychological ramifications for both children and adults (speeding and dangerous driving seem to have increased)....from the Pandemic which has killed one million US citizens and is still killing them.....just at a lower rate.

[affald]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Right. Ordinary people should have the weapons being used in the Ukraine war right now. The Founding Fathers would have found that acceptable.

Exactly.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Good points made.

Dad was a purist when it came to hunting. Early on, my brothers and I were taught three things: 1) Treat ALL guns as if they are loaded at all times, and NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; 2) shooting happens at the END of the hunting. Being a good shot does not make one a good hunter; and 3) the most important shot is the first one; a bunch of following shots usually means that you botched the first one.

They were all points well-taken. My brothers and I grew up knowing woodcraft, and in Northern MN where depending on the direction you might be looking at 10 miles or more of unbroken forest, that knowledge was invaluable. We learned the habits of the game we were hunting, the type of land and cover where they might be found, how they'd act in certain situations, etc.

We also learned to navigate the woods; no GPS in those days. Of course we carried compasses but we learned to tell direction without a compass as well. I used to play a game with myself where I'd pick a known point in my mind, then walk 2-3 miles through unbroken woodland (much of it muskeg swamp) without using a compass, and see how close I could get to it. I was rarely more than 100 yards distant from it when I came out.

I also did some archery hunting (not too successfully, but...). One of my goals is to hunt feral pigs down here, either with a bow or rifle. Haven't done it yet, but...

I enjoyed this post (and others like it) because it was well written and it showed a slice of life ....growing up in rural MN. To me, that is the REAL VALUE of this forum ........to express past experiences that other readers can learn something from. I never lived in MN, but I could visualize 2 brothers using the woods and woodcraft as a learning experience - a free laboratory to study trees, animals, woods navigation, and weather ; to move about quietly and always in balance........until it turns into an exercise in meditation and introspection. While hunting you are always moving your eyes and looking keenly for movement.
......With respect to your father's rule #3 - I have often heard it this way.......one shot - 1 deer.....3 shots - no deer. This is why I wrote that some experienced hunters carry a single-shot rifle because the action is shorter making the overall length of the rifle shorter with the same barrel length as a longer bolt or semi auto action. That makes the rifle lighter and less clumsy to improve the hunter's movement. For deer, bear, elk, moose, and wild hogs there is normally only one shot and they are gone. It IS possible that a black or brown or polar bear, a wild hog, or a moose could charge a person, but that is unlikely. If that WERE to happen you would be better off with a rifle with a magazine.
.......With respect to your father's wisdom about being a good shot does NOT make you a good hunter. The hard part about hunting either with a gun, bow or even a camera, is to be able to MOVE through the woods in SLOW motion and quietly. Many people can not do that and that is where the meditation comes into play. And also increased concentration and awareness of surroundings. Once while bow hunting in western Oregon, I was in very thick woods where I could hear a herd of elk eating close to me, but the woods were so dense that I did not see them. I was moving very slowly and I was about to take a step forward when I stopped to look at a leaf because something did not seem right about that leaf. There was too much blue sky around it. I slowly moved a branch on my waist and moving it revealed a cliff drop of about 40 feet that I almost stumbled over. I have also almost stepped on a sleeping and curled-up rattlesnake on a path here in Fl. So, the bottom line is that the woods and hiking have many benefits that include forcing concentration and observation skills.
........One hobby that I enjoyed was trying to make my own bow. I even read a book on it by an Alaskan guide. It is a really big challenge. Even finding and seasoning the right wood is difficult. And supposedly making your own arrows is even more difficult using stone arrowheads and feathers, not plastic
.........I did go hog hunting once in Fl. My friend knew some rich people that had special swamp buggies built to hunt in swamps. I told the driver on the one I was in that there were some black animals that looked like wild hogs in the water about 500 yards away. He laughed at me and said, "no way. too big, that is some cattle". I said that I didn't think so. When we got closer he realized that I was right. They let out a bunch of dogs and the chase began. It ended up with one expert hog hunter holding the head of a 250 lb wild piece of muscle and me and my friend holding the back legs. The man in front was in a very dangerous position and he was tiring as he yelled at us to grab the back legs. They did not like to shoot the hog because that destroyed meat, so they used a much more dangerous method. I decided that day that once with that gang was enough for me, too dangerous. But, it did create a memory that I never forgot.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

That still looks like the National Guard to me as a "well regulated" militia and not some group of Villagers, for instance, interested in guns.

Effect of the NRA (National Rifle Association) As a Citizens Special Interest Group Concerned With the Criminal Justice System | Office of Justice Programs

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court took a wrong turn mainly because of the intense lobbying by a changed NRA.

Tal (0P). You make a good point. The National Guard is as much the people today as the Militia was the people in the 1700’s. The big difference is the so called “fire power” of the individual guns (weapons) that people can now (because of technology) possess.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Right. Ordinary people should have the weapons being used in the Ukraine war right now. The Founding Fathers would have found that acceptable.

Originally Posted by affald

Exactly.

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.

I think Taltarzac725's sarcastic post merely means he objects to scary-looking black rifles that he doesn't understand. I suspect they scare him because he never served his country and therefore has no idea what a real military weapon looks like. And he's obviously never been hunting or he would understand the difference between a little .223 caliber varmint-hunting gun and a seriously deadly 30-06 deer-hunting rifle.

Taltarzac725 -- since you find this subject so confusing, I have a suggestion. Drive over to Sportsman's Paradise this afternoon and ask them to show you the difference between a .223 round and a 30-06 round. I think you will be able to instantly discern which one is more likely to instantly kill a man. Then ask the guy to show you a .223 rifle and a 30-06 rifle, and see which one "looks" the scariest.

Believe it or not, looks can be deceiving.

Then, try to imagine yourself on a battlefield in 1776, facing an Englishman from 25 yards away, who is shooting at you with a beautifully-crafted "Brown Bess" musket, which fires a 3/4" round ball of lead at twice the speed of sound. You have no armor or protection of any kind and you are fighting the way they fought in those days -- standing in a line, shooting straight ahead. Your odds of surviving the experience are about one in four -- unlike today, when your odds of surviving a modern wartime gun battle using scary black rifles firing 700 hundred rounds a minute from 100 yards away are about 9 to one.

Is it sinking in, yet?

If the problem of lunatics with scary black varmint rifles bothers you, here's an idea.

Instead of trying to outlaw the millions of scary black guns already in circulation, what if we outlawed LUNATICS -- like we did for the 200 years before the asylums were emptied and we started having mass-murder events every month or so?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I said in a previous post that I agreed that schools should harden their perimeters. Also, large churches and all squares with entertainment in the US, which would be soft targets. Teachers should have bulletproof rooms where they could squeeze the students into during an emergency. This would mean increasing people's property tax and that would be a TOUGH sell. So, I agree with some of your post.
........As far as my being wrong about the zero Australian mass murders. Yes, if it was really 17 mass killing events since 1997. and I will take your word on that. Then, TECHNICALLY......I misspoke myself. BUT, big but........when you consider that 1997 is 25 years ago. Then 17 mass murders in Australia divided by 25 years is .68 mass murders PER YEAR in Australia. Now let us consider the population of Australia and the US. Australia has 27 million people. US about 360 million or about 13 times greater. So, to equalize Australia and the US to correctly compare mass murders we need to multiply Australia's mass murder rate of .68 per year by multiplying that rate by 13 which gives us - 8.84 So, call that about 9 mass killing events per year. In other words......if the US had the laws and social attitude that Australia has, then there would be ONLY 9 mass murder events in the US per year. Compare that to what the US ACTUALLY has, which is about 360 YEAR TO DATE this year. If we extrapolate out to the end of this year, we get 620 mass murder events.
.......So, when I said Australia had zero (and I thought I read that) ...... when you compare the number 9 to the number 620 .......that makes the 9 almost zero in comparison. And it makes me really wish that I lived in Australia with respect to mass murder events. But even more so and better, I would wish to live in the US and children's lives and adult lives were MORE VALUED like they are in Australia and New Zealand. Ask yourself is it better that my gun goes off.....bang, bang, bang real QUICKLY (SEMI-AUTO) or how about the trade-off of ......bang........bang..........bang a little bit slower to save ALL those lives -------------the 620 times 5 or more LIVES that the US will lose in THIS year alone.

Your solution is unacceptable. I'm a law abiding citizen. Taking away my Constitutional rights is not acceptable to me. Suggesting that I compromise my Constitutional rights because of evil people, is not acceptable to me.

The solution you propose is based on false logic and will not yield the results you claim. You claim there have been 360 mass shootings so far this year. I'm assuming you have facts to back up that claim. If so, how many people were killed by semi-automatic rifles. That should be an easy number for you to come up with.

While we are waiting for that answer, let's solve another problem. There are 463,634 rape victims on average every year in the US. That number would be zero if we castrate every man in the US and every man entering the US. There are 162,400,000 males in the US and I understand that castrating them all might be expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Statistically, 1 out of 6 women have been the victim of rape or attempted rape. Out of 167,500,000 females in the US that means there are 27,916,667 raped females walking the streets. What a horrific picture that paints for America! Wouldn't you agree that if every man was legally required to get castrated our rape problem would be solved. It is a small ask.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I just read that Sapirman carried an AR-15-type rifle, which substantiates my opinion that those are the weapons of choice for US mass murderers. He probably would have killed more if he had chosen an elevated position and somewhere that offered protection from fire from citizens with pistols. I agree that the person that had a license to carry was INDEED a hero.
.........My conclusion is that it is great to have an armed hero available in this situation. But, what would cause fewer mass murders MORE armed heroes or LESS availability of semi-auto rifles in the hands of the demented mass killers? I would prefer the solution to be FEWER semi-auto rifles sold in the American market. In my opinion, MORE armed heroes is the weaker solution. It is like on the world stage........we all want FEWER countries to be nuclear-armed, not more.
........Allowing open carry in ALL states IMO would be good ONLY for the gun makers and terrible for society's safety. Even the Police are basically against that.
........And I agree that there are bad psychological ramifications for both children and adults (speeding and dangerous driving seem to have increased)....from the Pandemic which has killed one million US citizens and is still killing them.....just at a lower rate.

The FBI, DOJ and CDC all say you are wrong and have the data to prove that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd do your homework before making outrageously false claims.

If you really want to solve the problem of mass shootings and at this point I'm beginning to doubt that because you are not taking the solutions seriously. Call out the media for glorifying these evil deeds. Demand they stop giving the killer the notoriety they seek. Encourage everyone to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, get effective training and stop shooters where they stand. Take away their fame and take away their "high score" and the motivation disappears. Why aren't you doing something about this?

Who is talking about open carry? Half of our states, 25, are now Constitutional Carry. Florid is teed up to also be Constitutional Carry. Armed citizens stopped armed criminals 2.5 million times last year. it is estimated that 50-75% of those encounters saved a life. Isn't that awesome!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.

I think Taltarzac725's sarcastic post merely means he objects to scary-looking black rifles that he doesn't understand. I suspect they scare him because he never served his country and therefore has no idea what a real military weapon looks like. And he's obviously never been hunting or he would understand the difference between a little .223 caliber varmint-hunting gun and a seriously deadly 30-06 deer-hunting rifle.

Taltarzac725 -- since you find this subject so confusing, I have a suggestion. Drive over to Sportsman's Paradise this afternoon and ask them to show you the difference between a .223 round and a 30-06 round. I think you will be able to instantly discern which one is more likely to instantly kill a man. Then ask the guy to show you a .223 rifle and a 30-06 rifle, and see which one "looks" the scariest.

Believe it or not, looks can be deceiving.

Then, try to imagine yourself on a battlefield in 1776, facing an Englishman from 25 yards away, who is shooting at you with a beautifully-crafted "Brown Bess" musket, which fires a 3/4" round ball of lead at twice the speed of sound. You have no armor or protection of any kind and you are fighting the way they fought in those days -- standing in a line, shooting straight ahead. Your odds of surviving the experience are about one in four -- unlike today, when your odds of surviving a modern wartime gun battle using scary black rifles firing 700 hundred rounds a minute from 100 yards away are about 9 to one.

Is it sinking in, yet?

If the problem of lunatics with scary black varmint rifles bothers you, here's an idea.

Instead of trying to outlaw the millions of scary black guns already in circulation, what if we outlawed LUNATICS -- like we did for the 200 years before the asylums were emptied and we started having mass-murder events every month or so?

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem is that mass murder events are increasing and will continue to increase. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem of mass murder events is increasing and will continue. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

You have brought up "obscene" profits of the gun manufactures (more than once?) they sell guns because people want to own them, not as much for fear of a mass shooter but the run of the mill criminal that has little or no fear of punishment