How to Prevent Violence

Please, stop the violence immediately! We wish for peace. No discrimination. We all get angry at people, but murder is never the answer. People have to deal with their problems non-violently.

In order to prevent mass shootings, stabbings, terrorism, or any other act of violence:

  • Keep the weapons away from the mentally unstable people or criminals or those who are both. 
  • Watch our for warning signs. Even if you can’t tell someone’s mentally ill or doesn’t appear to be violent, still, stay suspicious. Stay alert!
  • Be cautious and suspicious. Don’t make it too obvious.
  • Play detective. Search for evidence in their rooms or wherever they hang out.
  • If you suspect something, tell someone trustworthy.
  • Either turn the person into the police or institutionalize the person to a mental health facility. Don’t just talk them out of it.
  • If someone is deranged and prejudiced, remind the person to be tolerant of race, religion, nationality, disability, sexuality, age, gender, etc.
  • Learn how to defend yourself or others.
  • Gun and weapon ownership should be a privilege, not a right. We need better mandatory background checks. People should use weapons for the right reasons, not kill or hurt the innocent.  Only licensed hunters and trustworthy authorities  such as police officers and the Army can carry weapons. If they have a criminal record or mental illness or a family member with either of those things, their right of weapon ownership should be revoked. 
  • If the person was watching a violent movie or TV show or playing a game or a terrorist video, avert them away from it. Encourage them to play or watch something non-violent.
  • Tell the person that strangling is never the answer.
  • Do not encourage the person to target shoot or use guns or any other weapon. They are not hobbies. Come up with a non-violent hobby such as fishing, camping, going to the movies (non-violent ones), exercising, etc.
  • Convince the person not to join a certain group that would brainwash them.
  • Show the person that are other non-violent ways to deal with anger. Leave weapons out of the problems. Let the vendetta go. Revenge is like a poison. It is never the answer.

Pres. Barack Obama said, “These tragedies must end, And to end them, we must change.”

Moreover, murder is the greatest sin no matter what the reason. Criminals and murderers  do not deserve to be forgiven because they have no heart and soul. There is no good in them.  Depending on the circumstances, either blame or forgive the perpetrator’s family.  Forgiveness would be necessary if an incident was accidental and unintentional.

PERSONAL NOTE: I’m usually a forgiving person. I rather forgive people I care about like family and friends and some strangers because there is good in them. But, I would NEVER forgive criminals and murderers no matter the reason they committed horrible crimes. Depending on the circumstances, either I blame or forgive their families for having the black sheep. The victims of all gun violence terror attacks are in my prayers.

Another thing, autism has no connection with gun violence. It’s not an excuse. Schizophrenia or any other mental illness except depression is the culprit. Autism is a mental disability, not an illness. Educate yourself about the difference. Some people with autism may have violent outbursts, but that doesn’t mean they’re killers. (PN: I’m not! It’s wrong to kill innocent people). Autistic people cannot have access to guns, knives, etc. The noise bothers them.

The Sandy Hook, Isla Vista, and Umpqua shooters did NOT have autism. They were nutcases! I believe they and other shooters and one of the Boston bombers and other bad people had schizophrenia. I HATE them so much! They are evil and horrible murdering monsters with no heart and soul. They are in H-E-L-L. They should’ve been institutionalized or imprisoned in the first place.

We must offer proper medication and repair the legal and healthcare systems. Lock up the crazies and throw away the key!

Instead of being armed, there should be security systems or metal detectors in schools, movie theaters, churches, workplaces, nightclubs, etc. For example, if a teacher or a priest had a weapon, it would fall into the wrong hands of someone else.

Moreover, depending on the circumstances, parents need to be held responsible for their kids’ actions due to poor parenting or negligence.

Is it a crime to raise a killer?

And a message to therapists, psychologists, etc: please, please, PLEASE do not miss the signs of a nutcase.

Here’s an example of a massacre prevention:

On Aug. 21, 2015, The Thalys attack was an attempted mass shooting on a Thalys Train passing through Ignies, Pas-de-Calais, France. The train was traveling from Amsterdam to Paris via Brussels when the perpetrator opened fire in a train carriage before being subdued by passengers—three Americans and one British. Including the assailant, five people were injured, none fatally. The incident is believed by French police to be an Islamist terrorist attack, although the gunman claimed the motivation was robbery due to hunger. Four people who subdued the attacker have been made Chevaliers de la Legion d’honneur while two others will be honored at a later date.

Another example: After the 2016 Orlando Nightclub tragedy, the Indiana police arrested an armed man who attempted to do a horrific thing in San Francisco. His neighbors reported suspicious behavior. Thank goodness they caught the bad guy!

Third example: In South Carolina, a concealed weapon carrier shot the shooter at a nightclub, preventing the next Orlando tragedy.

An example of a knife attack prevention:

In Morton, Illinois, at a public library, an Army vet/chess teacher, James Vernon saved 16 children from a 19-year-old knife attacker, Dustin Brown. Charges were pressed against him.

The more preventions we make, the safer we will all be.

In the wake of the Paris terror attacks on 11/13/15, here are tips on how to report suspicious behavior:

In the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino massacre, there are five ways to reduce violence:


In a nondescript FBI building near Washington, D.C., sits Behavioral Unit No. 2, a federal threat assessment laboratory that disseminates its strategies to pinpoint potential havoc-makers to local police departments. Its mission to spot potential domestic mass shooters was added onto the FBI’s profiling wing in 2010, as an outgrowth of counter-terror activities going back to 9/11. Many of its interventions don’t involve arrest, but rather helping someone get help to address mental health issues.

It is not a perfect system. For instance, the Santa Barbara police supposedly versed in threat assessment visited Elliot Rodger on a so-called welfare, or check-up, call from his mother. Everything seemed fine to the officers, but they failed to ascertain whether he had recently purchased a gun, a standard question that threat assessment professionals say can be crucial in stopping a shooter in the planning stages. A few days later, Mr. Rodger killed six people during a campus rampage in Isla Vista.

But despite such failures, the American government, as well as states, already has investigators combing leads for any common thread of danger. It’s a strategy in its infancy, but proponents say the tactics, which when used correctly don’t violate individual constitutional rights, can be further shifted from terrorism to mass shootings.

Unit No. 2 has been involved in at least 500 interventions that might have ended in mass shootings.


No, the science is not settled on whether stronger gun control laws actually quell mass gun violence. In the case of San Bernardino, the weapons were bought legally. Also, California already has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.

But “there’s such a clear middle ground” in the gun control debate “because you can stem gun violence without taking away guns,” says Jonathan Metzl, director of the Center for Medicine, Health and Society, at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn.

Experts would like to see more of that middle ground employed.

The 2009 Heller decision by the US Supreme Court did guarantee the right of Americans to have access to firearms for personal protection, but left municipalities and states with room to regulate weaponry among the citizenry. And some of those legal checks on gun ownership have proven effective in saving lives.

When Connecticut enacted a law in 1995 that required that people purchase a permit before purchasing a gun, studies found a 40 percent reduction in the state’s homicide rate.

When Missouri in 2007 repealed a similar permit-to-purchase law, the state saw a 16 percent increase in suicides with a gun.


In terms of compromise, if gun owners cede new checks on gun ownership, then gun control proponents may have to concede points of their own, specifically that lawful gun-carry by responsible Americans can have a role in deterring, or in certain cases, stopping mass killers once an attack has begun.

One of the victims in the San Bernardino attack told CNN on Thursday that he wished he had been armed as he hunkered in a bathroom with bullets whizzing through the wall.

It is, without question, a controversial proposition. Sheriffs in Arizona and New York have called for concealed carry permit holders and retired police officers to carry their weapons with them to rebuff any attack. But other law enforcement officers have said they oppose having untrained bystanders step in to active shooter situations, possibly resulting in more loss of innocent life.

While rare, there have been cases, often involving off-duty police officers, where someone has been able to successfully intervene.

  • In 2007, an off-duty police officer having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his wife shot and killed an 18-year-old gunman at an Ogden, Utah, mall, stopping a rampage where five people died. “There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people,” then-police chief Chris Burbank said at the time.
  • In 2010, another off-duty police officer drew his personal weapon and fired when a man attacked an AT&T store in New York Mills, N.Y. The attacker was killed before he could carry out a plan to murder several employees at the store.
  • In 2012, a young shooter killed two people and wounded three others during a rampage at Clackamas Town Center before a man carrying a lawful personal weapon drew it and pointed it at the man. At that point, the assailant retreated, and then killed himself in a stairway.

Many Americans don’t like how widespread gun-carry has become in recent years.

But it’s already a fact of life, and one that, some law enforcement experts believe can be corralled into a potential bulwark the next time someone decides to go on a shooting spree.


Why is America, one of the bastions of scientific breakthroughs on the globe, so hesitant to better understand the fundamental dynamics of how guns, if at all, promote violence?

Partisan politics is the obvious answer to why Congress has for 20 years blocked the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to study gun violence, worried that the data will be used for gun control advocacy. But even deeper is a long-running distrust between the NRA and gun control advocates about each other’s true intentions.

One symptom of the lack of systematic study is that there is currently no common standard for tracking mass shootings. Most news reports this week, including this one, have cited crowdsourced data from two online tracking sites that rely on news reports, in conjunction with studies such as the Harvard one and an FBI report on “active shooter” situation.

The NRA rebuffs even the most minor check on guns on the idea that it’s part of a disarmament end game rather than an effort to save lives. The other side reflexively paints the gun lobby as a puppet for culpable weapons manufacturers, indeed as co-conspirators to violence, rather than as a politically active firearms safety organization.

That means any movement on research funding will require both sides to ease up their rhetoric and open their eyes to the emerging facts.

For example, one key question is whether laws that make it easier to carry guns reduce crime or increase it. Studies have found trends, but causation has remained elusive.

“Fundamental questions of whether you are safer carrying a gun around with you or not have not been answered adequately,” Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, told the Post recently.

After all, applying scientific research to other societal dangers has had dramatic impacts on human safety.

As highway death tolls rose in the US decades ago, studies of car crashes showed that younger people were particularly prone to serious accidents. In response, states raised standards for younger adults, improved car safety, and saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.


A free, vigorous press is enshrined in the Constitution as one of the highlights of American democracy. Yet studies have shown that current coverage of mass shootings likely fuel what experts call a “contagion effect,” given that many modern mass shooters emulate their “heroes” and yearned for their own infamy.

There are strategies that responsible media enterprises can employ without abandoning their fact-finding missions, says Ron Astor, a professor of social work at the University of Southern California.

“I’m like everybody else, I want to know who the person is, who his wife was, why they did it – that’s human nature,” he says. “But focusing intently on victims and what was lost here in a meaningless and random way … sends a really clear message that the sanctity of human life is so high that it’s unacceptable to shoot somebody as a way to send a message. Yes, it’s a news story that needs to include important information, but talking about the lives that were destroyed, what good they did, why that was taken away from us for no reason, that’s important, and will change how we think and how we feel.”

In the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, some of the victims’ parents, created a program called the Sandy Hook Promise. It’s a program that trains students how to prevent a school shooting by watching out for warning signs of a mentally ill person and tell a trusted adult.


Here are quick decisions in surviving a mass shooting:

How to Prevent Police-Involved Shootings:

All law enforcement-involved shootings are preventable if officers and citizens understand one another. So what can agencies do to minimize such incidents? Not only train officers on proper use of force and law enforcement authority, but also work to educate community members so they have a complete understanding of what law enforcement officers can and cannot do.

  • Encourage Citizens to Know the Law: Citizens must understand that law enforcement officers must follow rules, standard operating procedures, laws, and case law in order to do their job successfully. Citizens should have a working knowledge of the laws of their state, county, and municipal entities so they can reduce the likelihood of a negative encounter with an officer. Agencies can and should work to actively educate those in the community.

Most citizens do not understand when a law enforcement officer has authority and when he or she does not. The unfortunate part of this very complex equation is the citizen does not know what the officer knows upon initial contact. This creates a volatile environment because the officer may have information that gives him or her the authority to stop a civilian, but that civilian does not know what the officer knows.

As a result, the civilian may not comply with the officer’s lawful commands, which will escalate the situation. Citizens must remember that the time to argue the legalities of a stop is not upon initial contact, but in the courtroom (if it escalates to that arena).

  • Citizens Must Take Personal Responsibility for Actions: Law enforcement officers have a duty and responsibility to protect themselves and others from death or serious bodily injury. Officers are empowered to use deadly force to prevent escape when a person poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others, known as the rules of engagement.

Citizens must take personal responsibility for their actions with police. In many officer-involved shootings, the person(s) involved could have done, or not done, something to prevent the situation from escalating to deadly force. Here are some suggestions for citizens when it comes to interacting with police:

  • Don’t point a gun at a law enforcement officer or anyone else.
  • Don’t point a toy gun at a law enforcement officer. Even in full sunlight during the day far too many toy guns look like real guns.
  • Obey all lawful commands. The time to argue is later in a courtroom.
  • Don’t approach a law enforcement officer holding a potentially deadly object. Guns, knives, box cutters, glass bottles, yard tools, bats, pieces of lumber, etc. can all cause death and/or bodily injury.
  • Don’t commit a forcible felony. It can and will be argued that escape can pose a significant threat/harm to others.
  • Don’t run from law enforcement. While a person may outrun a law enforcement officer, especially considering the 30-plus pounds of gear he/she may be carrying, it’s hard to outrun a radio.
  • Use common sense.

It is important for police and citizens to understand one another to prevent police-involved shootings. All law enforcement agencies should work hard to educate citizens as well as maintain agency transparency in order to gain the community’s respect and support to help keep citizens safe.

We don’t want another Ferguson, L.A., Baton Rouge, Minnesota, or any other city where incidents took place.

Moreover, just because one is angry at police brutalities does not mean taking the anger out on innocent cops. Don’t let this be the next New York City, Dallas, or Baton Rouge!



I recommend signing a few petitions to stop gun violence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: