What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?

[Notanumber]

If they didn’t have guns, they would use something else. I used to use chemicals that are no longer available to me because they could be used for bomb making. Acid is another chemical that is causing concern. Bollards are being installed in UK cities because vehicles are being used as weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, between people's lives and semi-automatic assault-type weapons, you chose the latter.

It's rather dishonest to presume to know someone's choice,
when it's far more likely that you simply don't understand it,
& make the claim as an ad hominem barb.

One would expect a supposed anthropologist to try to understand,
rather than to project. But I guess the latter works in academia.

 

[whirlingmerc]

low value of life, desensitization to violence, less ability to cope with anger, isolation, poor treatment of some types of disorders especially related to psychotropic drugs improperly supervised and old fashioned sin

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think the thread title raises an interesting question that nobody has attempted to address so far.

WHY do they occur?

(added after the fact) the post just before mine was posted while I was writing this post.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your own words convict you "..political will to do so...". How else could you possibly reduce guns without government intervention?

One really does have to wonder, however, if gun ownership really has anything to do with how many innocent people are killed by guns. Perhaps a map showing how many people, per capita, own guns around the world, might be telling:

 

[idav]

View attachment 19587
One really does have to wonder, however, if gun ownership really has anything to do with how many innocent people are killed by guns. Perhaps a map showing how many people, per capita, own guns around the world, might be telling:

It is very telling that only one particular country has more guns than they have men women and children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And if you're talking about fighting the government in case Fascist take that over, well, that's a pipe dream.

I truly do not understand where people come up with the idea they need guns to keep the government in check. If the government wants to go authoritarian, it's going to do that no matter how many redneck militias go off and basically commit suicide.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your own words convict you "..political will to do so...". How else could you possibly reduce guns without government intervention?

The Temperance movement did a lot to get people drinking less, and without any government intervention.

 

[Valjean]

maybe if we treated guns like cars -- licensed, registered and insured.

 

[Deeje]

But now dingoes steal all their babies.

Not all of them.....just that one.

I see some risk factors....
- Many guns.
- Poor storage security.
- Sloppy government record keeping.
- The wrong people can legally get them.
- Inadequate mental health services.
- Unproductive debate & lack of cooperation between pro & anti gun control camps.
- Restrictions upon self defense.
- Bush....everything is his fault.

The point I highlighted begs a question.....if the wrong people can't get them, then the right people don't need them.....
There's the solution! Takes guns off everyone

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all of them.....just that one.



The point I highlighted begs a question.....if the wrong people can't get them, then the right people don't need them.....
There's the solution! Takes guns off everyone

One can't always identify the wrong people.
It's just a partial solution to work harder to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Here's one government employee who should work harder at this....
After Night of Drinking, F.B.I. Supervisor Wakes to Find a Woman Stole His Gun

Besides, it's illegal to take away guns from everyone.

 

[Underhill]

Get rid of Cars too. They are worse than guns.

Good point. I think they should treat guns exactly like cars. Licenses to use them, insure them, keep them locked up. The government should safety test them and if something comes along that could make them safer, mandate it.... just like we do with cars.

 

[BSM1]

The Temperance movement did a lot to get people drinking less, and without any government intervention.

Really? So why Prohibition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds good to me.
Gun ownership is a constitutional right, but rights can be limited
with reasonable requirements where there's compelling benefit.

The power of Congress to regulate and discipline "the militia" is also a constitutional right, which makes me wonder why so many American civilians want to insist that they're part of "the militia" and that the constitution should be held to strictly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you aren't ok with people having semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15 style, there are those of us that enjoy using them for sporting events, and other activities.

What sort of sporting event benefits from semiautomatic guns?

You do realize that the percentage of these firearms used in criminal activities are very very very low.

They better be. Otherwise you would be in a desolate, sorry shape.

But it is understandable your thought process is blurred by the media hype and those that do not have a clue what they are talking about.

Odd. I was thinking something along those lines, but definitely not about @metis

 

[metis]

I don't think so. The premise by which gun control is called for is because of loss of life.

Guns take life that's obvious and cars do too. Also cars are considered a luxury, not a necessity. Guns could be considered the same.

Cars and guns are built for entirely different purposes, plus how they are dealt with is also quite different. With your approach, it's like comparing apples to watermelons while claiming they're the same. You might believe that but I certainly don't.

Also, a reminder that I'm not attacking the 2nd Amendment, including the "right to bear arms", but instead the availability of semi-automatic assault-type rifles that I do not believe should have a place in civilian hands, and what should be for very obvious reasons when we look at the carnage these weapons have wrought.

Therefore, it is you who should decide what's more important: those weapons used in numerous mass killings or people's lives? .

 

[metis]

What sort of sporting event benefits from semiautomatic guns?

Yes, exactly, which goes to show the priorities of some people, namely that entertainment with an instrument that kills is more important to them than people's lives. Which religion would ever teach that? Which humanistic approach would ever teach that? Which morality would ever teach that? [rhetorical questions]

 

[metis]

If they didn’t have guns, they would use something else. I used to use chemicals that are no longer available to me because they could be used for bomb making. Acid is another chemical that is causing concern. Bollards are being installed in UK cities because vehicles are being used as weapons.

Using that "logic", then we should never even try to stop terrorists because there's always going to be some, and they always will find ways to kill people, and if they didn't have a nuclear device they'd use stones.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Using that "logic", then we should never even try to stop terrorists because there's always going to be some, and they always will find ways to kill people, and if they didn't have a nuclear device they'd use stones.

Plus, as we all know, guns are only just at good as killing people as any other method a human being can think of. That's why mortality rates from gun attacks are exactly the same as death rates from knives, thrown stones, or staring at someone angrily. EXACTLY the same.*

*Please do not request citation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Cars and guns are built for entirely different purposes, plus how they are dealt with is also quite different. With your approach, it's like comparing apples to watermelons while claiming they're the same. You might believe that but I certainly don't.

Also, a reminder that I'm not attacking the 2nd Amendment, including the "right to bear arms", but instead the availability of semi-automatic assault-type rifles that I do not believe should have a place in civilian hands, and what should be for very obvious reasons when we look at the carnage these weapons have wrought.

Therefore, it is you who should decide what's more important: those weapons used in numerous mass killings or people's lives? .

So the argument in consideration of each used for different purposes is that one form of killing or being killed is somehow made more acceptable than the other form, regardless of how many lives are taken respectively wither on purpose, or through accident.

So essentially it's perfectly acceptable for people to be continually killed by the use of cars, and it's conversely not acceptable for those who are killed using guns.

The point I'm trying to make is it's not the tools but the people using them. Gun control seems continually focused on the mechanisms themselves and ignoring the person by which those mechanisms are being used. The argument centers on loss of life as its key issue, yet what I don't get is why is one form of loss of life that's continually going on is somehow less deadly then the other. Essentially one is being vilified and one isn't.

I can at least agree by which safety standards are implemented in cars, should also be implemented in firearms.

I'm okay with reduced clip size, and bolt action firearms as opposed to semi automatics and various firearms that can be modified into automatic. Conditional licensing would be appropriate I think such as trainer safety courses, that a person would not be denied the right to carry a firearm, but must first pass a competency and safety test. Similar with a hunter safety course that people must go through before purchasing a hunting license.

That I think will help with the hardware, but you still need to look at the systemic reasons as to why people are going off like that because if guns aren't accessible you know full well that they will look at other things. Cars trucks knives bombs Etc.