Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Wolfe]

Simply making noise about something isn't evidence that people care, I can shout and scream about all kinds of things, but it's what I do that counts.

And people do elect politicians who say they'll do something about it, champion media who say something must be done, and when it's left to the people with the power, it's what you see.

I've got little else to tell you.

 

[baldgye]

And people do elect politicians who say they'll do something about it, champion media who say something must be done, and when it's left to the people with the power, it's what you see.

I've got little else to tell you.

Sounds like you're country is systemically broken and ruled by the wealthy and powerful upper class that is happy to let those beneath them perish.
Forgive me, but isn't this one of the reasons you are legally entitled to be armed, to protect and ensure "the security of a free State"?

 

[Wolfe]

Sounds like you're country is systemically broken and ruled by the wealthy and powerful upper class that is happy to let those beneath them perish.
Forgive me, but isn't this one of the reasons you are legally entitled to be armed, to protect and ensure "the security of a free State"?

Not very far from the truth.

 

[baldgye]

Not very far from the truth.

But, it's not going to happen, is it?
Thus the cycle will continue, American's will continue to shrug their shoulders claim they care, but do nothing to actually change the systems that fail them and the hundreds/thousands of people that die ever year.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sounds like your country is systemically broken and ruled by the wealthy and powerful upper class that is happy to let those beneath them perish.

Dude, I think that applies to us as well.

Quick, let us legalise guns so we may smite the Tory government!

edit: Wait a sec... I know people with guns... how come we've not smited the Tories yet!?!

 

[baldgye]

Dude, I think that applies to us as well.

Quick, let us legalise guns so we may smite the Tory government!

I don't think there is anything you can't change in this country (legally and democratically). People wanted to make themselves poorer and make this country weaker, and they've succeeded.

We had a mass shooting in the 90s, we passed legislation to prevent it and we've had 3 in the last twenty years. That's one more than the number of mass shootings in the US while this thread was on a single page of replies.

At the end of the day, the measures taken to prevent mass shootings aren't important, be it gun control, be it mental health support or be it a ban on video games. Surely what matters is making your own country safer?

 

[Exorcet]

At the end of the day, the measures taken to prevent mass shootings aren't important

What the measure are is extremely important. They should ideally actually accomplish what they set out to do, shouldn't cause additional problems, and shouldn't violate people's rights. I'm very much against just doing anything.

 

[Joey D]

But, it's not going to happen, is it?
Thus the cycle will continue, American's will continue to shrug their shoulders claim they care, but do nothing to actually change the systems that fail them and the hundreds/thousands of people that die ever year.

You really need to stop with the narrative that American's don't care. American's do care, but the way the system works there's not much the average citizen can do. The government and politicians are largely controlled by lobbyists, which means they're more or less controlled by the wealthy. Average citizens do have a voice in terms of voting, but our choices typically are dictated by whatever the party wants. This is how we ended up with two of the most unqualified candidates in recent US history during the 2016 election cycle. The Democrats even went as far as to actually rig its primaries to make Clinton win instead of Bernie Sanders.

Even if you were to get rid of all that, you still end up with the problem of how people vote. A large percentage of people vote for candidates simply because they aren't the other person. This is one of the biggest reasons Trump won, he wasn't Hillary and that was good enough for many people. Nevermind that he has no idea what he was doing nor had any concept of what is and isn't legal to do as the leader of the country.

You say we need a revolution, but how do you suggest that happens? If it's an armed revolution, then it'd probably last all of a day considering the US has the largest and most advanced standing military in the world. The budget for it alone is greater than the next three countries combined and has enough firepower to end the world hundreds of times over.

So, seriously, stop pushing the narrative that American's don't care because it's a flat out incorrect statement.

 

[Dennisch]

Voting doesn't do poop, as the politicians usually have a bunch of sponsors who like to have their interests protected.

The thing I think that might help is massive demonstrations, the accompanying civil disobedience and massive round the clock strikes, perhaps something like that will sway those currently in charge to actually do something that is needed.

Just prevent that the special people like Antifa and the extreme right will get the overhand in the demonstrations.

 

[Joey D]

Voting doesn't do poop, as the politicians usually have a bunch of sponsors who like to have their interests protected.

The thing I think that might help is massive demonstrations, the accompanying civil disobedience and massive round the clock strikes.

Just prevent that the special people like Antifa and the extreme right will get the overhand in the demonstrations.

The problem with that is most police departments act like a military. Massive demonstrations would be met with riot gear, tear gas, rubber bullets, and everything else our "heros in blue" could muster. They'd probably even shoot a few people too because they feared for their lives, despite the protest having a rock or a stick and the cop having an M4.

 

[zzz_pt]

It could be that the amount of deaths caused by gun violence (including and especially suicides) could be tackled or diminished with a good public health care. That seems to be an easier thing to implement than to move the needle in the direction of gun control measures or licensing, even taking into consideration the large percentage of americans who think free health care for US citizens is a slippery slope that leads down to communism.

If not for anything else - such as providing care for whose who need it and who avoid care because they can't affor it - at least to try and minimize gun violence associated with mental and physical health (because one leads to the other).

I'm sure the richest country in the world has the means, both financial, human and scientific, to address these issues if there's political will and courage to stand up to the lobbyists and minority radicals. But until someone with that courage gets elected and supported by other politicians, I don't see how any of it can be tackled. Which is really unfortunate, because the USA has everything to be as safe and healthy as it is rich.

 

[baldgye]

What the measure are is extremely important. They should ideally actually accomplish what they set out to do, shouldn't cause additional problems, and shouldn't violate people's rights. I'm very much against just doing anything.

I don't know why you snipped that sentence in half.
Even if measures undertaken don't work, by trying them you eliminate them from the discussion and work towards actual progress. By doing nothing, everything is on the table, including the removal of guns.

You really need to stop with the narrative that American's don't care. American's do care, but the way the system works there's not much the average citizen can do. The government and politicians are largely controlled by lobbyists, which means they're more or less controlled by the wealthy. Average citizens do have a voice in terms of voting, but our choices typically are dictated by whatever the party wants. This is how we ended up with two of the most unqualified candidates in recent US history during the 2016 election cycle. The Democrats even went as far as to actually rig its primaries to make Clinton win instead of Bernie Sanders.

Even if you were to get rid of all that, you still end up with the problem of how people vote. A large percentage of people vote for candidates simply because they aren't the other person. This is one of the biggest reasons Trump won, he wasn't Hillary and that was good enough for many people. Nevermind that he has no idea what he was doing nor had any concept of what is and isn't legal to do as the leader of the country.

You say we need a revolution, but how do you suggest that happens? If it's an armed revolution, then it'd probably last all of a day considering the US has the largest and most advanced standing military in the world. The budget for it alone is greater than the next three countries combined and has enough firepower to end the world hundreds of times over.

So, seriously, stop pushing the narrative that American's don't care because it's a flat out incorrect statement.

It's not really a narrative, its an observation. If something bothers me or really concerns me, I tend to do something about it. I’ll read into it, figure out what experts think about it, come to a conclusion and push for that solution.

You yourself have said that you're not prepared to do all the research into the possible causes of mass shootings, so it seems as though you have at least mentally weighed up the cost and benefit in your head and come to the conclusion it isn't worth you bothering.

If you're country is beyond broken as several users seem to be suggesting, why aren't you demanding change? It just seems like “our country is broken and nothing can change” is an excuse to sit on your hands and absolve yourself.

 

[Joey D]

It's not really a narrative, its an observation. If something bothers me or really concerns me, I tend to do something about it. I’ll read into it, figure out what experts think about it, come to a conclusion and push for that solution.

You yourself have said that you're not prepared to do all the research into the possible causes of mass shootings, so it seems as though you have at least mentally weighed up the cost and benefit in your head and come to the conclusion it isn't worth you bothering.

If you're country is beyond broken as several users seem to be suggesting, why aren't you demanding change? It just seems like “our country is broken and nothing can change” is an excuse to sit on your hands and absolve yourself.

Then your observation is either wrong or you're willfully ignoring the big picture.

And did you read why I'm not doing the research? It would take years and years of study, a bunch of money, and probably the backing of a university to get to the bottom of it. I simply don't have that kind of time or money to do it. The best I can do is get a rudimentary understanding of it based on a handful of data. That data has lead me to believe that there's a culture and mental health problem in America. Combine the two and you're going to end up with someone carrying out violent acts.

And who says I'm not demanding change? I vote third party in every election because both the Republicans and Democrats have failed the country. But past that what can I do? Get on Twitter and bitch about it? That doesn't work and makes me look like a less orange Trump.

It's also not an excuse, it's a fact. Quit being delusional about the power one person has to take on the US government or any government for that matter.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't know why you snipped that sentence in half.

I only quoted what I felt was necessary to respond to. There are solutions that I feel aren't worth exploring. I disagree with gun bans because they ignore property/self defense rights, as @Danoff and @Touring Mars have touched on.

Even if measures undertaken don't work, by trying them you eliminate them from the discussion and work towards actual progress. By doing nothing, everything is on the table, including the removal of guns.

I'm most lenient on effectiveness because there is ambiguity there, as you're suggesting we can't be completely certain of what will work or not beforehand. I completely agree with your stance on trying solutions even if you can't be sure that they will work. I'm not advocating for doing nothing though.

 

[baldgye]

Then your observation is either wrong or you're willfully ignoring the big picture.

And did you read why I'm not doing the research? It would take years and years of study, a bunch of money, and probably the backing of a university to get to the bottom of it. I simply don't have that kind of time or money to do it. The best I can do is get a rudimentary understanding of it based on a handful of data. That data has lead me to believe that there's a culture and mental health problem in America. Combine the two and you're going to end up with someone carrying out violent acts.

And who says I'm not demanding change? I vote third party in every election because both the Republicans and Democrats have failed the country. But past that what can I do? Get on Twitter and bitch about it? That doesn't work and makes me look like a less orange Trump.

It's also not an excuse, it's a fact. Quit being delusional about the power one person has to take on the US government or any government for that matter.

The big picture is mass shootings are a monthly occurrence and are increasing year on year.
That’s the big picture. It’s an uniquely American problem in the developed first world. Yet as a nation you seem utterly incapable of solving it, despite other massive changes you are able to accomplish.

Equality for example, it’s not perfect but segregation isn’t a thing on busses. Slavery is another example of massive social change your country has largely solved.
Those where massive social problems that your country dealt with. Why are mass shootings something that cannot be solved? I’m not even advocating new gun laws, all I’ve talked about is better mental health support. Yet America seems paralysed.

The president America voted into the White House, blames video games (among others), so why aren’t they in acting restrictions on those?

‘It’s complicated’ yet I don’t think it is, this is individuals going to public places and killing innocent people. That’s it.
Yet all that happens is talk. Nothing is done and the mass shootings increase, more innocent people die and America (seemingly) sits by and let it happen. The NRA are a powerful lobbying group, why haven’t they helped solve this problem? Why aren’t they helping to fund and support mental health programs?

As I said, if this really was a problem American’s really cared about, it would have been solved. If enough American’s came together and rallied, pooled money and lobbied for change, change would happen.

 

[Joey D]

Equality for example, it’s not perfect but segregation isn’t a thing on busses. Slavery is another example of massive social change your country has largely solved.
Those where massive social problems that your country dealt with. Why are mass shootings something that cannot be solved? I’m not even advocating new gun laws, all I’ve talked about is better mental health support. Yet America seems paralysed.

Ya, I wouldn't use anything pertaining to race to show that the US solved a problem. We still have a massive problem with racial divides in the US and they are seemingly getting worse all the time. The police aren't helping this either since there's been more than one case of a perfectly cooperative black man being gunned down by a white, trigger happy police officer. Also, you really brought up slavery? To solve that problem we literally fought a war where hundreds of thousands of people died.

The president America voted into the White House, blames video games (among others), so why aren’t they in acting restrictions on those?

Video games fall under freedom of speech, the president can't legally ban them any more than he can ban a book.

‘It’s complicated’ yet I don’t think it is, this is individuals going to public places and killing innocent people. That’s it.
Yet all that happens is talk. Nothing is done and the mass shootings increase, more innocent people die and America (seemingly) sits by and let it happen. The NRA are a powerful lobbying group, why haven’t they helped solve this problem? Why aren’t they helping to fund and support mental health programs?

Ya, I get what's happening, but I can't tell you why. The cause of mass shooting, or really any shooting, is complex and takes a ton of research to come up with an answer.

As for the NRA, I have no idea. I'm not a member, will never be a member, and I think they're a detriment to gun owners. They're also two-faced and like pretty much any organization, only really in it for the money.

As I said, if this really was a problem American’s really cared about, it would have been solved. If enough American’s came together and rallied, pooled money and lobbied for change, change would happen.

At this point, it's just becoming insulting that you continue to say American's don't care. It's a massive load of BS to suggest Americans don't care about violence in the country. It's not an easily solvable problem and I suspect you know this, but are just ignoring it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ti...ckfire-mistaken-gunshot-mass-shooter-tuesday/

The entire country has PTSD. Enough is enough.

 

[Wolfe]

Sounds like you're country is systemically broken and ruled by the wealthy and powerful upper class that is happy to let those beneath them perish.
Forgive me, but isn't this one of the reasons you are legally entitled to be armed, to protect and ensure "the security of a free State"?

But, it's not going to happen, is it?

That's mass gun violence, isn't it? By my estimation, it's exactly what El Paso and Dayton are, toward two extreme, disagreeing ends. They didn't just sit on their hands and absolve themselves. I don't suppose that's what you're suggesting.

We don't just have mass shootings in the name of personal pet grievances or religious ideology anymore. We are increasingly seeing violence spurred by politics, and particularly (IMO) by totally irresponsible characterizations of the "other side's" politics, going both ways and every way, not limited to the simplified left-right paradigm. Communication is breaking down. Everything is someone else's fault.

Calls to action, to do "something", are already playing a role in the impetus to violence. I'm not sure it's what the country needs.

 

[baldgye]

Ya, I wouldn't use anything pertaining to race to show that the US solved a problem. We still have a massive problem with racial divides in the US and they are seemingly getting worse all the time. The police aren't helping this either since there's been more than one case of a perfectly cooperative black man being gunned down by a white, trigger happy police officer. Also, you really brought up slavery? To solve that problem we literally fought a war where hundreds of thousands of people died.

I’m aware, but here you had a problem and it was by-enlarge resolved. I don’t think the mass shooting problem is as complex as racism or an economy based on slavery. There is no economy based on mass shootings that I’m aware off and it doesn't seem to be something that is systemic.

Video games fall under freedom of speech, the president can't legally ban them any more than he can ban a book.

So why is it brought up? Is it done so that it adds to the confusion of the situation, to make it seem more complex than it is? Is it just part of the smoke screen to make sure people don’t mention banning guns or doing anything meaningful?

At this point, it's just becoming insulting that you continue to say American's don't care. It's a massive load of BS to suggest Americans don't care about violence in the country. It's not an easily solvable problem and I suspect you know this, but are just ignoring it.

And this is the crux of the problem; you’d sooner be insulted (that I don’t think America really cares enough to do anything about mass shooting), than actually try and look into the reasons and then do what people do for; global warming, Brexit, homelessness, campaign against the rise of fascism etc etc.
I’m only singling you out here, because you’ve already said that the time and money you feel you need to spend, isn’t worth it, simply to understand the problem.
Yet your willing to talk at length about how systemically broken your country is.

Maybe I’m being unfair, but mass shootings have been happening in increasing numbers and increasing deadliness for the past 20 years. America sits on its hands while school children are killed, while church goers are killed, while innocent random people are killed... and the reason they’ve been sitting on their hands for 20 odd years, is because; ‘hey our country is broken’. If something is broken, fix it, if not for you but for the generations to follow. You have (I’ve read) armed security, metal detectors and transparent bags, for school children... when does it end?

 

[baldgye]

That's mass gun violence, isn't it? By my estimation, it's exactly what El Paso and Dayton are, toward two extreme, disagreeing ends. They didn't just sit on their hands and absolve themselves. I don't suppose that's what you're suggesting.

We don't just have mass shootings in the name of personal pet grievances or religious ideology anymore. We are increasingly seeing violence spurred by politics, and particularly (IMO) by totally irresponsible characterizations of the "other side's" politics, going both ways and every way, not limited to the simplified left-right paradigm. Communication is breaking down. Everything is someone else's fault.

Calls to action, to do "something", are already playing a role in the impetus to violence. I'm not sure it's what the country needs.

So you can’t rise up against an unfair ruling class of government who deny your freedoms. You can’t legally campaign and follow the political process to change laws and to stop people dying. So you do nothing and carry on with your lives, accepting that mass shootings are just a fact of life?

 

[Zona]

What happened in Dayton and El Paso was terrible. We need to immediately forget about the identity of the shooter(s) and instead focus on the memories of the victims. I think the media need to take a step back (which they won't and this is the problem) on reporting the body count, names of the shooter etc... cause it will only just inspire copycat killings.

Banning guns (I'm very Pro 2-A so kinda biased) won't fix the problem. (Yes, we need to have mandatory gun safety classes before one purchases a firearm, extended background checks, cooling off period, measures in place for strict firearm storage policies (i.e. locked gun-safe in home), also stricter policies in check for gun show sales. It may also help if American Schools introduced a fire arms safety lesson (in a PSHE session) working with local PD or Military.

What America needs is an affordable or free NHS style healthcare system where people can go and get treated for their mental health issues.

There needs to be more support in schools and colleges with a mental health professional (much like the age old school nurse) preferably for each school grade (more depending on size of school) where students can go and talk freely about their problems and get the much needed help that they need.

I believe there needs to be a crack down on Right Wing Neo-Nazi content online (kinda like how there are systems in place for terrorist content already). It's so easy for a confused, angry teenager to get on message boards like 8chan, 4chan and Reddit and vent their misguided racist beliefs. It also doesn't help that our "President" helps fan these flames with his racist and misogynistic tweets etc...

 

[MatskiMonk]

What America needs is an affordable or free NHS style healthcare system where people can go and get treated for their mental health issues.

Don't wish to sound snarky, but I have mental health issues, which department of the NHS do I go to to cure them? Because it's now been 25 years and the people I've been speaking to haven't fixed me.

Honestly, I don't believe the tiny percentage of people with issues that go on to commit these acts are the type to lament their condition or want to seek help to prevent it, I suspect they often don't see themselves as the problem.. though I welcome being corrected on that.

 

[PocketZeven]

Just gonna react to the recent blame the conservative News have listed as reasons for these mass shootings:
- the internet
- violent video games
- mental illness

While the rest of the developed world have all of the above they do not have the same number of mass shootings per capita as the US. The main glaring difference is the access to guns.

 

[Famine]

The big picture is mass shootings are a monthly occurrence and are increasing year on year.
That’s the big picture.

A bigger picture would be that they account for less than 1% of gun deaths, and around 3% of gun deaths where the user is not the victim.

Gun deaths that happen in ones and twos - and these are most often with a black perpetrator and a black victim - account for 96% of them, but for some reason people want to focus on "solving the problem" when it's usually a white perpetrator with three or more victims. They also don't want to consider at all any other deaths or spree killings by any other method...

The rest of the post below was written over 24hr (during which time there'll have been 0.6 deaths from dog bites, one death from spree-shooting, three deaths from being shot by police, six deaths from stabbing, 30 non-spree gun murders, 60 gun suicides, 60 other suicides and 100 road deaths) but still seems relevant to the direction of the conversation in that time.

A factor that isn’t being addressed.

Very much agreed.

And it’s easy to point the finger at gun ownership because literally no other first world nation has this issue...

Yet again though, it depends what you define as the issue. If you define it as "spree shooting", then you're looking in the wrong place. Spree shooting accounts for about 3% of non-user gun killings. If you define it as "gun violence" then you're nearer the mark - and again I'll note that the predominantly black-on-black murders that happen in ones rack up the same count in a couple of weeks as spree shootings do each year - but I'd say you're still looking in the wrong place, and I'll explain why.


Two-thirds of US homicides are suicides. About half of them are gun suicides (and they're included in gun homicide figures, because homicide is "human-kill" not "other-human kill"). Why do half of Americans (and nearly two-thirds of American males) who have chosen to end their lives choose to pick up a firearm to do it? Is it a gun problem?

No, of course it isn't, it's just that the gun is a thing to hand that'll end your life very effectively with not much skill required. Women, who are more rarely gun owners, more rarely commit suicide this way; they tend to overdose, with intent (painless, but sleepy) and results.

We don't consider it a gun problem that when you want to kill yourself and the gun is a thing to hand that'll end your life very effectively with not much skill required. So why do we treat it as a gun problem when you want to kill someone else and the gun is a thing to hand that'll end their life very effectively with not much skill required*?


The fact that guns are used for suicide and murder are not the issue. It's simply an emergent property of the fact that there's 90% of a gun per person in the USA, so when someone wants to cause harm to themselves or others, they pick up a gun because it's there.

That being the case, what's the actual issue?

It's violent crime - when one person uses violence to force another person to do something: give them property, perform an act (or a sex act), or... die. In the USA it's perpetrated with guns because they're the tool to hand. You want to end someone, you use a gun to do it - it's in all the films and TV shows, and music, and books, and comics, and games, and newspapers after all, and one might opine that this cultural ingraining of the gun is itself both a symptom and - if not a direct cause - a mental prompt.

About half the time someone wants to kill someone else (and almost all the time they want to kill a lot of someone elses), they use a gun to do it. That is almost exactly the same rate as with suicides... interestingly.

Thus the USA's violent crime problem looks like a gun problem, when it isn't.


Now, we say that the issue is unique to the USA, but it's not. Quite a few civilised nations have USA-matching levels of violent crime. In the USA there were 1.3m recorded violent crimes - nearly 400 per 100,000 people - in 2017, including all types of homicide, robbery, assault and violent sexual offences.

The UK records violent crime differently (in fact it records 1.2m violent crimes annually; stalking and harassment are violent crimes here, as is burglary even when it's not robbery) but for the same offences there are roughly - very roughly as it's hard to parse - 250,000 recorded offences. That's 395 per 100,000 people, and that's pretty much exactly what it is in the USA. I haven't looked into the violent crime rate in other developed nations, primarily because it is such a headache to work out what classifies as a violent crime; governments loooooove massaging statistics!


I don't know if you've been a victim of violent crime or not (hopefully not), but if you have you won't need me to tell you that it's unpleasant. In essence someone uses force (or the threat of force) to create fear for your safety and life and compel you to do something that you would not do by free will. You are almost exactly as likely to be the victim of a violent crime - to have a criminal make you scared that your life is about to end - in the UK as in the USA.

Violent crime is the issue that needs to be solved. Working out how and why people arrive at the conclusion that it's okay to use force and weapons against other humans in order to get what they want, or even just to express themselves.

Some of it is mental health, definitely - to determine that you can deprive someone else of their life, their liberty, their body, their possessions, because they have something that you want, or they're a different race, gender, sexuality, religion, political belief, whatever, is the end product of clearly extremely disjointed thought processes - but that's not the limit of it.

One doesn't have to wander far back in our past (or the USA's) to see examples of institutional and legislative dehumanisation. You don't have to look very far at all to see how our societies have treated people that the law has determined are not as good human beings as others - women, the Japanese/Chinese/Irish (particularly in the USA), homosexuals, black people, Jews, the disabled, gypsies, indigenous people, and I've not gone as far back as the 1930s yet...

Although in 2019 the bulk of Western societies are recovering from that and recognising that people should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law (as long as they aren't Muslims), the reaction from the periods where we didn't do that is still painfully obvious. There's also the reaction to that reaction - some feel the swing is going the other way (and some think it should) and feel under threat. You've also got poverty, drugs, gangs, the fetishisation of death and violence (and guns) in entertainment and - particularly - news media, internal racism ("you can't be black if you don't act black").


Of course where the UK and USA differ is that if you are the victim of a violent crime, you are more likely to die from it in the USA because... well, they've got lots of guns (same as you're more likely to die from a suicide attempt). This is usually the bit us Brits see: gun deaths because guns. I'd concur with some vigour that dying is more bad than not dying, but it's not always a comfort that your rapist did not murder you before/during/after your violation - and some victims of violent crime, particularly rape survivors, do later become suicide statistics when really they should be murder statistics.

Somewhere else that the two countries differ is that potential victims in the USA may have weapons too. "Defensive gun use" is actually intensely hard to nail down statistically because they are almost never recorded - if a potential victim has used a gun in self-defence and foiled the crime, there's no crime to record, and it'll recorded as homicide (likely lawful) if there's an exchange of fire and either (or both) die. There's some very low ball estimates along with some very high ones, but a meta-analysis of these puts the number of DGUs at broadly equal to the number of violent crime offences (there are some lower estimates, and some higher).

That's particularly interesting as it means that without guns, the USA would probably have violent crime at a rate of double what it is now. If the high estimates are correct, it'd be yet more violent still, and this is pretty crucial. If we're acting like guns are the problem and trying to limit, or even reduce, the numbers of guns in private hands, we'll actually drive violent crime up (at the very least in the short and medium term; I'd guess long-term too as I can't imagine criminals disarming because civilians are disarmed - they still need that extra level of power to intimidate, and they'll still kill each other). Deaths might go down simply by reducing the chances of an exchange of fire - although the bulk are suicides, the bulk of the remainder are inner city violence, and the bulk of the remainder from that is cops - but I wouldn't like to guess on that one.


As you can see, it's an intensely complex picture with myriad moving parts (and a lot of non-moving ones, which is usually governments) and no clear picture on either what the issue really is or what steps to take to solve it - or even whose job it should be to do so (government's role is to protect rights and stopping people being the victims of crime is the embodiment of that purpose, but can it make movements on any of the things I mentioned above without overstepping that remit?). It's not that deaths are an acceptable price of freedom (they aren't; each non-operator death is by definition someone's freedom lost), or that there's no appetite to solve it, it's that it's a seemingly infinite tangle which people can't even agree on where the start point is.

Where the start point isn't is the gun. Boiling the whole problem down to "these people died by gunfire, so guns are the problem" misses every single step on the path that lead to that guy picking up that gun to kill people with it, and it misses every single step of another guy picking up a different implement to kill people. Stopping the guy from deciding to - or feeling that he or she had to - commit an act of violence should be the goal.


*To a point. We're not talking about a 1,000-yard shot into the gold; most people can hit something six feet away with most handguns.

Don't wish to sound snarky, but I have mental health issues, which department of the NHS do I go to to cure them? Because it's now been 25 years and the people I've been speaking to haven't fixed me.

Honestly, I don't believe the tiny percentage of people with issues that go on to commit these acts are the type to lament their condition or want to seek help to prevent it, I suspect they often don't see themselves as the problem.. though I welcome being corrected on that.

Most people with deeper mental health issues don't realise they have them. It takes a functioning brain to be aware that the brain is malfunctioning so... yeah. It usually only becomes apparent when other people (often those outside the immediate circle; your family grows up with what it thinks are your "quirks") become aware of it.

For reference, bypass your GP and self-refer to your local mental health services. If you need a hand locating what's most appropriate to you, PM me.

 

[mustafur]

We tried nothing and we are out of ideas.

 

[baldgye]

A bigger picture would be that they account for less than 1% of gun deaths, and around 3% of gun deaths where the user is not the victim.

Gun deaths that happen in ones and twos - and these are most often with a black perpetrator and a black victim - account for 96% of them, but for some reason people want to focus on "solving the problem" when it's usually a white perpetrator with three or more victims. They also don't want to consider at all any other deaths or spree killings by any other method...

The rest of the post below was written over 24hr (during which time there'll have been 0.6 deaths from dog bites, one death from spree-shooting, three deaths from being shot by police, six deaths from stabbing, 30 non-spree gun murders, 60 gun suicides, 60 other suicides and 100 road deaths) but still seems relevant to the direction of the conversation in that time.

Very much agreed.

Yet again though, it depends what you define as the issue. If you define it as "spree shooting", then you're looking in the wrong place. Spree shooting accounts for about 3% of non-user gun killings. If you define it as "gun violence" then you're nearer the mark - and again I'll note that the predominantly black-on-black murders that happen in ones rack up the same count in a couple of weeks as spree shootings do each year - but I'd say you're still looking in the wrong place, and I'll explain why.


Two-thirds of US homicides are suicides. About half of them are gun suicides (and they're included in gun homicide figures, because homicide is "human-kill" not "other-human kill"). Why do half of Americans (and nearly two-thirds of American males) who have chosen to end their lives choose to pick up a firearm to do it? Is it a gun problem?

No, of course it isn't, it's just that the gun is a thing to hand that'll end your life very effectively with not much skill required. Women, who are more rarely gun owners, more rarely commit suicide this way; they tend to overdose, with intent (painless, but sleepy) and results.

We don't consider it a gun problem that when you want to kill yourself and the gun is a thing to hand that'll end your life very effectively with not much skill required. So why do we treat it as a gun problem when you want to kill someone else and the gun is a thing to hand that'll end their life very effectively with not much skill required*?


The fact that guns are used for suicide and murder are not the issue. It's simply an emergent property of the fact that there's 90% of a gun per person in the USA, so when someone wants to cause harm to themselves or others, they pick up a gun because it's there.

That being the case, what's the actual issue?

It's violent crime - when one person uses violence to force another person to do something: give them property, perform an act (or a sex act), or... die. In the USA it's perpetrated with guns because they're the tool to hand. You want to end someone, you use a gun to do it - it's in all the films and TV shows, and music, and books, and comics, and games, and newspapers after all, and one might opine that this cultural ingraining of the gun is itself both a symptom and - if not a direct cause - a mental prompt.

About half the time someone wants to kill someone else (and almost all the time they want to kill a lot of someone elses), they use a gun to do it. That is almost exactly the same rate as with suicides... interestingly.

Thus the USA's violent crime problem looks like a gun problem, when it isn't.


Now, we say that the issue is unique to the USA, but it's not. Quite a few civilised nations have USA-matching levels of violent crime. In the USA there were 1.3m recorded violent crimes - nearly 400 per 100,000 people - in 2017, including all types of homicide, robbery, assault and violent sexual offences.

The UK records violent crime differently (in fact it records 1.2m violent crimes annually; stalking and harassment are violent crimes here, as is burglary even when it's not robbery) but for the same offences there are roughly - very roughly as it's hard to parse - 250,000 recorded offences. That's 395 per 100,000 people, and that's pretty much exactly what it is in the USA. I haven't looked into the violent crime rate in other developed nations, primarily because it is such a headache to work out what classifies as a violent crime; governments loooooove massaging statistics!


I don't know if you've been a victim of violent crime or not (hopefully not), but if you have you won't need me to tell you that it's unpleasant. In essence someone uses force (or the threat of force) to create fear for your safety and life and compel you to do something that you would not do by free will. You are almost exactly as likely to be the victim of a violent crime - to have a criminal make you scared that your life is about to end - in the UK as in the USA.

Violent crime is the issue that needs to be solved. Working out how and why people arrive at the conclusion that it's okay to use force and weapons against other humans in order to get what they want, or even just to express themselves.

Some of it is mental health, definitely - to determine that you can deprive someone else of their life, their liberty, their body, their possessions, because they have something that you want, or they're a different race, gender, sexuality, religion, political belief, whatever, is the end product of clearly extremely disjointed thought processes - but that's not the limit of it.

One doesn't have to wander far back in our past (or the USA's) to see examples of institutional and legislative dehumanisation. You don't have to look very far at all to see how our societies have treated people that the law has determined are not as good human beings as others - women, the Japanese/Chinese/Irish (particularly in the USA), homosexuals, black people, Jews, the disabled, gypsies, indigenous people, and I've not gone as far back as the 1930s yet...

Although in 2019 the bulk of Western societies are recovering from that and recognising that people should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law (as long as they aren't Muslims), the reaction from the periods where we didn't do that is still painfully obvious. There's also the reaction to that reaction - some feel the swing is going the other way (and some think it should) and feel under threat. You've also got poverty, drugs, gangs, the fetishisation of death and violence (and guns) in entertainment and - particularly - news media, internal racism ("you can't be black if you don't act black").


Of course where the UK and USA differ is that if you are the victim of a violent crime, you are more likely to die from it in the USA because... well, they've got lots of guns (same as you're more likely to die from a suicide attempt). This is usually the bit us Brits see: gun deaths because guns. I'd concur with some vigour that dying is more bad than not dying, but it's not always a comfort that your rapist did not murder you before/during/after your violation - and some victims of violent crime, particularly rape survivors, do later become suicide statistics when really they should be murder statistics.

Somewhere else that the two countries differ is that potential victims in the USA may have weapons too. "Defensive gun use" is actually intensely hard to nail down statistically because they are almost never recorded - if a potential victim has used a gun in self-defence and foiled the crime, there's no crime to record, and it'll recorded as homicide (likely lawful) if there's an exchange of fire and either (or both) die. There's some very low ball estimates along with some very high ones, but a meta-analysis of these puts the number of DGUs at broadly equal to the number of violent crime offences (there are some lower estimates, and some higher).

That's particularly interesting as it means that without guns, the USA would probably have violent crime at a rate of double what it is now. If the high estimates are correct, it'd be yet more violent still, and this is pretty crucial. If we're acting like guns are the problem and trying to limit, or even reduce, the numbers of guns in private hands, we'll actually drive violent crime up (at the very least in the short and medium term; I'd guess long-term too as I can't imagine criminals disarming because civilians are disarmed - they still need that extra level of power to intimidate, and they'll still kill each other). Deaths might go down simply by reducing the chances of an exchange of fire - although the bulk are suicides, the bulk of the remainder are inner city violence, and the bulk of the remainder from that is cops - but I wouldn't like to guess on that one.


As you can see, it's an intensely complex picture with myriad moving parts (and a lot of non-moving ones, which is usually governments) and no clear picture on either what the issue really is or what steps to take to solve it - or even whose job it should be to do so (government's role is to protect rights and stopping people being the victims of crime is the embodiment of that purpose, but can it make movements on any of the things I mentioned above without overstepping that remit?). It's not that deaths are an acceptable price of freedom (they aren't; each non-operator death is by definition someone's freedom lost), or that there's no appetite to solve it, it's that it's a seemingly infinite tangle which people can't even agree on where the start point is.

Where the start point isn't is the gun. Boiling the whole problem down to "these people died by gunfire, so guns are the problem" misses every single step on the path that lead to that guy picking up that gun to kill people with it, and it misses every single step of another guy picking up a different implement to kill people. Stopping the guy from deciding to - or feeling that he or she had to - commit an act of violence should be the goal.


*To a point. We're not talking about a 1,000-yard shot into the gold; most people can hit something six feet away with most handguns.

Most people with deeper mental health issues don't realise they have them. It takes a functioning brain to be aware that the brain is malfunctioning so... yeah. It usually only becomes apparent when other people (often those outside the immediate circle; your family grows up with what it thinks are your "quirks") become aware of it.

For reference, bypass your GP and self-refer to your local mental health services. If you need a hand locating what's most appropriate to you, PM me.

I tried, at length to make the point that I’m not attempting to ‘blame guns’. I don’t know why you opened your reply with some statistics, because it reads as though, to you (and maybe American’s in general), mass shootings aren’t really a problem.
Which again, kinda addresses my own conclusion; that American’s, don’t care about them.

If suicide or indeed any gun violence was really seriously something American’s cared about, they’d probably have addressed them.

I’ll be honest, don’t see much value in debating gun laws and restrictions with you or indeed with anyone else in the thread. It’s why I keep harping on about mental heath, as it seems agreed on both sides of the gun debate to be a serious contributing factor.
Mental health solutions would also (presumably) help reduce those suicide statistics you seem so concerned about too.

So again; if shocking events like mass shootings can’t sway the American people that something should be done (like addressing mental health support, or the lack of). Would anything? And if nothing can sway them, can they even be said to care?

 

[Joey D]

So why is it brought up? Is it done so that it adds to the confusion of the situation, to make it seem more complex than it is? Is it just part of the smoke screen to make sure people don’t mention banning guns or doing anything meaningful?

I don't know, you'll have to ask someone that brings it up. I see no reason why it should be brought up ever. My suspicion is that people don't understand video games and are somehow afraid of them.

And this is the crux of the problem; you’d sooner be insulted (that I don’t think America really cares enough to do anything about mass shooting), than actually try and look into the reasons and then do what people do for; global warming, Brexit, homelessness, campaign against the rise of fascism etc etc.
I’m only singling you out here, because you’ve already said that the time and money you feel you need to spend, isn’t worth it, simply to understand the problem.
Yet your willing to talk at length about how systemically broken your country is.

Maybe I’m being unfair, but mass shootings have been happening in increasing numbers and increasing deadliness for the past 20 years. America sits on its hands while school children are killed, while church goers are killed, while innocent random people are killed... and the reason they’ve been sitting on their hands for 20 odd years, is because; ‘hey our country is broken’. If something is broken, fix it, if not for you but for the generations to follow. You have (I’ve read) armed security, metal detectors and transparent bags, for school children... when does it end?

You make it sound like Americans have zero empathy when a mass shooting occurs. You also insinuate that Americans are cold and crass, which is not only flat out wrong, it's also pretty insulting. People in America, like people in other parts of the globe, do care about their own kind for the most part. I have to imagine Brits care about what happens to their fellow countrymen, at least for the most part.

You've also must have ignored the several times I've told you why I can't get to the bottom of the issue either. It's not that I don't care, but there is only so much time and money someone has and to research a complex issue takes a great deal of both. Not to mention I've never studied sociology, criminology, or psychology so those are barriers too. As I said, I can understand some of it at a rudimentary level, which I assume most Americans can too. But if you want me to give you some sort of meaningful reason backed up by data and facts, then it requires a deeper dive that would ultimately end up being someone's career.

I don't know how old you are, but you must understand how much it costs to undertake a study that would essentially last years.

Mass shootings are also not happening in greater numbers. They've remained roughly the same for decades, however, the number of people dying is climbing. So it's not like every year we can expect the number of shootings to multiply tenfold. It might seem like they are increasing in number though solely because the news chooses to cover them in greater detail.

You're also being incredibly naive if you think fixing one of the largest and most powerful governments in the world is easy. It's not and you can't reduce it to a simple "if it's broke then fix it." It's an asinine request and frankly one that leads me to believe you're just trolling for a response. I have to assume you're reasonably intelligent, you must understand why I can't fix anything even if I see there is an issue. It's not from a lack of caring either, it's from the size of the issue at hand and the fact we have 300 million people in the US.

 

[McLaren]

The big picture is mass shootings are a monthly occurrence and are increasing year on year.
That’s the big picture. It’s an uniquely American problem in the developed first world. Yet as a nation you seem utterly incapable of solving it, despite other massive changes you are able to accomplish.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, it's not when you actually account for more than just the "249" figure as the end all of discussion.

There is a common misconception that the United States is one of the top few countries, if not the top country, that have the highest mass shooting rates.

In 2015, the United States was actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates according to a study done by the Crime Prevention Research Center. In this study, looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the 12th highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland. More recent studies about mass shootings by country are still being conducted.

In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the death rates that resulted from mass shootings between the years 2009 and 2015. Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/

 

[baldgye]

You make it sound like Americans have zero empathy when a mass shooting occurs. You also insinuate that Americans are cold and crass, which is not only flat out wrong, it's also pretty insulting. People in America, like people in other parts of the globe, do care about their own kind for the most part. I have to imagine Brits care about what happens to their fellow countrymen, at least for the most part.

I don’t make it sound like anything other than American’s (imo) don’t care.
In the U.K. when we had a mass shooting, we banned handguns. In the 30 odd years since we’ve had four, one of which had no deaths.
We were shocked into action and so the law was changed.

I understand the same laws cannot be changed in the US, which is why I ask why little else is done.

Mass shootings are also not happening in greater numbers. They've remained roughly the same for decades, however, the number of people dying is climbing. So it's not like every year we can expect the number of shootings to multiply tenfold. It might seem like they are increasing in number though solely because the news chooses to cover them in greater detail.

You know this, yet can’t possibly read into the possible causes of these shootings?
I have a decent understanding of the U.K.’s homeless problems, yet I never personally conducted studies or years of research. The information and experts exist. I read up and educated myself, because I cared enough to want to do something about it.

It's not from a lack of caring either, it's from the size of the issue at hand and the fact we have 300 million people in the US.

300 million people, that collectively fail to come together in groups to try and solve this problem?

I’m just trying to understand why so little is done. Why people seem to just accept it. These threads only ever turn into a gun debate and go nowhere with two entrenched sides. And then the next shooting happens and it repeats.

 

[zzz_pt]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, it's not when you actually account for more than just the "249" figure as the end all of discussion.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/

Where are all those norwegian mass shooters?

Maybe they're comparing numbers based on completely different definitions for "mass shootings".

I'm very skeptical of those numbers to be honest. I Spent some time looking for news in norwegian and all that comes up are news about shootings happening in the US.

It has zero references to check the numbers too...