77 ms·
Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)
- tjr225 4y agoThis has literally nothing to do with hackers, computers, or engineering.
- jasonhansel 4y agoFor context: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently attributed all gun crime to mental illness, saying at a press conference that "anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health problem, period."
- bifrost 4y agoHe's not wrong.
- stefan_ 4y agoThe kids that find a gun and shoot their siblings, parents or themselves are mentally ill?
- nathanaldensr 4y agoThat's not a crime, it's an accident.
- stefan_ 4y agoNo, kids being able to access a gun and ammunition is in fact a crime. But nice try - we do the same thing with car crashes, the 2nd prominent killer of adolescents, and predictably we do nothing beyond calling them accidents.
- SoftTalker 4y agoThat's not a gun crime (at least on the part of the kid) it's an accident. Kids die in accidents, it's a very sad reality. It might well be negligence on the part of the parents or whomever let the kid gain access to the gun though.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- KerrAvon 4y agohttps://www.salon.com/2022/05/25/you-are-doing-nothing-erupt-after-beto-orourke-interrupts-texas-gov-greg-abbott/ https://www.salon.com/2022/05/25/you-are-doing-nothing-erupt... "These massacres are not natural disasters, acts of God, or random. They are totally predictable, direct consequences of the choices made by Greg Abbott and the majority of those in the Texas legislature," O'Rourke wrote to supporters in a Wednesday email.
- whatshisface 4y agoSomething can be random and also preventable.
- bifrost 4y agoIts true. Texas had a plan in to spruce up school safety, they just didn't go forward with it, its pretty sad. I read through it, it looked like it would be very effective. Luckily first responders neutralized the shooter otherwise more kids would've died.
- WillPostForFood 4y agoAll the details aren't in, but this case apparently involved a police chase that led to the school, a school resource officer was present and wasn't able to stop the shooter from entering the school (nor were the pursuing police officers). The first responders called for help, and a Border Patrol agent came to the scene, ran in alone and killed the shooter.
- throwaway662577 4y ago> … and a Border Patrol agent came to the scene, ran in alone and killed the shooter. Note that Border Patrol Tactical Unit (Bortac) agents were the ones who confronted and shot the shooter. They aren’t your run of the mill agents and they also ignored the others waiting for backup and went in before backup arrived. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were former military with downrange exposure. Lots of people criticize police in these situations waiting for backup, but the reality is a real firefight your first time is fucking terrifying, even when you outnumber the shooter. Paralysis in these situations that are more similar to urban combat than daily police work is expected.
- smt88 4y agoHe is absolutely, 100% wrong. It may be true for mass shootings, but not for overall gun violence. A lot of gun deaths are suicides. Those are mental illness. But there are categories that are just idiots with guns, like people who get into fights outside bars. There are also a surprising number of men who murder a woman who is pregnant with their child because they don't want the baby to be born. Sometimes murder is just murder and there is no diagnosis. Not all aberrations in society are mental illness.
- kube-system 4y agoI think there’s a reasonable non-chronic meaning to the word “health” as well. Like in the way someone might “take a mental health day” off of work. Someone doesn’t have to be diagnosable to be in an unhealthy mindset.
- prawn 4y agoAnd an element of desperation or poor impulse control (hormones raging in teenagers, etc).
- jasonhansel 4y ago"Being a violent criminal" is not a mental disorder; most people who commit acts of violence do not have any diagnosable mental health issues. Only a small minority (3-5%) of acts of violence are attributable to mental illness: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/10/1/18000532/gun-violence-mental-illness https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/10/1/18000532/gun-viol... edit: Even most mass shooters are not mentally ill: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-mass-shooters-arent-mentally-ill-so-why-push-better-treatment-as-the-answer/2016/05/17/70034918-1308-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-mass-shooters-aren...
- astrange 4y agoThis is a very popular statement on the twitter and all, but I think it comes from their need to support marginalized people, which ends up requiring mental illnesses to make you more virtuous and never less. So then you have to go around saying that serial killers are the most healthy people there can be and 100% rational. Surely this is a mistake? Of course we have mental illnesses that describe things like this, like "antisocial personality disorder". If anything, all we need to do is invent "wants to shoot people personality disorder".
- jasonhansel 4y agoThey're evil, vicious, and morally reprehensible. They're not (in general) mentally ill.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThis is just semantics around the definition of mentally ill. You can move away from it and ask what is unique about the mental state where someone wants to shoot children and follows through on it. You can ask if this mental state is preventable.
- guerrilla 4y agoMental illness isn't about general states and conseqncues but suffering and disability to the patient, like all illness.
- netsharc 4y agoSure, people who are mentally stable don't usually tend to kill other people, but where else in the world (or modern world) can people with mental illnesses easily acquire guns? Ah, only in the Land of the Free!(TM)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 4y agoYes he is. Cops sometimes have to shoot people. Gun owners occasionally shoot in self defense. They are not mentally ill.
- Supermancho 4y ago> Gun owners occasionally shoot in self defense. They are not mentally ill. Then that's not a gun crime and definitely outside the realm of the 1 sentence context. This is why these discussions seem to go back and forth. Wild swings of intentional ignorance, as to what the discussion is about, after having already made up their minds.
- tomrod 4y agoIt certainly can be a gun crime depending on their locale and circumstances.
- scollet 4y agoOf all the people in Texas, Abbott is likely in the top 10 of most wrong.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoSo the entire US military, who's training is heavily geared toward shooting people and many of who's members have done exactly that, are all mentally ill? Don't get me wrong, I think there is a case to be made that they might be, but good luck being a conservative politician who says all veterans are mentally ill.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- steve76 4y ago
- freediver 4y agoI sincerely hope this does not descend into a flamewar. We can't have discussion about this in an intellectually stimulating way in congress, we can't have this discussion in the media, we obviously can't have this discussion on social media so HN is the last bastion of hope. It is a multi-faceted problem with a lot of complexity. The fact stands that USA has a school shooting problem [1] unlike any other country in the world. My main question is how did we get here? There must be an inflection point in the past - any historians out there who can tell us when did this began to be a thing and what was the root cause? Also any argument like "mental illness" or "ease of access to firearms" needs to explain why the same does not apply to the rest of the world. There are mentally ill people everywhere and many countries have easily accessible weapons, yet no school shootings at this scale. Can we investigate all the contributing factors? What can we do as individuals and as a society to move forward on this issue? (parent of three elementary school kids here) [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-sh... edit: I see many comments already default to "guns are the problem". I was hoping for a more nuanced discussion. Let's look at data. While US has most guns per capita, other countries are close, in the same order of magnitude [2]. For example Serbia has 40 civilian firearms per 100 people (!) and zero school shootings in its entire history. United States had 288 just this year. Why is that? Where does the urge to kill innocent children come from? [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
- whatever1 4y agoWe need gory pictures from the executed kids everywhere. Until we understand the magnitude of the horror. I look at my FB and see proud gun owners cracking jokes and I really cannot comprehend how it is possible.
- heavyset_go 4y agoFelt the same way about COVID and war. If cameras were allowed into ICUs, and into war-torn areas, and not just the carefully choreographed media tours the military sometimes allows these days, things would change.
- dane-pgp 4y agoDo we want policy decisions to be influenced by which side can produce the most emotive imagery, though? This is just "think of the children" with more steps. For example, if you're going to highlight the scenes from inside ICUs, why not also show images of children crying when receiving their COVID jabs?
- heavyset_go 4y agoI think the public should be afforded the opportunity to see the real effects and results of the policies they enact. Propagandists are going to propagandize whether the truth is out there or not, and I think it is better to allow for the truth to prevail at all, than to have it shrouded and obfuscated because of fears that it might spook some.
- vkou 4y agoNo, it should instead be influenced by the side that shouts the loudest in a Fox opinion piece. The propaganda you decry is already well-embedded in our discourse. It's people shouting about Obama hosting death panels that will kill grandma, or how Biden will somehow turn this country into a socialist paradise, or how the Dems are stealing the election. The kind of censorship you are asking for does not enhance discourse. It diminishes it. If people are creating policies that produce horror, they need to be able to stand in front of that horror, and affirm that they are okay with it. Not whitewash it with euphemisms, and statistics and 'this is uncomfortable to talk about.'
- devmunchies 4y agono mention of fatherhood or role models.
- tclancy 4y agoGo for it.
- devmunchies 4y agoNo mention in the article.
- Datenstrom 4y agoIn my personal experience it certainly played a major role. I've had gun safety and respect drilled into me so deep since I was a small child the most powerful cringe reaction I can possibly experience can only be triggered by someone mishandling weapons. Unfortunately it also happens when I see it in movies. At least that is what I attribute it to, I have never stuck around anyone I've seen mishandling or even talking about mishandling weapons long enough to learn anything about them. I've certainly met plenty of women that could teach their sons the same principles though so I don't think fatherhood is a hard requirement. Edit: Not commenting about male violence just respect for and proper handling of firearms in general.
- lastitude 4y ago
- 650 4y agoAre you saying this is nature/genetic or nurture/environment?
- astrange 4y agoEnvironment isn't "nurture". If you were born in the 70s your parents weren't intentionally giving you lead poisoning and lowering your IQ and making you prone to violent crime; it just happened on its own.
- devmunchies 4y ago> actual problem as i mentioned in another comment, male violence is largely a product of no fathers or strong male figures present.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoare children of lesbian parents incarcerated at a higher rate?
- scollet 4y agoParent is sexist, but masculinity can transcend gender which is still incorrect for their... "point".
- dane-pgp 4y ago> the actual problem: Male Violence. Do other countries with lower rates of gun violence (per capita) have fewer men (per capita)?
- recursive 4y agoWe maybe have some hope of doing something about mental illness. Not so much for the condition of male-ness. If the demographic is the intersection of mentally ill and male, it's the illness dimension that's potentially treatable.
- renewiltord 4y agoInteresting. So you can't reasonably turn mental health diagnosticians into detectives. Fair enough. I buy it. The range of normal childhood behavior is quite wide and often only seems damning post-hoc. When I was young, I made a CS map of my school (not very accurate) with one bomb site in the headmaster's office. Clearly mentally ill. Or maybe just having some fun.
- settrans 4y agoLet's see what happens when you apply critical analysis and derive conclusions from data instead of rhetoric: Real Talk about School Shootings – where show how school shooting numbers are a terrible thing around which to craft policy. <https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-school-shootings https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-school-shootings> The Gun Solution - where we fix the entire gun problem. <https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-gun-solution https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-gun-solution>
- johnmarcus 4y ago> They’re (school shootings) not even a blip on the radar screen in the overall “gun deaths” problem. LOL. Um, IDK, some people might disagree. Some people - like those innocent childrens' parents - might think it's like 99% of the problem.
- settrans 4y agoSurely then, we ought to ban pools, wall off access to the beaches and lakes, and generally prohibit human contact with water, as drowning is 100x more likely to kill than school shootings. And any parents of innocent children who have drowned are no doubt incensed by the outcome!
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoWhile we don't ban beaches and pools, we do require them to be monitored by trained lifeguards! I think we should have reasonable safeguards in place for guns as well.
- wilsonnb3 4y agoI don't think pools or beaches have to be monitored by lifeguards anywhere that I have lived. You just have to have a sign that says 'no lifeguard'.
- Supermancho 4y ago
- krnlpnc 4y agoI wish it were possible to use git with government policy. I want to diff the gun laws and health service offerings between a countries a with low gun violence and the usa to look for commonality. This is an American problem and I find it strange how closed off many Americans are to adopting “best practices” from other countries who have this issue solved.
- jonp888 4y agoAs a foreigner, I do not see it as productive to seek any explanation or expect any reaction when yet another news story like this comes along. It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live, and it is their perogative to do so.
- tomrod 4y agoWay more than half don't want to live like this. We live in a broken system dominated by a minority of states.
- chmod600 4y ago
- rubyist5eva 4y ago"why doesn't my country just let me stomp all over the rights of people that don't want to live like me"
- EugeneOZ 4y agoAs a foreigner, I have an impression that americans can buy a gun at 18, but cun buy a cigarette at 21. Maybe I’m wrong, but still... Call me an “old-timer” but I do think you could use better psychological tests before letting them buy a gun.
- bifrost 4y agoIts because buying a gun is a civil right. Smoking is not. That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.
- tomrod 4y agoI've noticed your eight comments in this thread to date are fairly declarative but aren't well founded or sourced, simply assertions and often appear to be incorrect as responding comments have shown. Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.[0] [0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...
- nulluint 4y agoThis is a great time to make “Minority Report” a real thing with precogs catching criminals before they can act.
- whatshisface 4y agoAlthough this article is full of false dichotomies ("far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."), the message that we should not allow the damage done by mass shooters to extend to making us treat mentally ill people even more poorly than we already do is an important one and worth sharing. The way fear makes us do things that increase the damage done to society by a violent attack is an old phenomenon that shows up again and again in our history. We should be careful to avoid it.
- UnpossibleJim 4y agoOK, I'm hoping for a nuanced and civil discussion, but here goes... America (where I live and was raised) does not like to parse numbers, when it comes to these things. Both "mass shootings" and "mental illness" are dividable into smaller chunks than their current definitions and need to be handled in different ways than a "winner take all" approach. "Mental Illness" is a broad spectrum and cannot be lumped into a giant bin, and should in no way be discussed a such. Of course there are mentally ill people who should not be near guns. I don't think that's a question... well, to most. Anyone who says different is using them as a lever to get things pushed through or has no experience. This, however is not all mentally ill people. The definition is so vague as to be almost meaningless, at times. Oh, do you have a sexual deviancy like being choked?... You might, technically, have a mental illness, but since it isn't very detrimental to your well being, so long as you set boundaries, you're probably OK. Probably. "Mass shootings" are defined by any shooting that has 4 or more victims. This does get divided, once you dig down a little further in the database, but it's all lumped under the "Mass shooting" header. This is driveby's (sp?), party shootings, drug buys, etc... not that that is better, or should be taken with a cavalier attitude. Far from it. But, if you are looking at it from a preventative stand point, it's a completely different equation. These aren't going to be legally obtained, randomized violence, caused by mental illness. These are generally crimes of poverty, means and lack of opportunity. Gun laws and access to mental health facilities aren't going to stop these, but job programs, education, birth control, manufacturing facilities, infrastructure and treatment services might.
- DeathArrow 4y ago>But, if you are looking at it from a preventative stand point, it's a completely different equation. These aren't going to be legally obtained, randomized violence, caused by mental illness. These are generally crimes of poverty, means and lack of opportunity. So someone is killing people because he is poor and needs money? Why doesn't he work instead?
- THJr 4y agoIn the U.S. this is often because someone can't work. When you're stuck in a poor area, job opportunities are extremely limited. Public transport is very limited, so you often can't get out of the immediate area to find a job, and most jobs are very restrictive about criminal history. You can get something minor on your record, and be stuck out of work until you can get enough money to move closer to a place which will hire someone with a crime on their background check, which is now near impossible to do legally. This situation can make one desperate enough to attempt crimes which can lead to murder, such as armed robbery.
- rajin444 4y agoUS Population growth of around 100-120 mil from the 60s/70s onward due to primarily immigration has never been done before. No ruler who cares about their people would attempt such a thing - cultures must be joined slowly and carefully. American culture started dying right around then. Shootings like this are a side effect. Maybe things will get better, but current trends appear to signal the opposite. I’m genuinely curious if a new “global” culture will come out of all this turmoil or the US will end up like Brazil.
- MrMan 4y agoI dont have the power of down vote but I am glad I dont because I am required to call you out in text for being a disgusting white nationalist racist, and I realize you are no longer a fringe minority. I hope you change your opinion on these matters but the prevalence of such views has caused me to give up hope. All my ancestors who came here were immigrants and they did some terrible things to establish themselves. There is no good American culture, its a myth. More new people give us an advantage over countries that are very homogeneous. In short, we should literally be recruiting whomever is willing to. come here - people are an asset, not a liablility. From the most basic economic point of view, a country with a string positive growth rate has an advantage. But I could go on.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- condercet 4y agoIt is not fair to place the blame for this epidemic of violence squarely on those suffering from mental health issues. Mental health issues are distributed globally, but the gun violence problem is not. People who suffer from mental health issues are tremendously more likely to be victims of violence, rather than the perpetrators. These individuals already suffer from tremendous discrimination and hardships in their lives. Those who would place the blame in this direction while deflecting from the ease of access to firearms are acting disingenuously. We continue to do nothing, and I wish I could say that nothing continues to happen - but Americans continue to die from this senseless violence with shocking regularity.
- bifrost 4y agoIf we're going to talk numbers - most gun deaths involve gang/drug activities. The real numbers once you remove suicide and gangs all point to mental illness and DV/Violent individuals.
- jka 4y agoCould you add a reference to some statistics around that? I found this, although it mostly contradicts your claim (with the exception of gun deaths due to assaults on people in the age range 5-34): https://web.archive.org/web/20180829034947/https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/firearms/data-details/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180829034947/https://injuryfac...
- westondeboer 4y agothis is a talking point that has no proof.
- greatwhitenorth 4y agoIndia has 4 times the population of US and I've never heard or read about a school shooting or a mass shooting. There is way worse poverty, mental illness, lawlessness, corruption at every level in India. The only difference is easy access to guns. Not sure why it's so difficult for gun worshippers in US to understand this.
- deltree7 4y agoWhat about statistics about rape, violence, thefts, invasions, random-beating-up? If the victims of these crimes had guns(or threat of having a gun), what would the statistics look like?
- greatwhitenorth 4y agoThe security guard with the gun at the school couldn't even stop the shooter in the recent shooting and got killed. Same with the security guard in the Buffalo shooting. Someone with multiple AR-15s is still going to murder your whole family.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoWhy would you claim India is almost identical to the USA except for this one variable (which seems like a laughable simplification anyway), and not, say, El Salvador or Serbia? Seems like a classic case of searching for data that confirms your opinion.
- greatwhitenorth 4y agoSeems like you're incapable of comprehension and searching for something that I never said.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoI'm not, you clearly claimed that access to guns was the only difference between USA and India. > The only difference is easy access to guns.
- krnlpnc 4y agoWhat if guns were treated similarly to cars? Mandatory training, License w/ renewals, registration w/ renewals, insurance mandatory, yearly inspection mandatory, etc. Personally I feel people should be able to defend themselves while at the same time deterred from stockpiling and accessing mass casualty capable arms.
- bifrost 4y agoWhat you are suggesting is illegal. Its illegal to license a right. We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're unable to catch psychopaths before they kill people.
- yedava 4y agoI think it is possible to entertain the notion that these laws are not some inviolable physical property of the Universe, but something we made up and so are also something we can undo.
- buscoquadnary 4y agoIn this case in the US it requires a constitutional amendment. Although in all honesty even if an amendment did occur the faith and trust in the government at this point is so low it would probably just encourage rather than convince gun owners.
- taeric 4y agoStrictly, it doesn't. A supreme court decision that gave a new interpretation of arms would be needed. But, as stated elsewhere, many arms and guns are already regulated. Quite heavily.
- wombat-man 4y agoI just don't think that after the way things have worked out in the past we'll suddenly see a supreme court decision that is wildly different from what we've seen. I don't think anything will change until congress decides to make an amendment which isn't going to happen unless attitudes broadly shift in this country. Buckle in, this is just how it's going to be I think.
- beloch 4y agoCanada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the U.S. (0.089) [2]. As a Canadian, it's actually shocking to see that Canada's rate of mass shootings correspond well to the U.S.'s if you simply control for population and the number of guns owned by that population. I'd have expected us to be doing better. Where gun ownership laws vary wildly in different U.S. states, Canada's laws are under federal control and are, hence, consistent. Where some U.S. states have virtually no requirements of testing or training to own guns, Canada requires gun owners to have mental health checks and complete firearm safety training courses. Gun owners undergo regular background checks and will have their guns confiscated in short order if they ever commit a criminal offence. Where many U.S. states permit concealed carry of handguns, handguns are virtually illegal to carry in Canada. Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport. With all of these additional precautions, Canada really should be doing better. The harsh reality may be that the number of guns per capita floating around really is an important factor. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shoo...
- steinjones 4y agoCorrelation is not causation. How many times do people need to hear it?
- danielmarkbruce 4y agoIf X & Y are correlated, it absolutely can be because X causes Y. And if X & Y are correlated, it's more likely X causes Y than if they were not correlated. Parroting "correlation isn't causation" every time someone trots out an argument which isn't water tight is dumb.
- mikewarot 4y ago1. My ratio in this manner is awful... I need to do better How often do you: a) discuss issues with someone from the other side of the political aisle in a calm and rational manner? b) give in to the emotional urge to scream at those people? 2. Money is at the root of this, in so many ways a) Lobbyists have captured the Federal Government, degrading our faith in Government, as they have stopped representing us, and allowed increasingly dangerous failures of society to occur. This degrades trust in society. b) Advertising driven mass media, and social media, both maximize "engagement", which for the most part happens to be gut level emotional response. c) The political parties use wedge issues and false choice to divide up the voters, and suppress actual reform, especially rational voices calling for reasonable compromises. They do this to remain in power, and keep getting that sweet sweet stream of money from their donors. 3) I think we have to start on a personal level to fix this. None of the larger system issues can be fixed before we fix the base issue, broken trust. We need to call each other out when we notice our friends talking about "those people". We need to try to agree on reasonable compromises, instead of fear of slippery slopes forcing us to say insane things to defend our "position"
- bifrost 4y agoMoney has very little to do with people excercising their civil rights.
- colechristensen 4y agoIf you want to start on a personal level to fix this, yelling about politics is not the solution. Be kind to people, especially people who don’t seem to fit in and are alienated by the world. Teach your children to be kind to people and encourage others to be too. A common thread in so many of these events seems to be someone breaking in an unkind world and lashing out violently.
- str34m 4y ago
- librish 4y agoIt's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own firearms. But so many people are utterly irresponsible, and guns make that irresponsibility lethal. People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. People shouldn't point a gun at someone unless their life is in danger and they're prepared to take a life, but they do and people get shot by accident, or road rage turns deadly. Not to mention the suicides. If you own a gun ideation can turn into action in less than 30 seconds and it can seem like a painless, easy way to go. And when everyone is armed everyone wants to be armed. Cops pull their guns quickly out of fear of armed criminals. Regular people want to own a gun because they feel like everyone else does, and they're now less safe unless they also get one. Growing up outside the US I never saw any guns. I don't know of anyone who had a gun. I don't know of anyone who knew anyone who had a gun. I remember seeing military members in parades carrying guns because it was one of the few times I'd actually seen one. Cops didn't walk around armed. There are other ways to kill people but guns are an especially effective, intuitive, and easy way to do so.
- raisehuman12 4y agohttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... -evidence that assault weapons ban significantly reduced firearm related mortality in USA in 1994 for 10 years.
- la64710 4y agoGreat news from Canada. Freeze put in place for handguns and mandatory buy back of assault rifles. (Also as a side note to Moderators - some people in this thread are unnecessarily flagging comments that supports gun control. Lot of people speak about free speech , hope that is practiced here.) https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadas-trudeau-freeze-handgun-ownership-mandatory-buybacks https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadas-trudeau-freeze-handgun...
- karmelapple 4y agoHere’s a roadmap for policymakers that I think is steeped in evidence: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/claireboine/files/policy.brief_.summary.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/claireboine/files/policy.b... There are 3 recommended policy changes in there.
- elforce002 4y agoAs a foreigner I find this subject very complex since the right to bear arms in on the US constitution. To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. I'm still in favor of law abiding citizens having a way to defend themselves. My Dad and Mom were almost killed by a burglar with an illegal gun while they were at home!. A burglar got inside my house while my pregnant wife and me were sleeping. If she were to go to the bathroom or anything else, I couldn't possibly imagine what would happen. For context, it's practically impossible to buy a gun in my country. I wouldn't recommend anyone to vote for laws restricting any law abiding citizen to defend themselves and their loved ones.
- paulcole 4y ago> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.
- School-Cotton 4y agoOkay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)
- paulcole 4y agoThere are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
- swayvil 4y agothe title is designed to incite flamewar. it's clickbait.
- azlev 4y agohttps://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/access-denied-how-gun-lobby-depriving-police-policy-makers-and https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/access-d... We do lack trustful information.
- bjt2n3904 4y agoSigh. What is a "mass shooting", and how do we fix it? Four people getting shot? That seems to be an arbitrarily picked number. If two gangs are in a fight, and four people are shot, does that count? Because most people wouldn't consider that a "mass shooting". Shooting spree? Spree killings? Those terms have concrete meaning, and can't be pushed around by disingenuous people who want to inflate statistics. Until we can define the problem, we have no hope for a solution.
- my69thaccount 4y agoNow that is a domain name with hair on its chest
- Thorentis 4y agoI honestly think precedent and copy-cat syndrome are hugely to blame. "Shooting up a school" has just become synonymous with going on a shooting rampage. How do we go back from this? Even if we ban guns, how do we stop the determined from getting their hands on a gun so that they can shot up a school? It think it's incredibly tragic that we have gotten to the point where killing multiple primsry school aged children is the go to outlet for mentally ill people who want to go on a killing spree in the United States.
- colechristensen 4y agoWe have to start by giving less attention to these events. We have to start by being kind to the people who need it most and are often the most difficult to be kind to. You can’t just create a way to think of people who do things as some sort of “other”, we are all human and capable of similar things given the wrong circumstances.
- chmod600 4y agoI've often wondered what would happen if mass shootings were just reported in some dry government report released on some Friday in July. (Obviously this would either have to be a voluntary media cooperation or violate the free press. But an interesting hypothetical.)
- awsrocks 4y ago
- jimbob45 4y agoReplacing the perp’s name with “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in major publications seems like a strong first step.
- watwut 4y agoUnfortunately, that would be also great ground for misinformation about those shootings. Which is already large factor - both with regards to concrete incidents and general culture.
- gusbremm 4y agoThe boy was a perfectly good citizen for his entire life until the last millisecond before pulling the trigger.
- a_square_peg 4y agoMaybe slightly off-topic, but I think this is a part of a larger trend of a declining empire - its inability to solve problems that have already become non-issues in other societies. From big issues like healthcare to small stuff like getting rid of pennies, I'm amazed at how the US is beholden to special interest groups under the guise of democracy and freedom, as well as its exceptionalism. One can see this in dysfunctional companies, from its inability to acknowledge the root of the problem (e.g. trying to solve product problems with re-branding), bloated bureaucracy and rent-seeking behavours (e.g. we'll just raise the price!). I really do hope things get better because the outcome is very scary but I also don't have much hope.
- tomrod 4y agoRay Dalio's Changing World Order is a good read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
- pclmulqdq 4y agoI think Ray Dalio does a good job talking about the decline of the American empire, but I'm not sure his huge bets on the rise of China are well-placed. India also appears to have a good case for "next big empire" and it is often the case that when two world powers fight, they destroy each other. For example, the UK and Germany in WWII - the UK won the war, but ended up in huge financial trouble that caused its decline.
- mahastore 4y agoIndia and China had the highest GDP 250 years ago. So it is not surprising that they will grow back again.That necessarily does not mean USA people have to kill each other. There is enough room for global prosperity if only we have the patience and the right attitude. To start with - stop killing each other.
- XorNot 4y agoThe problem is China's government supports just a monumental level of corruption and graft, and has been doing so by exploiting the "developing nation" growth boone. But that only works once: its days of 7-8% GDP growth year over year[1] are behind it and not coming back. The CCP government seems somewhat aware of this - the social credit system, internet firewall and various other police state measures seem to be an effort to "pre-oppress" the population once the growth levels off (or flat lines entirely) since the implied social contract of China has always been "tomorrow is better then today" - and that's all going to stop once the graft and corruption eats the much lower GDP growth which a developed nation has. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263616/gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth-rate-in-china/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263616/gross-domestic-pr...
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
- YATA2 4y ago
- WheatM 4y ago
- jonathanfoster 4y agoFor those interested in learning more about this topic, I recommend checking out the Violence Project by Jillian Peterson and James Densley [1]. This book opened my eyes to how complicated and multivariate this problem really is. It's much more complicated than simply guns and mental illness. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56969516-the-violence-project https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56969516-the-violence-pr...
- dsizzle 4y agoWhat are some takeaways? Normally I can get a sense from reading summaries and reviews, but finding it hard in this case.
- jonathanfoster 4y agoHere’s a larger list of the key takeaways, https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database-3/key-findings/ https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database-3/k.... For me, the most surprising takeaway was how many shooters exhibit signs of trouble prior to the shooting and how difficult it is for teachers and law enforcement to do something about it.
- dsizzle 4y agoThere's likely a flip side to that -- how many people show similar signs of trouble and never end up as a shooter? Clicking around one thing that stands out to me is a striking increase in assault rifle usage https://www.theviolenceproject.org/data-on-social-media/prevalence-of-assault-rifles/ https://www.theviolenceproject.org/data-on-social-media/prev...
- jonathanfoster 4y agoThere are certainly many people that show signs of trouble, but don’t become mass shooters. And yes, availability of firearms, specifically high capacity rifles, was found to be a significant factor to the rise in the number of victims. The Violence Project makes the argument that it’s not just mental health and availability of firearms that causes mass shootings. It’s a confluence of many contributing factors that all need to be addressed. This is why I found the book so enlightening given the typical mental health and gun control debate that is going on now. This is not a simple problem to solve in my opinion.
- iamgopal 4y agoGuns should be removed in its totality. After that if anybody wants they should allow to hold data based intellectual discussion about meaning of the constitution etc. If while we discuss all constitutional rights that were designed almost half millennia ago, people are getting killed, than drastic measures even if temporarily, are necessary.
- School-Cotton 4y agoIt’d be great if guns didn’t exist, but since this would require totally abolishing the current political, legal, and cultural system of the US and replacing it with something new, it’s hard to see how to get there in practice.
- scollet 4y agoBy doing just that.
- School-Cotton 4y agoTo be clear: concretely, you’re advocating total revolutionary overthrow of the present US regime (which is almost guaranteed to lead to civil war) in order to solve the problem of school shootings? Or did I misunderstand you?
- scollet 4y agowhat
- scollet 4y agodo you know what a calendar is
- School-Cotton 4y agoI don’t understand this comment.
- twayt 4y agoHow about having a mandatory committee that seriously investigates {physical, social, cyber, etc.}-bullying more instead of just ignoring it? We can both work on stringent gun laws and take the mental health of children/teenagers more seriously. There is a clear pattern of which demographic of people consistently commit such crimes. Using this subset of gun owners to dictate gun ownership policies is going to be a hotly contested political issue and it is going to take a while to make progress on that. I personally would hope for a future where gun ownership is very very strictly controlled. However, to claim that gun ownership is the root cause of such incidents occurring doesn't sit right with me. Sure it amplifies the amount of damage that can be done but I don't think that most of these individuals randomly woke up and decided to cause mayhem.
- smiddereens 4y ago
- pjc50 4y agoI suspect in a lot of cases you'd find the shooter either was the bully, or was ostracised because of their failure to follow basic social norms. The Columbine shooters were neo-Nazis. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/violence-hate-and-youth https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... People have repeatedly called out online hate speech as a contributory factor in mass shootings, and that runs into first amendment problems.
- engineeringwoke 4y agoAnything that violates the tight seal that the nuclear family has relative to society in the United States is universally hated. All the problems start in the family but you are not allowed to go there here, probably because of religion. It's just the way we are, unfortunately.
- xtracto 4y agoWhile most of the comments here centre on the 2nd amendment, this small thread is the only one that touches what matters. Why are kids plotting mass shootings? It's not because they have access to weapons. It's because something is VERY broken in their family nucleus and values. I understand your point that there's no way the government can police family education. But what I would suggest is to make parents and legal guardians directly and fully responsible for their kids crimes. Your children killed? You are charged with accessory murder or manslaughter. Your daughter stole? YOU are charged as well. It is YOUR choice what you decide to teach or not to your kids. But on the flipside, it also becomes your responsibility. This would also work with the problems the UK had (I lived there several years ago) of delinquent kids. You had 10 year olds doing crime who just got ASBOs (collectable paper for them,) and the parents were nowhere to be seen. Charge the parents for their children crimes, as adults.
- chmod600 4y agoAn otherwise informative article, but using the term "military-grade" seems out of place. The term has little meaning. You could call socks "military-grade" as well, and the only meaning that it really conveys is that it was cheap and barely functional enough to win a contract. And AR15s are cheap. A lot of plastic and aluminum. You could say that's a problem, if you want. But that line of argument doesn't seem to lead anywhere. In any case, "military-grade" seems like a talking point and nothing more. If anything, it gives the rifle more protection under the second amendment, which specifically references the militia.
- Aeolun 4y agoI think in this context it is used more to refer to something that ‘has functionalities that no civilian would ever need’.
- zionic 4y ago
- octonion 4y ago[flagged]
- dang 4y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: since you've been breaking the site guidelines a lot lately and have ignored our many requests not to do that, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060686 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336745 (Feb 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17624126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17624126 (July 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512781 (Jan 2017)
- awsrocks 4y ago
- jiggawatts 4y agoRound and round we go... As a foreigner, it's appalling to see every excuse imaginable trotted out every time this happens. Don't think you're fooling anyone. You're just making things up on the spot for the sake of pretending to have a rational argument, like an intelligent adult would in your place. But I will eat my shorts if you personally have spent even an hour doing the research before making statements about "what this would do", or "that wouldn't work", or whatever. I don't mean clicking "like" on a Facebook post by a fellow NRA member. Mean literally reading through scientific publications, or looking at statistics published by third parties that are unaffiliated with any United States organisation. Or just Googling to see what the other 96% of the human race does with guns and laws. ""No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22No_Way_to_Prevent_This%22,_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22No_Way_to_Prevent_This%22,_... Jim Jefferies (an Australian comedian living in the States) on gun control: Part #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 Part #2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4 Can you counter every single one of his points? Really? With facts? That you can link to in a scientific paper that wasn't paid for by a gun lobby in the states? 19 children just died. Please take this a tiny bit seriously and don't just click the reply link to blurt out something in a public forum that can be trivially shown to be false...
- mafro 4y agoPeople are always saying things like "the second amendment protects my right to bear arms". So can we have another "amendment" that removes this right?
- abvdasker 4y ago
- zaroth 4y ago> I don't know why anyone cares about… A lot of people care very deeply about it, and many have even spent a good deal of their lives elucidating why you should too.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- heretogetout 4y agoEven if the amendment for past the supermajority requirement 37 or 38 state legislatures would have to ratify the amendment. At this point it's almost certainly impossible to amend the US constitution.
- catalyst5a 4y ago
- abvdasker 4y ago
- adamredwoods 4y agoI think it would be easier to create better laws around it, than removing the amendment. For example, removing the PLCAA, for starters, to create liability from manufacturers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
- dt3ft 4y agoIn other words: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
- DeathArrow 4y agoPeople say that gun owning should be restricted. But are the mass shootings done by people who have a gun permit and legally bought the guns? Also, forbidding guns, doesn't change people minds. If someone has a psychiatric condition he can drive a large truck into the crowd, light up a crowded building or event try to poison a water reservoir, destroy a dam, derail a train, make a bomb using gasoline, fertilizer and sugar. I wonder how well the number of untreated mental health issues in US corelates with mass shootings and other mass killings. Maybe the biggest factor of people dying in mass murders is not gun control, but the fact that there are some people who reach that deranged state of mind in which they think it's ok to kill others.
- bruce511 4y agoWhile you are not wrong that there are other ways to commit mass killings, in pretty much all countries with no guns, you don't see these alternate events. So the outcomes you suggest are perhaps not the logical outcome of removing guns from society. As an example if I take Europe as a whole (the bits not in an active conflict) there aren't 600 events a year of water poisoning or trucks in crowds etc. Now true, they have different approaches to handling mental illness, so that's a factor, but even so.
- DeathArrow 4y agoBut there are many countries in Europe that allow people to own guns. And, while we have less shootings per capita than in US, there were also attempts to do mass killings by other means: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38373867 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38373867
- barrysteve 4y agoTrucks have truck licenses and are expensive to obtain, or require getting a job and passing screening. Lighting up buildings, destroying a dam (how??) and other civil engineering misadventures require way more thought and planning than shooting someone with a gun in your cupboard. Limiting gun purchases is way easier than tackling all of mental illness. We can't even define half of the reasons why people turn to the 'dark side', let alone be there for them in exactly the right capacity at exactly the right time to save their mind.
- DeathArrow 4y agoIn some countries in Europe is legal to own guns, but still, the number of shootings per capita doesn't equal that in US. So, arguing that people die by being shot is because people can own guns is the same to arguing that people die in car accidents because people are allowed to won cars.
- smt88 4y agoNo one is arguing that the legality of gun ownership is the problem. It's irrelevant because it is a right in the US. The argument is that the quantity, power, and saturation of guns are unusual. The US has far, far more guns per capita than any other country[1]. We know from other, similar countries that changing laws works[2], and those changes do include reducing the ease of getting the most powerful weapons. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian... 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-aus...
- avianlyric 4y agoIn most countries it’s legal to own guns in Europe. The difference is they’re tightly regulated and controlled, you can’t buy a gun in a supermarket. To equate European gun control with US gun freedom is disingenuous in the extreme. They’re not even remotely comparable.
- geraneum 4y agoAre the same people who can own a gun in US can also own a gun in those European countries under the same conditions?
- GrumpyNl 4y agoNo gun === Not able to shoot people.
- ausbah 4y agothe problem is easy access to guns. sure you can dance around the issue with mental health and gun ownership, but simply the high volume of guns means getting one is pretty damn easy for most people even without a license
- crate_barre 4y ago
- daly 4y ago
- houston_Euler 4y agoA problem with that logic is that it doesn't do anything to change the economics of gun sales. If you kick them off the stock market, gun manufacturers can go private, or they move their headquarters and incorporation abroad. If you prevent banks from making loans, they'll take their billions to Deutsch Bank, or HSBC, or some crypto bank that is happy to hide their money. Plus, if they're now private, there's likely no requirement to report their loans. If we tax gun sales at 100%, you'll start to see more people renting out their guns or "gifting" them. Are you buying a new mattress? We'll toss in his and hers handguns to keep under your pillow. There are hundreds of millions of privately-held guns in this country. Without a cultural shift, and an active campaign to decommission those firearms, there's more than enough supply to fuel a black market for a long time. It'd be like the war on drugs, you'd push everything underground, manufacturing would move abroad, and the lack of visibility would potentially make things worse.
- axilmar 4y agoOne side of the issue is gun availability. The other side is that the American culture has a toxic side which can drive lonely young men to perform despicable acts. Imagine being a lonely young boy, growing up getting bullied all the time, being told you amount to nothing, and it's your fault, and at the same time, while everyone around you is deep into corruption and sin, they preach to you that you should be sinless and pure! I am not American, but I can sense the contradiction from miles away. And if it goes on for too long, especially when one is young, it can turn a person into a mass murderer. Sadly, mental health issues stemming from society's ills is not really discussed anywhere and in depth. The focus is only on gun laws, gun ownership and gun availability. I am not saying that it is not an important aspect of the problem, but it cannot really be solved by just stricter gun control...even if guns were not really available, the people with mental health issues would use bombs or use other means to kill. But then the focus would be on terrorism, and the mental health problem will still not be discussed, because it's such a difficult topic...
- bearzdev 4y agoMost mass shooters come from single parent households or dysfunctional family homes. U.S families vary and many don't live near other family members where they can get help and American communities are not like other cultures or countries where they are involved in raising children. So if a child's immediate family has issues, there isn't an alternative for that child to to go to to help or for a positive role model. And there are very few public positive role models. The U.S. has the highest number of single parent households of any country. It also has some of the higher number of mental illnesses and lower numbers of mental health workers. U.S. works longer hours, have less vacation and holidays, so children are left to their own devices more. Our food supply is laden with chemicals that are not allowed in other countries thanks to lobbying and the FDA. (I'd be interested to see how that impacts mental and physical health). Our public schools are full of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. The latter being higher than Catholic churches and not very well reported on by any media. Couple that with media addiction (old,new, and social) and the phenomenon of media "contagion" where you get mass shootings in clusters due to media coverage and you have a recipe for disaster. Given the failure of the war on drugs, prohibition and the context above, not sure how gun control or confiscation would work when Americans tend to work around those kind of things. Even without guns, we now have drones so its only a matter of time before someone uses those. However, all that generally gets talked about is either gun control or more guns e.g. arming teachers rather than the underlying causes. Kids used to bring guns to schools without incidents for decades until the 90s when you started to have many latch key kids coming of age from homes where parents were never around.
- rswail 4y agoUntil Americans realize that owning a gun is a dangerous thing, there will be no change. Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. No, I don't care if you go hunting or target shoot for "sport". Tough. Live with it. The world won't be worse off if you don't shoot deer or rabbits or ducks. Weapons have specific uses in agriculture (removing pests, humane disposal of injured livestock), they have specific use in law enforcement, and they have obvious use in military activities. All other uses are nonsense in 2022. There are occasional times where someone armed has been able to use those arms in self-defense, but the use of deadly weapons as opposed to self-defense or incapacitating weapons is not an adequate reason to outweigh the disadvantages of these weapons being generally available.
- hunterb123 4y ago> Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. So is a van, see Europe. > Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. Tell that to wild hogs. Population control is a thing, especially needed for invasive boar. > and they have obvious use in military activities. Exactly, 2A is for a well regulated militia. It's to protect the rest of your rights. We'd still be under the crown and possibly still in the slave trade if not for guns. (GB and other powers did not end it first, they simply outsourced it to America) > There are occasional times where someone armed has been able to use those arms in self-defense, but the use of deadly weapons as opposed to self-defense or incapacitating weapons is not an adequate reason to outweigh the disadvantages of these weapons being generally available. There are many instances where civilians are able to defend themselves or others. Guns are equalizers for weaker humans against stronger ones, they are also deterrents. Gun crimes usually happen in strict gun controlled areas because criminals know it's unlikely they will be met with force. I carry every day just in case, both for animals and humans. Criminals will not respect your gun laws, you are only hurting law abiding citizens. edit: to below, you'd have to look at it by city, not state. most gun violence is driven by gang/cartel violence, which exists largely in certain key cities of a certain political spectrum that happen to have strict gun laws.
- andyjohnson0 4y agoAs a non-American I found Heather Cox-Richardson's recent substack newsletter post [1] to be useful in understanding how the US has got to this point. She's a history professor at Boston College and she does a good job of describing how gun ownership and control came to be (intentionally) politicised, and how the NRA's role has changed over time. Honestly, I don't see how the US is ever going to dig itself out of this hole. The reward system that leads to the perpetuating the culture war that lies behind this problem (among many others) just seems too strong. It's deeply structural and embedded in US culture, and there doesn't seem to be a way to change it. I wish there was. [1] https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-24-2022 https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-24-2022
- MathCodeLove 4y agoIt's difficult to take that article with more than a grain of salt when there's clear political bias and a lack of proper sourcing from the start. Of course political bias is inevitable, but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous. Then when referencing hard numbers and talking about the influence the NRA may have had, she doesn't back that up with anything. Her "notes" are mostly other highly opinionated articles. Had she followed any form of standard or proper notation[1] it'd be easier to believe her. But usually when people fail to make their sources easily available it's because they don't have them/they are low quality. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] Edit: Just to add another comment to this. Typically when someone claims that something which is supported by a large percentage or even the majority of a given population is the result of "extremism", they themselves are like the extremists, for better or for worse.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago> but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous Why is it ridiculous? Where are your sources for that?
- 4y ago
- jwmoz 4y agoThe problem is obvious and the solution is simple. Merica has had nearly 30 years to study Dunblane, England, the action and the statistics after.
- kulikalov 4y agoA genuine question: isn't armed population one of the main obstacles of autocratic regimes? If it is, then mass shootings is the lesser evil compared to, say, Russia, where a handful of armed psychopaths can commit war crimes on a global scale and quickly take down any internal opposition.
- doctoroctogon 4y agoQuestion for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?
- shotta 4y agoMy serious and simple response would be, why are you turning against law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the psycho criminal that was known to police prior to the event?
- doctoroctogon 4y agoI’m out here just trying to understand the philosophy and frameworks people are using. I’ve not advocated for a single thing.
- francisofascii 4y agoIt is a layered security approach. Like when a system is hacked, law abiding users have to go through hoops with crazy passwords, 2 factor auth, etc. to deal with the psycho hacker.
- BobbyJo 4y agoI think a good test is the risk an accident poses to others. An accident with a nuke, tank or fight jet can easily kill 10's, 100's or millions. With guns, a bullet is a bullet for the most part (if we are talking about human fired calibers), an the risk any given undirected bullet poses is effectively the same. Larger magazines don't increase accident risk, while being automatic or explosive does. I.E. if you're a responsible gun owner, an assault rifle with with a 100 round magazine carries the same risk to your neighbor as an old revolver (if not less since most old revolvers have no safety). The risk to others only diverges when you assume ill-intent, but then risks get whacky for tons of legal objects (plastic bags, cars, planes, pens, household chemicals).
- JofArnold 4y agoWhat are guns bringing to the table that makes them so precious? At the very least they don't seem to be capable of feeding people nor preventing attempted insurrections nor preventing innocent people being killed by the authorities. In the situations they are used for self-preservation they are only done so because the adversary has/may themselves have a gun. It defies logic; unless I'm missing something crucial is it purely a cultural thing?
- christophilus 4y agoThe US is an independent country (as opposed to a British colony) purely due to the fact that we had lots of individuals with guns who could be organized into a rebel army. (And the help of foreign arms.) I think that is why guns are so precious in the US psyche. It’s also why guns are enshrined in the constitution. There’s disagreement on why the constitution left the arming of militias up to “the people”, but I’m of the opinion that it was meant to facilitate another American revolution (against our own government should it turn tyrannical).
- JohnWhigham 4y agoit was meant to facilitate another American revolution (against our own government should it turn tyrannical). "Was" is the key word now. People have become so indoctrinated and addicted to 24/7 news cycle that they'll more readily use them against their own neighbor than the real source of the problem (government/corporation collusion).
- JofArnold 4y agoThat I guess is a big thing I can't fully understand at a deep level, not growing up in USA. Seems like hanging on to something that made sense 240 years ago. Times change. I mean, slavery was legal then... Hopefully people don't want to hang onto that too even though it was "useful" at the time? Furthermore, how in the modern world can people stand up to a government on a military level? An untrained population of gun owners with limited ammo doesn't stand a chance against the biggest and most heavily armed army in the history of the world, right?
- BobbyJo 4y agoI think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye will have moved on by then.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y agoIn some countries, criminals faces are blurred when shown on TV. American media’s obsession with tragedy and its wider reach is culprit number one in my book.
- philliphaydon 4y agoIt’s not the media’s obsession. Negative news sells. If positive news sold more than negative then we wouldn’t hear so much about it.
- pc86 4y agoEnforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? This is just not realistic suggestion.
- krisoft 4y agoThere are norms the media choose to follow on their own accord. Think for example how suicides are generally covered. Reputable organisations don't publish the details of the precise method, and they include a link/phone number to a help line for those who struggle themselves. > What is the punishment if you break it? The same as with most norms: Professional embarrassment, and loss of reputation among your peers.
- BobbyJo 4y agoThere are already plenty of laws blocking certain kind of information from news. Minors that are crime victims for instance. It's so realistic that it's already a real thing.
- politician 4y agoWhen I was in high school, two classmates committed suicide through overdose and one shot themselves. When are we going to address the elephant in the room: that the public school system systematically creates hopelessness in children by stripping them of their agency and reducing them into cattle to be managed by an authoritarian hierarchy in overcrowded conditions. There are so many more people that died or have been psychologically maimed by their public school experience than have shot up schools.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoStep 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.
- tcspence 4y ago
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoHow about because: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ... is no longer either a true or useful statement? I think I'm probably happy to toss the Third Amendment on a similar basis: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Does this speak to the problems that the republic faces today, any more so than does the Second?
- barrenko 4y agoThe first sentence is and will always be true.
- mLuby 4y agoJust because the third amendment doesn't invoked doesn't mean we should lose that protection. It's #3 for a reason. Wait till some general presents innovative cost-cutting measures called something like "homes for heroes" that no patriotic American could object to.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoIt's #3 because of the Quartering Acts; relating to a very specific set of facts during the Revolutionary War. Consider for a moment that if General Gage hadn't persuaded the British Parliament of the need to amend the Mutiny Act to require American towns to provide food and shelter to British troops, then this amendment would never have been passed. It was passed because of what was top-of-mind for the writers in the 1780s. It's dead letter. There has been one case on it in 200 years.
- picsao 4y ago
- evo_9 4y agoRepeal this law the politicians all know how to fix this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
- lamo456 4y ago
- second--shift 4y agoMy hot take on the issue: Don't regulate the guns per-se; regulate the bullets. An adult (only adults should be shopping for ammunition?) must take end-to-end responsibility and ownership of each bullet the purchase, and subsequently fire. You own the bullet from the time you take it home to the store to the time it comes to rest after firing out of a gun. The guns, other than as a mechanism for firing bullets, are not particularly harmful; certainly not more harmful than a baseball bat or a car. It's really the bullets coming out of the gun(s) we as a society are worried about. If your bullet (out of your gun, or any other even) harms property, you as the bullet/gun owner have financial responsibility of that damage. Your bullet harms a person, intentionally or not, you are responsible. Doesn't matter if your kid took it to school, or someone stole your gun & bullets; you are responsible. Many these firearm "accidents" and negligent discharges, kids getting into the guns, etc would go away if the customer at the gun store was made very aware of exactly what liability they were taking on, complete with stories and anecdotes about how irresponsible gun owners have been (financially, or otherwise) ruined by their carelessness. If we held gun owners to the responsibility they are supposedly taking on simplicity when choosing to own a firearm, this conversation would be much easier. Why are we not crucifying the parent(s) of this most recent shooter, who were the owner(s) of the gun and bullets used in the school in Texas?
- dgfitz 4y agoMaking ammo is a fairly simple process if one is so inclined to learn. I don't see how this would do anything but make a black market for ammo.
- foxyv 4y agoThe problem with this is how you identify the ammo used. If you print on the shell casing, it can be re-used after it is ejected from the rifle at the range leading to reasonable doubt about it's origin. There is also no way to tag the bullet itself. Tagging firearms and regulating them is much much easier. Can you imagine the police checking that each and every shell in a box of 300 is tagged? With regards to the most recent shooter, as far as I can tell, their only parent was a grandparent who they shot and killed before attacking the school.
- 4y ago
- slothtrop 4y agoLeaving aside the gun logistics, there is a cultural baggage at work that seems to exacerbate cases of anti-social loner teenagers intent on punishing their world. Perhaps of grit, hostility to communal aid or social services, on the conceit that it exudes strength. Access to mental health services is nice but in and of itself may not even capture all the societal symptoms where it's needed. Ground-up grass-roots effort to change culture itself may be required. There is a generational cycle of negative experience and neglect among some youth. Existing structures are not enough. That may not be a satisfying, clear-cut avenue to explore but there is clearly room for improvement and it could garner bipartisan effort. The alternative is to restrict access to concealable firearms, and going anywhere near this is politically unviable. Gun policy is used as a political football (so it doesn't even matter if more than 50% of Republican voters support better regulation), it leads us back here. That being said, as far as school shootings by teenagers are concerned, restriction of concealed arms probably works: it matters not that criminals don't acquire their guns legally, teenage shooters aren't career criminals, they just use their dad's gun, or in this case, buy it legally. And unless gun control translates to "asshole dad doesn't have a handgun", it won't mean anything. Gun advocates are leery that concessions would lead the conversation next to bans, probably correctly. If you want change as soon as possible, take the first path. Otherwise, change the fabric of politics in America. Get rid of the PACs and SuperPACs.
- netfortius 4y ago
- pc86 4y agoEven if this would work, it's never going to happen. So why even waste the energy even suggesting or debating it? The most it will do is help fundraising for pro-2A groups.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- justanorherhack 4y ago
- NoImmatureAdHom 4y agoGun violence in the U.S. is a hobby interest of mine as a researcher. Skimming the discussion here, there are several things it would be good to keep in mind: 0) Gun murders in the U.S. are a very low percentage of deaths (0.39%) and preventable deaths (~1.1%, there's some disagreement about what's "preventable"). That's 0.0036% of the population per year gun-murdered. That this statistic is 3x some other country's is irrelevant because 3x a small number is still a small number. If your goal is to prevent untimely deaths, focus on boring things like falls, car accidents, and diabetes. 1) "Mass" shootings are a tiny fraction of all shootings. In the U.S., by firearm murders, it's about 3.5%. And that's using an extremely permissive definition of "mass shooting". Usually 3+ or 4+ people shot, not dead. When most people think about a mass shooting, a gangland shootout doesn't come to mind. The people coming up with these numbers do this on purpose ("advocacy numbers"), and you should be on guard. The distribution over # shot or # dead is telling. 2) Your kids are really safe, and worrying about a child getting shot, training for it, etc. does much more harm than good. We've managed to get child mortality from all causes to be very, very low. Worry about whether your kid is happy, has friends, is fat, has good mentors. This is pretty much exactly like "stranger danger" from the 1980s in the U.S. in a statistical sense, and I would say that contributed to the current regrettable situation where kids aren't allowed to roam free at all. 3) Stuff like the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Texas makes it in to your minds because it's profitable for news media. Not because it's something you should actually think about or worry about, not because it's a real threat to you or anyone you know, but because it sells advertisements. Real risks to you as an adult reading this in the U.S.A. are traffic accidents, falls, and being too fat. 4) Ppl be like "We banned guns in Scotland and we haven't had a mass shooting since!". Great, but it's like saying I can't drown if I don't get in to the pool. Mostly true, but missing the point. The real number we're concerned with here is premature deaths, or perhaps an overall murder rate. Banning guns might result in a lower murder rate, but there's going to be some substitution (e.g. knives for guns, Glasgow being the "stab capital of Europe"...). Scotland is a very fat, very drunk country. Much more good would have been done for public health by banning Irn Bru and alcohol, but you haven't chosen to do that because people find them rewarding. People find owning guns rewarding too, it's just that the costs end up on the front page of the newspaper (mass shooting) rather than ignored because they're so quotidian (millions of years of life lost due to being comically unhealthy). 5) Don't focus on the type of gun. The fact that AR-15s are used in a lot of "mass" shootings reflects the fact that they're the Toyota Camry of guns. Good value for money, reliable, etc. If you saw a lot of a specific kind of traffic accident, and Toyota Camrys were frequently involved, would you start to scream "Ban the Camrys!"? It doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of gun murders in the U.S. are committed with cheap pistols. <2% are committed with "long arms" of any kind, including AR-15s.
- bastardoperator 4y agoMore guns equate to more deaths... it's pretty simple to understand. As a veteran not that it matters, most people I've interacted with in terms of guns see them as toys and they really like their toys. If you were to make people do a week of range training like the military, well, I don't think most people would be gun owners.
- lliamander 4y ago> More guns equate to more deaths... it's pretty simple to understand. False. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-of-a-gun/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-...
- noirchen 4y agoFrom the viewpoint of people outside the US, Americans probably believe that gun violence is just a mild condition, and decide to live with it. Just like the covid, sure it kills some people, like 10 in 100000, but for the rest 99990, at least half of them do not think something should be done.
- pombrand 4y agoNot a problem unique to America. Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015): Norway — 1.888 Serbia — 0.381 France — 0.347 Macedonia — 0.337 Albania — 0.206 Slovakia — 0.185 Switzerland — 0.142 Finland — 0.132 Belgium — 0.128 Czech Republic — 0.123 United States — 0.089 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shoo...
- 1Y3 4y agoI think posting the excerpt you choose after reading the link you provided is rather disingenuous. Your source itself criticizes the way the data is presented and provides alternative ways to display the data. Of course the problem is not uniquely US-American, but I believe the way the US deals with this problem largely is.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]