4 ms·

OK, 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

OK, 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 ago
  In 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.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  I apologize for being late to reply. @THjr responded very well to this, but there is one more point I would like to lay out. When everyone has talked about these numbers, they've been referring to deaths and that isn't how gun violence numbers work. I understand it sounds like semantics, but when we look at statistics semantics are important. In the modern news cycle, media outlets leave you with the term "shot" and of course we think killed... and in this latest tragedy, it is an unfortunate truth. Any wound suffered is an injustice, but it doesn't mean a death and murder... though, being shot does increase the chance, I understand. Modern weaponry is very efficient (though I'd have to look up the numbers).
gsibble 4y ago
An even better number is the types of guns used in homicides. AR style weapons are used in less than 150 shootings a year on average out of 24,000 homicides. It's mostly handguns. Just because they are prevalent in particular tragedies do they get such attention. It's dumb.

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 ago
In 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.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
I apologize for being late to reply. @THjr responded very well to this, but there is one more point I would like to lay out. When everyone has talked about these numbers, they've been referring to deaths and that isn't how gun violence numbers work. I understand it sounds like semantics, but when we look at statistics semantics are important. In the modern news cycle, media outlets leave you with the term "shot" and of course we think killed... and in this latest tragedy, it is an unfortunate truth. Any wound suffered is an injustice, but it doesn't mean a death and murder... though, being shot does increase the chance, I understand. Modern weaponry is very efficient (though I'd have to look up the numbers).

gsibble 4y ago

An even better number is the types of guns used in homicides. AR style weapons are used in less than 150 shootings a year on average out of 24,000 homicides. It's mostly handguns. Just because they are prevalent in particular tragedies do they get such attention. It's dumb.