Mass shootings an American Problem

[Curious Cdn]

Problem?

Who says mass shootings are a problem?

Americans love their mass shootings and if you don't too, you Commie bastard, they'll effin do you.

 

[WLDB]

It's a TV problem. They turn as$holes into household names.

They still happened before tv was big.

 

[Cliffy]

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Got in your daily lie, Cliffy?\

Good for you.

“At least one explanation” about violence in the U.S. has suggested that “crime and deviance occur when there’s an unhealthy gap between people’s dreams and aspirations and their ability to reach those dreams,” Lankford explains.

See, this is important. As we continue to work to lower people's dreams and aspirations, we should see drops in crime and deviance.

 

[Corduroy]

I know a lot of you misunderstood the point of this article, but I'm just going to be naive enough to recommend a second look.

 

[Ludlow]

I don'''t know. Colpy believes that regulating fire arms leaves law abiding folks defenseless against the crooks who'll get weapons regardless of the law. I see that point Then in my country gun rights advocates want arsenals and laws that proliferate it. The gun manufacturers are making a killing. Literally. I don't know the answers. I hate guns because I've lost two in my family by way of gun violence. Going one direction will have some positives and some negatives. Going the opposite way likewise. Isn't that the way with everything though.

 

[Corduroy]

The gun debate has been done so many times before that everyone has set responses for it. We might as well create a computer program that'll randomly spit out gun debate one-liners. I think one of two things happen when people see this thread.

1. They don't read it, see it's about guns and kick into autopilot.
2. They do read it, don't get it because it does't fit neatly into the standard gun debate, mentally fall back into the standard and kick into autopilot.

If you're going to dismiss it at least understand what it's saying.

 

[EagleSmack]

Maybe we need more laws and more gun free zones.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Maybe we need more laws and more gun free zones.

I hope somebody gave that Oregon guy a ticket.

 

[Corduroy]

Exactly my point.

 

[gerryh]

The gun debate has been done so many times before that everyone has set responses for it. We might as well create a computer program that'll randomly spit out gun debate one-liners. I think one of two things happen when people see this thread.

1. They don't read it, see it's about guns and kick into autopilot.
2. They do read it, don't get it because it does't fit neatly into the standard gun debate, mentally fall back into the standard and kick into autopilot.

If you're going to dismiss it at least understand what it's saying.

Part of the problem with this article is the way it is written. The studies author puts gun ownership connection at the beginning and mentions the cultural aspect afterwards. This implies that gun ownership is the most important factor in the problem with the cultural aspect being secondary only to the problem. This implies that addressing gun ownership would be the best course of action to mitigate the problem of mass shootings with changing the cultural aspects as being only a secondary action that may or may not be needed to mitigate the problem. If he had written it the other way around there might be more buy in to the entire study. As is, people will latch on to the primary reason he has given of gun proliferation and not give the secondary reason he has given, a second look.

 

[Corduroy]

That's true. Although I think you're giving people too much benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that way too but have you seen this place?

I bet people would focus on guns whether it was presented as the primary argument or the secondary argument. The culture argument is actually one the pro-gun folk can use to support their point. But do we really think they are interested in more than the standard platitudes? For most people this debate is about advocating gun rights or advocating gun control. Actually analyzing the problem and finding a solution is not on their radar.

 

[Ludlow]

Maybe more focus should be applied as to the cause of the acceleration of mental illness in our society. Although I think someone who takes anothers life is more bad than sick.

 

[EagleSmack]

Maybe more focus should be applied as to the cause of the acceleration of mental illness in our society. Although I think someone who takes anothers life is more bad than sick.

Oh.... oh no.... that is too tough.

 

[Corduroy]

Maybe more focus should be applied as to the cause of the acceleration of mental illness in our society. Although I think someone who takes anothers life is more bad than sick.

What does that mean though? Surely badness and sickness aren't easily separated. These shooters aren't often of sound minds.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

 

[Twila]

What does that mean though? Surely badness and sickness aren't easily separated. These shooters aren't often of sound minds.

Can someone who does a mass shooting be of sound mind?

 

[AnnaG]

42% or so of all the world's privately-held firearms are in America.

This is how many times British cops fired guns all of last year: 3

August 19, 2014 · 12:15 AM EDT
Updated: August 19, 2014 · 9:00 AM EDT

Producer Jonathan Kealing (follow)
General Manager Michael Skoler (follow)

Comment

Police officers take pictures of giant puppets as they move through the streets of Liverpool, northern England July 25, 2014.
Credit: Nigel Roddis/Reuters

In 2012, 409 people were shot and killed by American police in what were termed justifiable shootings. In that same year, British police officers fired their weapons just once. No one was killed.

In 2013, British police officers fired their weapons all of three times. No one died. According to The Economist, "British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014, the police force of one small American city — Albuquerque in New Mexico — shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The Economist argues that the reason for this disparity is actually quite simple: guns are comparatively rare in the UK. Most cops don't carry them and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British officer was killed by a gun was in 2012. In the US last year, 30 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty.

In December, PRI's The World reported on Icelanders grieving after their police force killed a man — for the first time in the country's history as a republic.

This is how many times British cops fired guns all of last year: 3 | Public Radio International

Big deal.

Knife crime in England and Wales up for first time in four years | UK news | The Guardian

Metropolitan police say knife crime up 18% in London | UK news | The Guardian

So, the UK criminalises knife possession. And look what happened: U.K. Criminalizes Knife Possession; Result? Knife Violence Increases

 

[Corduroy]

Can someone who does a mass shooting be of sound mind?

We'd like to think not. Every mass shooting I remember hearing about in the news seems to have been perpetrated by someone with serious mental problems. Some more serious than others.

But our democratically elected governments frequently drop bombs almost blindly into populated areas knowing full well that they are likely to kill innocent people. Would we call them insane? And we know that they do this and care little to prevent it. Are we of sound mind?

We are quick to say that mass shooters are crazy, and they are, but there is also a sickness in our society. We can condemn the lone gunman, and it's easy to move on, but why can't we condemn as psychopathic the casual murder done by the state?

 

[AnnaG]

Can someone who does a mass shooting be of sound mind?

No.
WTH? Stupid thing won't let me post just 3 characters. It wants 4.

We'd like to think not. Every mass shooting I remember hearing about in the news seems to have been perpetrated by someone with serious mental problems. Some more serious than others.

But our democratically elected governments frequently drop bombs almost blindly into populated areas knowing full well that they are likely to kill innocent people. Would we call them insane? And we know that they do this and care little to prevent it. Are we of sound mind?

We are quick to say that mass shooters are crazy, and they are, but there is also a sickness in our society. We can condemn the lone gunman, and it's easy to move on, but why can't we condemn as psychopathic the casual murder done by the state?

That is exactly why I say that it isn't guns, or knives, or pipe bombs, or ...... atomic bombs, etc. that is the problem. The problem is our attitudes. There is simply a gross disrespect for life. Period.

erm, "gross" as in "gargantuan".