NOT A TROLL - Serious Question

The answer is a simple two parter:

Manipulating definitions (of what constitutes a mass killing/shooting) and media sensationalism (combined with the instantaneous and wide spread dissemination of it) .

The truth is, we are safer than we've ever been. Homicides in the USA for 2014 were an all-time low since we started uniform reporting over 50 years ago. Fewer than half the murders we had a short 20 years ago, when the USA rates were closer to the global average today at ~9.6 per 100K people. In 2014, the USA was 4.38 per 100k.

And please remember that the toll from actual "mass shootings" doesn't even amount to a .01% of that rate. Eliminating them entirely would not change our homicide figures even by an number that could be attributed to anything but typical fluctuations.

It's not an epidemic, despite a sycophantic media's attempts to make it seem that way.

The fact that guns are so common and easily acquired here is obviously going to make them easier to use in a crime. The media blowing this out of proportion to perpetuate their Leftist agenda only serves to enhance the perception of a "plague" of "gun violence".
Also, and most significantly, this country turned away from it's moral foundation in a big way back in the 1960's, while embracing atheism, materialism, unrestrained sexual gratification, recreational drugs, etc., and our society has been going off the rails, and been paying the price ever since.
Barring a serious turn-around that has almost zero chance of occuring, this is only going to worsen.

But lately, with all that's been going on there's one question I've had a hard time answering. Why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?

Click to expand...

The non-terrorism related shootings happen principally because the perpetrators are malignant narcissists who crave attention, which is then lavished upon them.

I'll bet you've heard more about the Colorado theater and Carolina church murderers more in the last year than you've heard about Mick Jagger.

It's like using bloody fish guts as shark repellent.

But hey there's BIG money in media glorification of mass murderers, WAY more than in gun sales.

Something else to consider; anti-gunners love to say that high gun ownership should prevent mass shootings, while conveniently forgetting that even if 100% of non-criminals owned guns that wouldn't prevent any crimes in public if citizens aren't allowed to legally carry sidearms.

When it's not hard at all for anyone to get ahold of a gun, yet you can't legally carry, well it's not conducive to preventing mass shootings.

Does the rebel fighting ongoing in Syria or has occurred routinely in the Middle East, Africa, or occasionally in South & Central America (including drug cartel related violence) count as mass killings? Apparently not according to our liberal media and the POTUS.

We do have a serious problem since our culture values fame & noteriety highly, some of the "broken" among us take a violence path to achieve that fame. If the solution were easy, we'd have found it already. How to we disarm criminals and terrorist but not law abiding citizens? How do you stop crime before it happens? I wish I knew.

John Lott's study puts it in perspective:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...im-that-us-is-only-host-to-mass-killings.html

"Why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?"
It is well documented that frenzied media reporting causes copycats, of the methods if not the message. Secondly, the attacks use guns because they are the most convenient and accessible means to inflict harm on others; they were invented for that reason after all, and it is why they work equally wel for denfense.

Basically, unbalanced folks out there see a mass attack as an outlet or climax for their insanity (as opposed to suicide or 'conventional' murder) and guns are easy, inexpensive, amd readily available means (with the bonus that they are unlikely to be available to victins in many areas via GFZs).

Remember the frenzy over how many serial killers or assassins we had in decades past? Or cult suicides? That's because recurrent killngs and targeted assassinations were promoted as outlets for unbalanced killers. When is the last time a serial killer ruled the airwaves, Beltway Sniper? Maybe, though that was technically Islamic terrorism. Giffords was the last assassination attempt of any significance, I think it had been decades since something similar. Eventually we'll reach a statistical lull in the rate of mass shootings, and they will fall out of favor (the media is already clearly bored with reporting then), as some other barbarity becomes favored.

The one wrinkle is that "mass shooting" is becoming a fluid term, used whenever a gun is used in a public setting, regardless the motivation, tools, tactics, or outcome. That just means the term will become meaningless.

TCB

The U.S. mass shooting rate per capita, and frequency per capita, are both comparable to Europe's, falling about halfway down the list..

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

The "ZOMG 350 mass shootings per year, huge increase" meme is based on dramatically redefining terms, shifting from the FBI's longstanding definition of "four or more people killed in one incident, not including the perpetrator, and not related to a gang shootout" to "four or more people grazed by a bullet, including the perpetrator, for any reason or motive".

Then, you compare the "four or more people injured at all by bullets" figure for the USA to "four or more people killed" in other nations, and it makes the USA look much worse than it is.

I'll also point out that more people have been murdered in France in mass shootings in 2015 alone than have been murdered in all U.S. mass shootings since Obama took office in 2009.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/fr...during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

Finally, the guns the prohibitionists are demanding to ban (modern-looking rifles) kill far fewer Americans annually than bicycles; the FBI Uniform Crime Reports puts the number at under 300/yr for all rifles combined, compared to ~720 bicycle deaths annually.

You seem to be forgetting the population of America is massive compared to European countries, Texas itself is bigger then Germany and France combined. So with higher population and guns of course the numbers will be strewn. If a European country was as populated as the US I think you may see the same if not more.

By that respect - with Frances size and population with the fact that they have had more shooting victims then Obama's entire presidency, would that make France - a strict anti gun state - mass shooting capital of the world? Right now you have a better chance of being gunned down in France in a "mass shooting" then the US.

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries? Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Murders will still happen, but without guns wouldn't the number be dramatically lower?

Click to expand...

No, it would not. You are confusing *legal* access with access.

Most murders in this country are committed in urban areas with lower-than-average rates of legal gun ownership, largely by people with prior arrest records, many of whom cannot so much as touch a gun legally. Chicago is Exhibit A on that point, where lawful ownership is well below average, and where around 90% of murderers and 50% of victims have prior arrest records. Most of those murders occur in pursuit of other criminal enterprise, and most of them get their guns the same way they get their drugs. Taking away the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to own a gun would not affect those murders in the slightest. Most states without dysfunctional urban cores (e.g. Vermont, where anyone can carry a concealed handgun without a license, and AR-15's and such are legal and common) have murder rates comparable to Europe; our murder problem is primarily an urban-dysfunction problem.

As to the efficacy of bans, did a Federal ban on alcohol stop people from drinking alcohol? No, it drove it underground, and thereby exempted alcohol from all taxes and regulations. It also pushed the market toward harder and more profitable forms of alcohol (away from beer, toward distilled high-proof forms) and vastly increased the social cost of alcohol consumption.

Has the 70+ year old Federal ban on cannabis stopped people from using cannabis? No, it drove it underground, and thereby exempted cannabis from taxation, distribution controls, and point-of-sale age limitations. It also pushed the market toward harder and more profitable drugs (cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, etc. etc.) and vastly increased the social cost of drug use.

Given those examples, why do you think that a Federal ban on gun ownership (which is laughably impossible, given that we already own 310+ million guns, tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, a billion magazines, and given that gun ownership has majority support among the public, law enforcement, and military) would impair criminals from getting guns in the slightest? It would simply drive the production and distribution of guns underground, making it exempt from all regulation, and push the market toward submachineguns and ex-military automatic weapons. Cartels can and do manufacture guns from scratch, or obtain them through corrupt government/military/LE channels, and distribute them, and more dangerous types are far easier for a criminal enterprise to make or obtain than semiautos are. If a ban were to drive all gun production underground, then the U.S. gun scene would start to look a lot more like Mexico's, I suspect, as guns could be smuggled into the country disguised as routine cocaine shipments. So, no, that would not be a benefit.

As to lesser bans, such as banning "assault weapons" (i.e. civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out), more people are murdered annually using shoes and bare hands than are murdered using all rifles and shotguns combined. Twice as many are murdered with knives as with all rifles and shotguns combined. More people die in bicycle accidents than are murdered using rifles and shotguns combined. So how would a ban on some types of rifle handgrips affect gun murders at all?

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries? Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Absolute numbers are used deceptively. What European country has 300,000,000 people? In absolute numerical terms, we have more HAMMER murders than any of them too.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly. You have to use per capita, and you also must remember differences in reporting and documentation. Certain circumstances that are categorized as homicides in one nation aren't necessarily in another; our homicides include justifiable homicides, both by citizens and government agents (namely police). Granted, they are a relatively small percentage, but counted nonetheless. So are things like unintentional manslaughter. Also, the majority of intentional unlawful homicides are criminal on criminal; average Joes and Janes just aren't being offed in great numbers.

We are the most divere population in the world, and the 3rd largest. Honestly, our numbers aren't near as bad as some would have you believe. We don't even rank in the top 100 nations for homicide per capita.

How to we disarm criminals and terrorist but not law abiding citizens?

Click to expand...

That question can be shortened to simply How to we disarm criminals and terrorists . The answer is pretty obvious: You can't.

Over 2,700 people have been shot in Chicago this year alone. The number of people involved in "mass shootings" in the US is nowhere close to that...so why are "mass shootings" the bigger issue?

I'm guessing it's because they are easier to sensationalize on a national level, and it's easier to adapt to a political agenda.

Illegal immigrants kill far more people in the US every year than do terrorists. So why is terrorism the bigger deal? It's more sensational, can be steered toward their anti-gun agenda, and dealing illegal immigration would require liberals to give up a bedrock political agenda.

More children get killed by swimming pools every year than by guns...so why aren't pools the bigger issue? It's more sensational to say kids are killed by guns, therefore you can influence peoples emotions enough to get them to support your political agenda.

The media and politicians shape what the issues are in the news...not logic. Logic left the building a long time ago. In fact, it might have stayed out in the parking lot and never been in the building in the first place.


http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

Yup. Americans pretty much only "know" what you tell them. Get control of that and you can make them "believe" anything at all. This nothing really new - they've been doing it for a long time. If people would just stop watching CNN and MSN and FOX and try to develop some kind of thinking skills.

Yup. Americans pretty much only "know" what you tell them. Get control of that and you can make them "believe" anything at all. This nothing really new - they've been doing it for a long time. If people would just stop watching CNN and MSN and FOX and try to develop some kind of thinking skills.
Drail is online now Report Post Quick reply to this message
Reply

Click to expand...

A lot of dystopian books and movies (correctly) postulate exactly that. It's too bad some folks who take NCIS or Law & Order so seriously are quickly dismissive of pop culture that alludes to such more realistic Orwellian conditions and possibilities in our world, present and future. Somehow, to them, a Beverly Hills home converted to plush crime lab run by 3 or 4 chic, attractive people tracing a bullet to a gun owner and getting a murder conviction in 24 hours is plausible, but Hollywood representations that are not so far removed from real world proposals like agenda 21 "could never happen here".

Let’s simplify the mass shooting and gun control question(s) and start out by looking at gun history.

1100 years of gun powder propellants - (invented by the Chinese during the Tang Dynasty in the 9th century)
700 years of direct fire, portable weapons (guns) - (invented by the Chinese in the 13th century)
235 years of repeating arms - (Girondoni air rifle 1780)
135 years of semiautomatic weapons - (Mannlicher Model 85, 1885)

Despite the ready availability of semi-auto guns for 135 years, it seems that only in the past 35 years that mass shootings have become a problem.

Therefore, the question that should be asked is, “What are the stimuli causing mass shootings?”

The answers to that question are not guns, nor the availability of semi-auto guns, nor easy access to guns as that has become more controlled and difficult and NOT easier. Consequently, given the history of guns, more gun control cannot be the answer.

There is not a single answer to the question, and the answers are not simple. The stimuli causing mass shootings are multi-faceted. The stimuli for mass shootings are what need to be examined.

Unfortunately, the press and liberal government representatives don't want to examine that question. They'd prefer to identify an impersonal reason (gun availability) as the culprit and pretend that is the root cause - and it's not.

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries? Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Murders will still happen, but without guns wouldn't the number be dramatically lower?

Click to expand...

First, it's debatable whether more people are shot here than elsewhere. We'd have to look at the number per million of persons. It also doesn't matter.

If only leos and the military were allowed access to firearms in the U.S. the number of killings by handguns would certainly be less. If there were no motor vehicles the number of deaths by accidents on the road would also be less. If no bathtubs the number of folks who slip and fall...well ya get the point.

This is a point anti-gunners make about suicide. If there were no guns the number of people who commit suicide with guns would be greatly reduced. They argue that guns are so easy to get and so easy to use and handy that making guns harder to get will lower the suicide rate and save families the hardship of that. That's possibly true or at least there's some truth to it. But it's also beside the point. Wouldn't more suicide prevention programs and access to counseling for depression more directly address the problem and positively involve family and friends? Yes and it would not intrude on the rights of millions of people who have done no harm to anyone.

If there were no guns there would also be a black market in guns. Initially run by criminals and serving their needs but eventually serving all who wanted a gun. Think heroin.

The idea of the removal of guns from society is also a fantasy. It can't be accomplished outside of a massive violent struggle. Our ruling class knows this which is why the attempt has never been made and is not on their agenda. But, the suggestion and proposal do accomplish something. In the short term in the electoral arena but also in the long term.

The proposal for the elimination of firearms simplistically places the blame for widespread social problems on inanimate objects and it serves to criminalize all who possess that evil object...a gun. This has a political purpose. It makes anyone who uses a gun to defend their life suspect. It makes all who might use a gun to defend their political rights a dangerous person and potential criminal.

The ideas being advanced that guns=mass murder and terrorism are useful to our rulers. They make it easier to tax ammo and gun sales and thus generate revenue. They make it easier to point to the evil NRA to beat on political opponents. They make it easier to add criminal charges to anyone (political activists take note) they like (most often poor and working class people) for having "illegal" firearms or magazines in their possession. 2 rifles and 4 handguns are now an "arsenal".

The idea that only cops and soldiers would have firearms in the U.S. should make an American deeply uneasy.

So the idea of the elimination of guns is all in all a reactionary instrument and concept.

tipoc

Two days ago.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35003967

rc

Global homicide study

I'm not a fan of the UN, but they have published a Global Homicide Report each year.

I found a couple of interesting charts that make the United States look pretty good overall. Thumbnails attached.

The full report can be downloaded here:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

guitarguy314 said:

Thanks for your responses everyone.

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries? Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Murders will still happen, but without guns wouldn't the number be dramatically lower?

Click to expand...

There is a certain segment of our population, that if their shootings amongst themselves were backed out of the numbers, our country's death by shooting numbers would be amongst the world's lowest. We don't have a gun problem.

guitarguy314 said:

Thanks for your responses everyone.

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries? Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Murders will still happen, but without guns wouldn't the number be dramatically lower?

Click to expand...

Not sure about being shot but the Washington Post compiled some interesting information about the combined homicide/suicide rates of a number of nations, some with rather strict gun-control laws. Take a look yourself.




Might also want to take a look at the TTAG article where I came across this. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/dean-weingarten/combined-suicide-and-murder-rates-by-country/

Guns are used here for mas killings because they are more available. Even if you could eliminate guns mass killers would resort to even more efficient methods such as explosives. Mass killers are interested in mass killings. There are many other options.