Many here seem to be fixated on turning these mass-shooting tragedies into political issues.
My question is simple.
Why not admit to the truth and be honest: that this kind of violence doesn't correlate to a particular party in power.
Before you try to make this about politics, I suggest you look at some empirical data:
According to the data, of the last 24 mass shootings in the US since 1966 (these are FBI statistics I believe):
13 during Repuplican administrations and
11 during Democratic ones.
So, do we STILL want to make this about political parties?
Okay.
What about death tolls?
The two US mass shootings with the highest number of victims killed occurred during Republican administrations. In fact, they can be broken down to even tighter correlations: They occurred during BUSH administrations.
April 16, 2007: fatally shot 32 people (Bush Jr.)
Oct. 16, 1991: Luby's Cafeteria, killing 23 (Bush Sr.)
So again, do we REALLY want to make this about political parties? Because if we do, we surrender a LOT of ground to pro-gun-control elements in BOTH parties.
I could make a statistically compelling argument that Bush administrations are worse in terms of mass shootings while being "better" in terms of loosening gun laws. A pro-gun-control person would say "SEE! Those pro-gun laws led to more deaths in mass shootings!!!!"
I could also make an argument, supported by the data, that Republican administrations are worse for mass shootings than Democratic ones. Guess what. SAME ARGUMENT.
Try and look at the statistics apolitically and you might find something worthwhile
Some want to say that mass-shootings are about economic issues.
Well, of these 24 shootings, fewer than half, (9) occurred during times of economic decline in the US. More mass shootings occurred during times of economic prosperity in this country. (depending on how you personally define "prosperity")
What else can we see from the data:
Of these 24 shootings:
8 occurred in a school or university
6 occurred in the perpetrators' workplaces
3 started in the home and either ended there or moved outward
That's a pretty NON-PARTISAN distribution. And it suggests something important:
In a majority of the mass shootings in the US (14 of 24) there were people around who either LOVED the perpetrator or who were supposedly trained and paid to spot mental instability that leads to mass-shootings and de-escalate them before they got out of hand (counselors, HR professionals, teachers, parents, spouses, etc.)
Can we admit something? Mass shootings are not about political parties any more than they are about guns -- on either side. They are about people who are hurting, in trouble, mentally unstable, and dangerous. And mass shootings (notice I didn't say "mass killings") are only going to be prevented if we as a society are better at intervening before these situations escalate.
The fact is, there is no evidence to prove that we will prevent mass shootings with arming more people. We may and I mean may, prevent mass killings with more armed people. And certainly I hope that is the case and I think that is an important goal. And, as someone who's committed to my safety and that of my family I think it's MORE important to prevent the entire episode in the first place.
Some of us here are really fond of that saying "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." Well, besides the fact that I think that's a trite little comment offered by people who've never been trough either, I ask that some try this one on for size: better to treat one than bury any.
My question is simple.
Why not admit to the truth and be honest: that this kind of violence doesn't correlate to a particular party in power.
Before you try to make this about politics, I suggest you look at some empirical data:
According to the data, of the last 24 mass shootings in the US since 1966 (these are FBI statistics I believe):
13 during Repuplican administrations and
11 during Democratic ones.
So, do we STILL want to make this about political parties?
Okay.
What about death tolls?
The two US mass shootings with the highest number of victims killed occurred during Republican administrations. In fact, they can be broken down to even tighter correlations: They occurred during BUSH administrations.
April 16, 2007: fatally shot 32 people (Bush Jr.)
Oct. 16, 1991: Luby's Cafeteria, killing 23 (Bush Sr.)
So again, do we REALLY want to make this about political parties? Because if we do, we surrender a LOT of ground to pro-gun-control elements in BOTH parties.
I could make a statistically compelling argument that Bush administrations are worse in terms of mass shootings while being "better" in terms of loosening gun laws. A pro-gun-control person would say "SEE! Those pro-gun laws led to more deaths in mass shootings!!!!"
I could also make an argument, supported by the data, that Republican administrations are worse for mass shootings than Democratic ones. Guess what. SAME ARGUMENT.
Try and look at the statistics apolitically and you might find something worthwhile
Some want to say that mass-shootings are about economic issues.
Well, of these 24 shootings, fewer than half, (9) occurred during times of economic decline in the US. More mass shootings occurred during times of economic prosperity in this country. (depending on how you personally define "prosperity")
What else can we see from the data:
Of these 24 shootings:
8 occurred in a school or university
6 occurred in the perpetrators' workplaces
3 started in the home and either ended there or moved outward
That's a pretty NON-PARTISAN distribution. And it suggests something important:
In a majority of the mass shootings in the US (14 of 24) there were people around who either LOVED the perpetrator or who were supposedly trained and paid to spot mental instability that leads to mass-shootings and de-escalate them before they got out of hand (counselors, HR professionals, teachers, parents, spouses, etc.)
Can we admit something? Mass shootings are not about political parties any more than they are about guns -- on either side. They are about people who are hurting, in trouble, mentally unstable, and dangerous. And mass shootings (notice I didn't say "mass killings") are only going to be prevented if we as a society are better at intervening before these situations escalate.
The fact is, there is no evidence to prove that we will prevent mass shootings with arming more people. We may and I mean may, prevent mass killings with more armed people. And certainly I hope that is the case and I think that is an important goal. And, as someone who's committed to my safety and that of my family I think it's MORE important to prevent the entire episode in the first place.
Some of us here are really fond of that saying "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." Well, besides the fact that I think that's a trite little comment offered by people who've never been trough either, I ask that some try this one on for size: better to treat one than bury any.
Last edited:
