Shootings In America

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Why have there been so many lately? It seems like everyone has a different opinion on this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

people know it gets them attention, so they do it.

 

the USA has the sad state of a pretty capitalist country, and pervasive possession of guns.

-only 40% of gun sales even include a background check, so that means they are being being pass around pretty freely.

-economically. in the USA, the only thing a person can be entitled to as a matter of existence, is food stamps. only until recently with obama was there medicaid expansion for poor people, and just less than half of states passed it. beyond more stark poverty, the USA is one of the worst counties in the world in terms of income inequality, they usually rank way below industrialized counties, and with rogue countries as far as that goes. it wasn't until food stamps and basic assurance of human rights to economic advantage started to occur, that crimes started to go down. this shows a clear correlation.
bad economics has ripple effects, no doubt about it, that affects society as a whole. even if the shooter isn't economically disadvantaged, he might be the victims of bullys who are, just as an example.
aside from economic issues, i'm not sure what else makes people so depressed or pissed off that they go on rampages. though there is a lot of partisian divide overall in political, than there should be.

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Not sure if the recent shooters were poor. Even if they were, there are far poorer countries that don't have this problem.

I don't know if the availability of guns makes a huge difference. It can definitely contribute, but there are many countries, like the Philippines, where guns are easier to come by.

Edited July 10, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Anastasia13]

How many of those people were not socially in a good place?

 

Hypothesis 1: Descreased community concern reducing social support network of troubled people. E.I. the increasing individualization and disassociation of community by a change in our lifestyes.

Columbine: Youth were bullied while the parents of those who were mean had no idea. So the troubled youth were even more othered, unfriended, and alone. The parents of these bullying youth were too busy both working not really taking the time to know their children in depth. Perhaps the same thing happened to the troubled youth. The bullying and lack of support helped push the troubled youth over the edge.

 

That's just one idea. I would have to do a lot more reading to get a better answer.

[polskieserce]

Where is this massive increase in shootings?  The only difference is in media coverage.  150 years ago, do you really think there weren't pedophiles who kidnapped children and killed them in the woods when they were finished with them?  Of course there were.  The only reason it seems more prevalent now is that society has better technology and has been able to determine what actually happened in more of these cases.  The number of shootings still isn't that high when you consider that this is a nation of 300 million people.

[Credo in Deum]

Every so often guns will discharge their ammo as a type of mating dance to attract other potential gun mates.  The guns will do this dance until they either run out of ammo or until they’re taken over by another gun.   Sometimes alpha guns will fight for the affection of another gun.  You can distinguish the alpha guns from the others, by their exposed hammer. Non-alpha guns will have an internal hammer and are prone to discharging accidents.    Not to worry though, guns are more afraid of you than you are of them. 

Edited July 10, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Anastasia13]

people know it gets them attention, so they do it.

 

the USA has the sad state of a pretty capitalist country, and pervasive possession of guns.

-only 40% of gun sales even include a background check, so that means they are being being pass around pretty freely.

-economically. in the USA, the only thing a person can be entitled to as a matter of existence, is food stamps. only until recently with obama was there medicaid expansion for poor people, and just less than half of states passed it. beyond more stark poverty, the USA is one of the worst counties in the world in terms of income inequality, they usually rank way below industrialized counties, and with rogue countries as far as that goes. it wasn't until food stamps and basic assurance of human rights to economic advantage started to occur, that crimes started to go down. this shows a clear correlation.
bad economics has ripple effects, no doubt about it, that affects society as a whole. even if the shooter isn't economically disadvantaged, he might be the victims of bullys who are, just as an example.
aside from economic issues, i'm not sure what else makes people so depressed or pissed off that they go on rampages. though there is a lot of partisian divide overall in political, than there should be.

I thought the US was more pro-gun and Europe was more relaxed about sex. :shrug:

[dairygirl4u2c]

the graph they use shows that in fact mass shootings have increased substantially in recent years. people often refer to Columbine as the beginning of it all, and while that is not completly accurate, it is definitely when things started picking up.

 

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

[tinytherese]

I recommend reading The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker on the subject.

Edited July 10, 2014 by tinytherese

[anglefire]

America has gone down the tubes very fast over the years and is going faster by the minute. I believe this is because it is a permissive society. They lack faith and I believe God is hurt deeply. He is permitting people to act on their free will. Some parents do not really know who their children are they have their own problems and don't know how to deal with them.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i could see arguing that the USA is morally bankrupt too.

 

i'm not sure how you'd measure that, but it'd be interesting to see stats on it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I recommend reading The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker on the subject.

A very good book for developing a personal sense of situational awareness and common sense when it comes to the possibility of violence.

[polskieserce]

I thought the US was more pro-gun and Europe was more relaxed about sex. :shrug:

 

It is

 

the graph they use shows that in fact mass shootings have increased substantially in recent years. people often refer to Columbine as the beginning of it all, and while that is not completly accurate, it is definitely when things started picking up.

 

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

 

Shooting sprees are rare events that don't happen all the time.  Since they are rare and spontaneous, even a marginal increase will look like a massive increase.  Overall, gun violence is just hyphe that makes for good news stories.  People are far more likely to die by other means, like car accidents, than they are to die from a gunshot.

 

America has gone down the tubes very fast over the years and is going faster by the minute. I believe this is because it is a permissive society. They lack faith and I believe God is hurt deeply. He is permitting people to act on their free will. Some parents do not really know who their children are they have their own problems and don't know how to deal with them.

 

Lol, when was America, or an society for that matter, so good to begin with?  For every period in American history, there are plenty of evil things going on.  This period is no exception.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Shooting sprees are rare events that don't happen all the time.  Since they are rare and spontaneous, even a marginal increase will look like a massive increase.  Overall, gun violence is just hyphe that makes for good news stories.  People are far more likely to die by other means, like car accidents, than they are to die from a gunshot.

 

not sure if you're trying to argue or what. just pointing out the facts.

because you were 'just saying' or perhaps arguing. any gun violence is bad if it can be prevented. states that don't have gun regulations ae twice as likely to have gun violence than states that don't. other counties are known for remote gun violence compared to us. japan has nearly none, australia has seen a dramatic decrease due to gun regulation and have had no mass schootings since their reforms of the late nineties, whereas before they did.

i could go on and on about gun violence doesn't have to be the way it is now. it may not be a lot to you, but it still doesn't have to be that way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success.
australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform)
japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low.
it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support background checks, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.

 

Edited July 10, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[polskieserce]

"Shooting sprees are rare events that don't happen all the time.  Since they are rare and spontaneous, even a marginal increase will look like a massive increase.  Overall, gun violence is just hyphe that makes for good news stories.  People are far more likely to die by other means, like car accidents, than they are to die from a gunshot.

 

not sure if you're trying to argue or what. just pointing out the facts.

because you were 'just saying' or perhaps arguing. any gun violence is bad if it can be prevented. states that don't have gun regulations ae twice as likely to have gun violence than states that don't. other counties are known for remote gun violence compared to us. japan has nearly none, australia has seen a dramatic decrease due to gun regulation and have had no mass schootings since their reforms of the late nineties, whereas before they did.

i could go on and on about gun violence doesn't have to be the way it is now. it may not be a lot to you, but it still doesn't have to be that way.

 

I made that statement because it's true.  Shooting sprees are not a common occurrence.  They are a drop in the bucket.  All of this hysteria over sporadic events is why so many freedoms are being lost in the US.  You can't take away ever freedom from millions of people just because you think it will save one or two lives.  If that was the case, you would have a society with virtually no room for the individual to decide for him/herself (as is the case with Germany, one of the most bureacratic societies in the West).

 

The US is not like the other countries that you compare us to.  In a lot of countries, recreational drug use is also  much lower.  Japan is a perfect example of that.  Most of the same drugs are illegal.  But in the US, we still see higher rates of drug use because that's just how the culture is, not because of the legal system.  Also, you need to remember that the ultra capitalist policies of the US are also inevitably driving up all types of violent crime, including shootings.  More people will enter the drug trade and other areas of crime if they feel there is no hope for them.

 

I still stand behind my statement that current gun control measures are a joke and that people calling for all of these restrictions are quacks.  In addition, the gun control advocates are not being honest to the public.  They claim to not be anti-gun when in reality they are.  They always talk about the need to reduce the number of guns civilians own.  Also, they don't acknowledge the true meaning of the constitution.  If they really want serious change, they should be calling to modify or completely repeal the 2nd amendment.  However, they know that won't be possible for a very long time, which is why they try to obscure the legal scene with their intellectual gymnastics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

forty percent of sales involve no background checks. we have tons of potential here to ensure every sale has a background check. there's a lot more types of restrictions taht could be done, but wouldn't necessarily ahve to be. these checks would necessarily save some lives, at most at the expense of mere inconvenience. this means that at least some increased restrictions would help save lives.

is it really all that reasoable to invoke the second amendment for such triviality when amendments have all kinds of exceptions anyways? is it eally reasonable to let people die due to mere inconvenience?

and you want to talk about who the quacks are....

[Norseman82]

Combination of more stress and less morals?

[polskieserce]

forty percent of sales involve no background checks. we have tons of potential here to ensure every sale has a background check. there's a lot more types of restrictions taht could be done, but wouldn't necessarily ahve to be. these checks would necessarily save some lives, at most at the expense of mere inconvenience. this means that at least some increased restrictions would help save lives.

is it really all that reasoable to invoke the second amendment for such triviality when amendments have all kinds of exceptions anyways? is it eally reasonable to let people die due to mere inconvenience?

and you want to talk about who the quacks are....

 

Plenty of people who went on shooting sprees were able to pass background checks because they did not have a criminal record before their killing spree and their mental health issues were either undiagnosed or not enough to raise enormous red flags in the mental health professionals who evaluated them.  After background checks, it will be something else.  That's how it has been for a long time.  We have you people figured out.  It's a "Give them an inch and they will take the whole mile" kind of deal.

 

Lol would a background check have stopped Timothy McVeigh?  He didn't even use a gun and he currently holds 2nd place on the Mass Murder Scoreboard (1st being for the 9/11 attacks).

[dairygirl4u2c]

your point that checks wouldn't prevent all murders or mass shootings is uncontested by me.

 

the point that checks would prevent some murders and mass shootings remains, as usual with far right gun rights folks, uncontested by you. it cannot really be contested, cause it's true. only someone who would place some slight inconvenience of people over a significant number of people's lives would contest it. that's why most don't contest it. they either suppress the thought so it doesn't mess with their ideology, or they dont want to admit that they don't care about the people dying.