And I cannot abide by the claim that you being able to own a gun is more important than a child being safer from gun violence.

I never made that claim, I'm afraid. But I wager that for anyone who would murder a child, with a gun or otherwise, such an injustice is worth the utilitarian benefit.

I don't live in America, but is the question as to why children (or in this case a young adult) are committing mass murders ever raised? — Tzeentch

Two contributing factors are the availability of high power semiautomatic weapons and the idea that guns are the solution to a host of problems ranging from bullying to lack of acceptance to feelings of loneliness and helplessness. Those feelings have always been around, but knowing that others are acting on it in this way makes it seem like a more viable option.

Why evil, and not mental sickness? — Tzeentch

Because mental illness implies a lack of agency, that the shooter doesn’t know what s/he is doing. Most of these acts, the shooter knows damn well what they’re doing.

Apparently, the gun crazies are also against bare gun registration.
Normalizing this stuff is part of the problem.
@NOS4A2, society isn't just about you though.
Besides, your gun isn't going to help much if someone already has theirs pointed at you.
De-escalation seems the safer (or more civilized) path; check evidence for different countries/societies.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Nashville shooter blasts their way into school (Mar 28, 2023 · 2m:21s)

still reckon a lot of this behaviour is modelled by video games. That footage of her prowling the halls, the attire and the stance, is right out of video game world.

There was even a game released where players can assume the role of 'school shooter'.

You don't think kids committing mass murders is a mental health issue? — Tzeentch

Mass murders that wouldn’t happen without powerful weapons. Japan, Italy, Brazil, Britain, France, China…all have people with depression, anxiety, despair, violent ideation, suicidal ideation, etc. None have the rates of mass shootings that we do. Why?

To argue it’s because we have a greater rate of mental health issues is factually incorrect.

One has to really try hard to avoid the obvious: it’s guns.

Once we get guns into everyone’s hands, as the gun manufacturers want, then at long last gun violence will be solved.

We’ll finally reach the lower levels of mass shootings achieved by…every other nation on earth.

Opioid crisis solution: give EVERYONE opioids!

All of this is a natural consequence of one stupid belief drilled into American brains for decades: everything the government does is bad. This belief was developed by the corporate sector so as to reduce regulations and increase profits.

Its hard to settle on a specific breakdown of contributing factors but it seems to me that mental health is a significant factor yet gets ignored by and large. — DingoJones

On the contrary, it’s the go-to argument of the NRA-owned GOP. It also happens to be completely bogus.

In fact some research suggests that mental illness was a factor in 4% of mass shootings.

If the answer were no, wouldn't we expect to see similar events carried out with other weapons happening in the UK? People have committed massacres with common household objects like kitchen knives. Stomach churning to think about it, but alas there it is... — Tzeentch

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Each dot is a country. If I told you the y axis was number of mass shootings and the x axis was number of guns, what do you think a rational human would conclude?

Any guesses on what country the top right dot is?

Canada, obviously.

I'm getting tired and bored from this thread. I think it's amazing media still report on them and politicians offer thoughts and prayers. It's not going to change.

Right wing conservatives have sacrificed their own citizens for the remote chance they could defend themselves against tyranny or invasion. Of course, the reality is those same people are deeply afraid of the world they live in and are most likely to cower in fear if either would happen. Owning a gun is no substitute for bravery. Quite the opposite if you buy it because you're afraid in your neighbourhood.

Except of course, we play these games in other countries as well without going on a killing spree. The link has been researched repeatedly as well with no evidence.

That's because it stands to reason that people interested in killing people probably also like doing that online, whereas most normal and healthy people only like to pretend to shoot people. I was a bit of a counterstrike master myself but never owned a gun and have zero interest in it.

Guns are meant for shooting things dead. I can understand needing one if you're a hunter but otherwise you have no business owning them. And in my view that should include governments.

Because mental illness implies a lack of agency, that the shooter doesn’t know what s/he is doing. Most of these acts, the shooter knows damn well what they’re doing. — Wayfarer

Suppose a child is neglected or abused at home, bullied at school and implicitly told by society that this makes them worthless. That child (or young adult) then goes to commit a mass shooting.

No mental illness, but full agency and "just evil"?

To argue it’s because we have a greater rate of mental health issues is factually incorrect. — Mikie

I never argued it was about the rates. Different types of mental illness manifest in different parts of the world, often relating to their culture. Think for example of Japanese "honor culture" and the effect it has had on mental health there.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun. — Mikie

Sounds like there's something "under the skin" in China, doesn't it?

And as an outsider looking in, it seems like there's something "under the skin" in America too.

Sounds like there's something "under the skin" in China, doesn't it?

And as an outsider looking in, it seems like there's something "under the skin" in America too. — Tzeentch

You sound too interested in what people look like under their skin. Better stay away from guns!

To argue it’s because we have a greater rate of mental health issues is factually incorrect. — Mikie

No one is arguing that, as far as I can tell. People are just raising the perfectly legitimate issue that having kids (or adults) who are pushed to the point of committing mass murder is a big societal issue. especially if (as you say) only 4% seem have diagnosed mental health issues. That means we're accepting living in a world where 96% of people who massacre innocent children are apparently fine, normal, upstanding human beings (who just erroneously have access to guns).

Of course if we removed their weapons the world would be a safe place and it goes without saying that I'm in favour of very strong gun control (like we have in England - virtually no mass shootings).

But the pro-gun lobby aren't denying the US's unique status in gun-violence, so pointing it out doesn't progress the debate.

There is, however, a very serious societal problem if that large a number of people are pushed that often to mass murder. It's not necessarily a problem unique to the US, but that doesn't make it not a problem.

The thing is, I don't think the two are unrelated and I think it harms the anti-gun campaign to keep brushing it aside. The gun lobby not only need people to be allowed to own guns, they need them to actively want guns. and they need them to want guns with a strong passion. So the mental health (and societal) issues which lead to the desire for mass shooting (regardless of ability) are a key tool in the gun lobby's arsenal.

They don't want this issue addressed because it would reduce demand for their products even if they were legal. You're aiding that agenda by sweeping the issue aside.

They don't want this issue addressed because it would reduce demand for their products even if they were legal. You're aiding that agenda by sweeping the issue aside. — Isaac

The view from the ground here is that in some parts of the US, people are fiercely protective of their ability to own fire arms. Gun sales always spike when legislation for limiting gun ownership is considered. People are afraid that they won't be able to get that hand gun in the future, so they go ahead and buy it now. So that demand is high and not manufactured by anyone in particular. It's just part of the culture.

Mass shootings get a lot of media coverage. I think that actually perpetuates it, oddly enough. But gun violence goes on all day everyday in the form of gang violence, drive-by shootings, and red-neck family members shooting at each other. I mean, lives are destroyed and families are left in despair pretty frequently. We don't really need mass shootings for that. Mass shootings just get the coverage because they're so bizarre. Prevalent, but bizarre.

There is, however, a very serious societal problem if that large a number of people are pushed that often to mass murder. — Isaac

Yes, which is why I dedicated an entire thread to it here.

Not sweeping it under the rug. But the issue here is gun control, and since other countries don’t have the mass shootings we do, despite the same problems with “mental health,” we should be emphasizing that.

And I don’t see the gun lobby pointing out the US’s outlier status. If they do, they talk about mental health. It’s simply the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” slogan masquerading as concern for healthcare — which the same people want destroyed.

Different types of mental illness manifest in different parts of the world, often relating to their culture. — Tzeentch

Yes, but you act as if this hasn’t been researched. It has— and the conclusion: it’s the guns.

Why are so many people depressed in Argentina? Thailand? Canada? Those are good questions. But the question, “Why do we have so many mass shootings in the United States?” is what I’m interested in.

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

I needn’t spell out what that conclusion is. So let’s talk about gun control. Hard to do if we’re distracted by NRA talking points about mental health.

I agree and would add that it is not just guns but a "gun culture" that promotes the idea that guns are the solution to two major threats, the government and criminals.

You may take the guns away, but the mental health problems will remain.

But I guess that's just a "NRA talking point".

Perhaps if guns were banned and a sharp rise in school stabbings was observed, it would get people's heads out of the sand, hm?

I agree and would add that it is not just guns but a "gun culture" that promotes the idea that guns are the solution to two major threats, the government and criminals.

Both of whom have guns and other weapons. How would you defend yourself and your family from these threats?

I don't defend myself against the government. For one, I do not buy into your paranoid deep state conspiracies and the need to defend myself against the government. For another, no matter how many guns I have the notion that I could defend myself against the military is absurd.

As to owning a gun to defend myself and my family against criminals, it is not as if they are going to wait until I get my gun, load it, and point it at them before they point their loaded gun at me or a family member. Perhaps you sleep cuddling a loaded gun, but I think it far more likely that a gun in the house will do me or my family harm than good.

As to owning a gun to defend myself and my family against criminals, it is not as if they are going to wait until I get my gun, load it, and point it at them before they point their loaded gun at me or a family member. Perhaps you sleep cuddling a loaded gun, but I think it far more likely that a gun in the house will do me or my family harm than good. — Fooloso4

You can defend yourself with an unloaded shotgun. Just cock it and that sound will generally cause invaders to flee. Unless they're on drugs, in which case you probably want it loaded.

Guns can definitely be used for defense. If you choose to go without, just know that your final victory was that you didn't live in fear.

Or something along those lines. :grin:

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Happiness is a warm gun

You woke up this mornin', got yourself a gun

Bang bang he shot me down...

Etc.

The reason most countries can afford to disarm their populace and claim moral victory is because American weaponry protects them while they sleep. A country like Ukraine, on the other hand, who does not find itself under the umbrella of American protection in any legal sense, has to beg western countries for the weaponry to defend itself. They reversed on their gun control, of course, handing out guns to the public on the eve of war. Now all they need is an ID card in order to get a gun. I guess it’s never too late.

That’s the ironic part about your position and all this huff and bluster about disarming your fellow citizens. You can afford not to be paranoid because other people have guns, because others have the will to defend you wherever you yourself refuse to. Should they ever need your help, though, I have a good idea how helpful you will be.

Guns can definitely be used for defense. If you choose to go without, just know that your final victory was that you didn't live in fear. — frank

Of course a gun can be used for defense, provided you are prepared for an attack and in a defendable position. Outside of that, successful defense is unlikely. A motivated shooter will generally have the advantage, and bullets flying around from random shots might find you anywhere.

Of course a gun can be used for defense, provided you are prepared for an attack and in a defendable position. Outside of that, successful defense is unlikely. A motivated shooter will generally have the advantage, and bullets flying around from random shots might find you anywhere. — BC

I guess if you find that trench warfare has broken out in your living room, it's hard to say who'll have the advantage. You'll probably have to Jackie Chan the situation.

So which is it, the government protects us or we have to protect ourselves from the government?

Should they ever need your help — NOS4A2

Should the US government need my help they would give me a gun. But this scenario is so unlikely as to not be taken seriously. If active military and reserves are not sufficient they would go to the millions of able bodied younger people before being desperate enough to ask an alta cocker like me to pick up arms to protect the country.

You are conflating COLLECTIVE DEFENSE with Individual Defense.

One nation defending its territory from another nation's aggression requires armaments to be used against the attacker. Civil order and peace within a nation is a different, separate issue.

All the armaments of the United States armed forces--from ICBMs to pistols–do not contribute to the peaceful relations among our fellow citizens. What maintains peacefulness in society is the collective desire to avoid conflict as one goes about one's life. Internal peacefulness is not maintained by 300,000,000 guns either.

You can afford not to be paranoid because other people have guns, because other have the will to defend you wherever you yourself refuse to. — NOS4A2

It's the 300,000,000 guns owned by 200,000,000 Americans--some of whom are demented anti-social thugs, that contribute to paranoia. Those 200,000,000 gun owners are NOT defending me or you. Mostly they are enriching gun and ammunition manufacturers at a high cost to society.