Discussion about the real reason why the United States has more mass shootings than o

[corneileous]

The gun hating crowd likes to say it’s because other countries have stricter gun control laws and we do not. Also because we have Second Amendment rights to guns, and they don’t.

So what is the real reason? In someways they do have kind of a compelling argument but then again, I believe a lot of it is because they have stricter penalties for pretty much any crimes committed over there than we do. Just like how supposedly over in Japan, you can be put to death for a lot more crimes than what you can here and not only that, if you are sentenced to death over there, you don’t sit on death row for 30 years like you do here; you’re supposedly put to death within six months of your sentencing.

I have a lot of respect for this place because there are a lot of well minded individuals here which is why this was the forum I chose to ask this question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darth_Uno]

Well, they are right to a degree. If you had plans to do something terrible but simply couldn't get your hands on a weapon easily, your scheme is aborted depending on how committed you are. Same if you were going to use a knife, chainsaw, or baseball bat. On the other hand, simple access is not the issue because we have millions upon millions of firearms and firearm owners who have not and never will be part of any crime. Simply being near one doesn't corrupt you like Gollum's ring.

[Guerrero]

Depends on what you call a "mass shooting"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...urate-figures/
(hopefully not behind a paywall)

[corneileous]

Well, they are right to a degree. If you had plans to do something terrible but simply couldn't get your hands on a weapon easily, your scheme is aborted depending on how committed you are. Same if you were going to use a knife, chainsaw, or baseball bat. On the other hand, simple access is not the issue because we have millions upon millions of firearms and firearm owners who have not and never will be part of any crime. Simply being near one doesn't corrupt you like Gollum's ring.

I really don’t even think it’s that, I think what it all boils down to is the higher severity of the punishment of the crime committed over there. The prison system over there as well. I may be wrong in my assumption, but that’s what I feel. Just like how if it’s true some countries will either remove your hand or some of your fingers if you’re caught stealing, I think that would be a pretty damn good deterrent for not wanting to steal from somebody.

I don’t know, I just think it’s funny how the majority of them only seem to be interested in reducing the rights of law-abiding citizens but at the same time, they don’t act like they really care about the ones who are already criminals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GearFondler]

I have to imagine that desensitization to gun violence via Hollywood and video games also plays a role. It's a cop-out excuse in many ways but it's bound to be a factor with some individuals.
The destruction of the traditional family unit is also a factor in my opinion. There are a lot of angry children and now adults that were basically raised by wolves.
You can't blame society and just give these people a free pass but you also can't ignore that the USA has had a lot of guns for a long time and yet these mass shootings seemingly are a relatively new occurrence.

[RevolverRob]

There are nuances to the whole thing.

Let's start with something important. The definition of 'mass shooting' has changed over the last 15-years and this has been a deliberate shift, IMO, to justify a political narrative. At present, all shootings where 3 or more people are shot are classified as 'mass shootings'. That means any time gang members shoot up another gang and three people get shot? Mass shooting.

By contrast, prior to the definitional change mass shootings were where 5 or more victims were shot by the same perpetrator(s).

Did you catch the shift? Now it is a shooting where three or more people are shot. Not all shot by the same person(s), just shot.

Two guys rob you at gun point, you draw your piece and shoot them and they shoot you - you're now part of a mass shooting.

By contrast the 'mass shooting' definition has not changed in other countries. So, we aren't comparing Apples to Apples.

This alone accounts for much of the 'substantial increase' in mass shootings in the United States. In other words...there doesn't appear to be one. We do have on average, a higher rate of shootings within schools/hospitals/etc. compared to other developed nations. But this is likely due to accessibility to firearms and poor mental health infrastructure. We have seen time and time again that the individuals who perpetrated these attacks had multiple encounters for authorities who should be able to do something about it and failed. Is that a gun problem then? I would argue no.

That said, The United States has guns in plethora and that provides easy access to those tools to commit these crimes. We also have a sensationalizing media and culture that draws attention to these crimes as well. Both contribute to the ability and willingness to use those guns to commit heinous crimes.

It's important to note that while for instance, Japan, has less shootings, they have had substantial gas attacks and arsonists kill mass numbers of people. And similarly, Japan has found that these individuals where known to authorities in advance of attacks. Are the matches and gasoline to blame or is it a more complex failure of society?

To get a truer sense of this I think we have to remove 'shooting' and look at mass casualty attacks globally, defined as 5+ victims attacked by the same perpetrator(s). Until then, I just start the conversation when someone says, "mass shootings are on the rise in the US!" - by asking them if they know the definition of mass shootings in the US? The answer is overwhelmingly, "No." - And when you point out the definition was changed their immediate response is, "Well no wonder they're on the rise...they lowered the standard."

Yea...just like lowering grading standards results in more high school graduations...

[corneileous]

Depends on what you call a "mass shooting"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...urate-figures/
(hopefully not behind a paywall)

I wish I could read the rest of that but you have to subscribe in order to read the full article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corneileous]

I have to imagine that desensitization to gun violence via Hollywood and video games also plays a role. It's a cop-out excuse in many ways but it's bound to be a factor with some individuals.
The destruction of the traditional family unit is also a factor in my opinion. There are a lot of angry children and now adults that were basically raised by wolves.
You can't blame society and just give these people a free pass but you also can't ignore that the USA has had a lot of guns for a long time and yet these mass shootings seemingly are a relatively new occurrence.

That is true. Back in the day when trophies and ribbons were only given out to those who earned them and also when ass-whippin’s and parental discipline was a lot more of a common thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corneileous]

There are nuances to the whole thing.

Let's start with something important. The definition of 'mass shooting' has changed over the last 15-years and this has been a deliberate shift, IMO, to justify a political narrative. At present, all shootings where 3 or more people are shot are classified as 'mass shootings'. That means any time gang members shoot up another gang and three people get shot? Mass shooting.

By contrast, prior to the definitional change mass shootings were where 5 or more victims were shot by the same perpetrator(s).

Did you catch the shift? Now it is a shooting where three or more people are shot. Not all shot by the same person(s), just shot.

Two guys rob you at gun point, you draw your piece and shoot them and they shoot you - you're now part of a mass shooting.

By contrast the 'mass shooting' definition has not changed in other countries. So, we aren't comparing Apples to Apples.

This alone accounts for much of the 'substantial increase' in mass shootings in the United States. In other words...there doesn't appear to be one. We do have on average, a higher rate of shootings within schools/hospitals/etc. compared to other developed nations. But this is likely due to accessibility to firearms and poor mental health infrastructure. We have seen time and time again that the individuals who perpetrated these attacks had multiple encounters for authorities who should be able to do something about it and failed. Is that a gun problem then? I would argue no.

That said, The United States has guns in plethora and that provides easy access to those tools to commit these crimes. We also have a sensationalizing media and culture that draws attention to these crimes as well. Both contribute to the ability and willingness to use those guns to commit heinous crimes.

It's important to note that while for instance, Japan, has less shootings, they have had substantial gas attacks and arsonists kill mass numbers of people. And similarly, Japan has found that these individuals where known to authorities in advance of attacks. Are the matches and gasoline to blame or is it a more complex failure of society?

To get a truer sense of this I think we have to remove 'shooting' and look at mass casualty attacks globally, defined as 5+ victims attacked by the same perpetrator(s). Until then, I just start the conversation when someone says, "mass shootings are on the rise in the US!" - by asking them if they know the definition of mass shootings in the US? The answer is overwhelmingly, "No." - And when you point out the definition was changed their immediate response is, "Well no wonder they're on the rise...they lowered the standard."

Yea...just like lowering grading standards results in more high school graduations...

Excellent post. I hadn’t really thought about that where nowadays it seems like there’s a lot more classified as a mass shooting whereas 15-20 years ago, nobody hardly reported about gang shootings in smaller numbers like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[omega9]

I wish I could read the rest of that but you have to subscribe in order to read the full article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure if this is the whole article, I couldn’t get past the first pop up in the link.
https://archive.is/Z8ijS