Why? Man's Answer...

[FGB]

Why America Is Prone to Mass Shootings
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | August 26, 2015 05:20pm ET

A strange paradox is emerging in America: Overall violent-crime rates are down, but active shooter events — in which a person is trying to kill multiple people in a populated area — appear to be on the rise, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics.

More ... https://www.livescience.com/51991-why-america-is-prone-to-mass-shootings.html

 

[nowisthetime]

Great article. Yes it is true that there is definitely an increase in narcissism and lack of empathy in this country as written in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/The idea of "We are my brother's keeper" idea is fading.
I mean, look who is "leading" the country, the most bigoted blowhard, just a symptom of the current culture of this nation.

However, at the same time, this country was founded on violence with the massive genocide of the native population during expansion, Jim Crow, Wild West, endless wars, and the like. It's just now that it is affecting the mainstream population with randomized mass shootings.

 

[Hypoxia]

America is prone to mass shootings because firearms.
Without an infestation of firearms we'd see no mass shootings.
It's logistical, not psychological. We have firearms and we use them.

It's not a difficult calculation.

 

[Amoebah]

Why are forigners allowed to have tactical nukes but joe sixpack cant buy one at walmart?

 

[WoundedKnee]

America is prone to mass shootings because firearms.
Without an infestation of firearms we'd see no mass shootings.
It's logistical, not psychological. We have firearms and we use them.

It's not a difficult calculation.

Always the same answer. Does it not occur to you that the 24/7 news cycle makes these nobody antisocials heroes, known by name by everyone in the nation and in a lot of the world? Does it even give you pause that this guy had been repeatedly reported and that our law-enforement community dropped the ball? Is this going to encourage people to report sketchy behavior of Muslims? of Illegals? of any ticking time bombs?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why America Is Prone to Mass Shootings
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | August 26, 2015 05:20pm ET

A strange paradox is emerging in America: Overall violent-crime rates are down, but active shooter events — in which a person is trying to kill multiple people in a populated area — appear to be on the rise, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics.

More ... https://www.livescience.com/51991-why-america-is-prone-to-mass-shootings.html

That was actually a well-written, informative, unbiased article. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Always the same answer. Does it not occur to you that the 24/7 news cycle makes these nobody antisocials heroes, known by name by everyone in the nation and in a lot of the world? Does it even give you pause that this guy had been repeatedly reported and that our law-enforement community dropped the ball? Is this going to encourage people to report sketchy behavior of Muslims? of Illegals? of any ticking time bombs?

I'm not sure what the hell point (if any) you're trying to make here.

Loose gun regulation gives mass murderers the ability to inflict mass casualties in the shortest amount of time.

24/7 news cycle gives mass murderers the 15 minutes of fame they so desperately crave.

 

[WoundedKnee]

So I'm watching a hysterical shaved-head young uniformed person screaming into a microphone, "THIS ISN'T A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE! THIS IS A GUN ISSUE! HE WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED SO MANY IF HE HAD A KNIFE!"

So, to her, clearly the issue is not mental health, but how many others an insane person can kill.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[policywank]

One of the things that appears to contribute to mass violence is artificial moral certainty. Many of the most heinous acts in history were committed by people who genuinely believed that there was a greater purpose in what they were doing. And that belief is usually rooted in a narrow black and white perspective of good and evil.

When we feel unsafe or insecure the "Dirty Harry" approach to the world is very compelling. Identify the really bad guys and dispatch them forthwith. But reality isn't just a matter of how harshly we deal with the bad guys. It is how do we identify the bad guys. It is recognizing that it is rarely black and white. Those Dirty Harry movies and many other's manufactured an artificial certainty and clarity that doesn't exist in the real world.

What I see in America today is a land of ever greater absolutes and certainties. People are increasingly intolerant of any views that oppose their own and I know of no group that is immune. In the process artificial certainties are created and the people on the fringes of society feel justified in acting on those.

I personally don't think it is as simple as guns or no guns. Truth is the 2nd amendment is part of America and you couldn't get rid of all the guns even if you wanted to. But as an outsider it appears to me that the country already accepts basic restrictions on freedom when one persons' freedom infringes on another or creates negatives for society. You aren't "free" to go and take your neighbour's TV, to fuck your girlfriend in the kids play area at McDonald's or to drive through a school zone at 100 mph. Americans have already accepted the premise that "freedom" isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want without regard for the consequences.

So the "freedom" cuz mercah arguments are just stupid. The question is what are reasonable constraints. Should you be allowed to put land mines in your front yard and have a nuclear silo in your basement. If not then you accept the premise of limitations and the discussion is what should those be.

The very fact that so many people won't even discuss the topic says more to me about the challenge than any actual limitations. 90% of what I see online from advocates equates gun control with taking away guns. That is a total red herring. The people talking gun control are talking about basic things like background checks or other measures that wouldn't restrain responsible gun owners in any way. The active cognitive dissonance around this is what is most alarming.

The guns or no guns debate doesn't exist. There will be guns. That is less the problem than the absolute insistence that: a) gun ownership is somehow completely immune to any discussion of responsibility and the kind of basic regulation that apply to so many other freedoms; and b) it is somehow possible to achieve a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys so we can indulge in rough justice.

Many places that don't have such a large problem do have more strict gun controls. But we are also more inclined to think the world isn't black and white and maybe a pause and a deep breath is usually the right answer. It isn't a matter of whether we would have a different view on gun control so much as we wouldn't cover our ears and refuse to hear other points of view.

 

[Ramone45]

In my opinion, the cause of these events are a shift in American Social mores over the past 55yrs. The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family. The ability to have sex without responsibility. The shift in attitude that says infants do not need parents and can be warehoused at 6weeks of age so that both parents can work and be too tired to take care of the kid even when they are with them. The resultant overcompensation that artificially elevates children above all else due to the guilt of dumping them. The fact that discipline of children is non-existent. The turning away from faith and religion. The social isolation associated with suburban sprawl. The knowledge that all politicians are corrupt and do not represent the people. Men being assholes in general. Women rejecting their unique biological gifts and identity so they can become more like asshole men for some unknown reason. Among others, but fixing this would be a good start.

 

[Dribble]

Always the same answer. Does it not occur to you that the 24/7 news cycle makes these nobody antisocials heroes, known by name by everyone in the nation and in a lot of the world? Does it even give you pause that this guy had been repeatedly reported and that our law-enforement community dropped the ball? Is this going to encourage people to report sketchy behavior of Muslims? of Illegals? of any ticking time bombs?

It is the same answer because he is correct.

Let's look at it from a different perspective...maybe one you can understand...Hypothetical... Let's say you have a problem drinking alcohol. If you never put yourself in the situation of where alcohol is...how can you use? It doesn't just magically appear. No using people...no using places. Presto...

 

[policywank]

So I'm watching a hysterical shaved-head young uniformed person screaming into a microphone, "THIS ISN'T A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE! THIS IS A GUN ISSUE! HE WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED SO MANY IF HE HAD A KNIFE!"

So, to her, clearly the issue is not mental health, but how many others an insane person can kill.

You can't make this shit up.

No the premise is perfectly logical. In places where we do have more gun control the premise is simple and effective. It is almost impossible to keep an instrument of mass murder out of the hands of nut jobs while still making it available to responsible gun owners. So either everyone can get them or nobody can get them. I believe that limiting my ability to own a machine gun is a perfectly reasonable compromise for a safer society.

But I know that is out of sync with the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not I think that is a mistake it is the law of the land. But it isn't the infallible word of God you know.

 

[HisArpy]

It is the same answer because he is correct.

Let's look at it from a different perspective...maybe one you can understand...Hypothetical... Let's say you have a problem drinking alcohol. If you never put yourself in the situation of where alcohol is...how can you use? It doesn't just magically appear. No using people...no using places. Presto...

Your hypothetical is based on an incorrect premise. The issue isn't YOU putting yourself in a position to not prevent continued alcohol abuse, it's that the solution being proposed is Prohibition. And, we all know how well that worked. The same result will occur whether it's alcohol or guns, or illegal drugs or whatever. Prohibition doesn't work. Punishing the GUILTY does (as long as the punishment is actually punishment and not a slap on the wrist).

But hey, let's try Prohibition again. 'Cuz, we know so much more now...

 

[Sean]

In my opinion, the cause of these events are a shift in American Social mores over the past 55yrs. The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family. The ability to have sex without responsibility. The shift in attitude that says infants do not need parents and can be warehoused at 6weeks of age so that both parents can work and be too tired to take care of the kid even when they are with them. The resultant overcompensation that artificially elevates children above all else due to the guilt of dumping them. The fact that discipline of children is non-existent. The turning away from faith and religion. The social isolation associated with suburban sprawl. The knowledge that all politicians are corrupt and do not represent the people. Men being assholes in general. Women rejecting their unique biological gifts and identity so they can become more like asshole men for some unknown reason. Among others, but fixing this would be a good start.

All of those things happened in the UK too. Our kids read the same stuff, watch the same stuff, listen to the same stuff, have the same issues. Yet this shit doesn't happen in the UK. What could the difference possibly be?

 

[policywank]

Your hypothetical is based on an incorrect premise. The issue isn't YOU putting yourself in a position to not prevent continued alcohol abuse, it's that the solution being proposed is Prohibition. And, we all know how well that worked. The same result will occur whether it's alcohol or guns, or illegal drugs or whatever. Prohibition doesn't work. Punishing the GUILTY does (as long as the punishment is actually punishment and not a slap on the wrist).

But hey, let's try Prohibition again. 'Cuz, we know so much more now...

If people were using alcohol to murder dozens of children, you would do something about alcohol. You would have basic controls like who can buy it; whether you can walk around anywhere swigging from a 40 oz and pissing on the play structure at your local grade school; whether you are allowed to drive drunk......oh wait you already have those rules because they are just common sense.

Prohibition didn't work because it amounted to the government trying to impose a set of morals and tell people how to manage their own lives. People didn't accept that but they do accept perfectly reasonable limitations for everyone's best interest.

This is the same old distraction that gun advocates always use.....gun control advocates are not arguing for gun prohibition. They are arguing for common sense measures.....just like you already use with alcohol and drugs.

 

[Que]

They are using guns not because of efficacy, but because of the popularity of firearms in popular culture, first person shooter games and the over-the-top coverage that using a firearm gets because the anti-gun media LOVES these stories and makes them a debate about how scary the gun was and what the rate of fire, what was the bullet count and the body count. It is scorekeeping. Every one of these shooters brags pre-shooting how they will kill more than the previous. They fantasize about how deadly they are and how skilled they will be. Most likely this latest one practiced with first person shooter games.

The Boston Bombers had guns, they used bombs hoping for greater body counts. Fire and explosives would be more effective than guns.

 

[Dribble]

Your hypothetical is based on an incorrect premise. The issue isn't YOU putting yourself in a position to not prevent continued alcohol abuse, it's that the solution being proposed is Prohibition. And, we all know how well that worked. The same result will occur whether it's alcohol or guns, or illegal drugs or whatever. Prohibition doesn't work. Punishing the GUILTY does (as long as the punishment is actually punishment and not a slap on the wrist).

But hey, let's try Prohibition again. 'Cuz, we know so much more now...

It is not an incorrect premise. It is 100% correct. It is YOU that is letting your bias see it. It is simple logic.

It is immaterial what you do. Let's say you are a falling down drunk. But if WoundedKnee doesn't associate with you...he isn't going to drink. As long as he continues to not put himself in any situation where alcohol may be...it is impossible to use.

You can take this exact same premise and apply it to schools. If you make it impossible for a gun to enter a school, it can never be used to kill kids. It doesn't matter that you may shoot yourself...

 

[EternalFantasies]

Great article. Yes it is true that there is definitely an increase in narcissism and lack of empathy in this country as written in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/The idea of "We are my brother's keeper" idea is fading.
I mean, look who is "leading" the country, the most bigoted blowhard, just a symptom of the current culture of this nation.

However, at the same time, this country was founded on violence with the massive genocide of the native population during expansion, Jim Crow, Wild West, endless wars, and the like. It's just now that it is affecting the mainstream population with randomized mass shootings.

LOL

You may wanna double check that Old Testament quote...

 

[Dribble]

I am not advocating taking guns away. I am advocating making it impossible for a gun to be inside a school. Simple really.

You will say..."that's impossible". No it isn't. We don't have guns on airplanes. We don't have guns in court houses. We start the process...we refine it every time a loophole is found...and we work towards the obvious

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

[ChinoMoreno]

They are using guns not because of efficacy, but because of the popularity of firearms in popular culture, first person shooter games and the over-the-top coverage that using a firearm gets because the anti-gun media LOVES these stories and makes them a debate about how scary the gun was and what the rate of fire, what was the bullet count and the body count. It is scorekeeping. Every one of these shooters brags pre-shooting how they will kill more than the previous. They fantasize about how deadly they are and how skilled they will be. Most likely this latest one practiced with first person shooter games.

The Boston Bombers had guns, they used bombs hoping for greater body counts. Fire and explosives would be more effective than guns.

school kids cannot get their hands on bomb making materials or have the know how to make bombs as easy as it is to buy a gun legally or illegally or get into their dad's gun closet

 

[BobBalouski]

But I know that is out of sync with the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not I think that is a mistake it is the law of the land. But it isn't the infallible word of God you know.

As far as the EXACT purpose of American constitutionalism goes - yeah, it is.

 

[BobBalouski]

If people were using alcohol to murder dozens of children, you would do something about alcohol.

IN FACT, alcohol plays the key role in far, far more deaths of children in America than guns - as it does everywhere else in the world, too.

Your "statement" is wholly void.

 

[BobBalouski]

If you make it impossible for a gun to enter a school...

Nothing defines insanity better than thinking the impossible is possible.

Once you apply your insanity to schools, no doubt prisons await your glorious illogic.

 

[jaF0]

I blame it on video games that awards points for kills.

It's a natural progression for loser gamers to take it to the streets.

 

[Ramone45]

America is prone to mass shootings because firearms.
Without an infestation of firearms we'd see no mass shootings.
It's logistical, not psychological. We have firearms and we use them.

It's not a difficult calculation.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.