Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Involutionist

There are many factors, but the two most important are the number of major urban areas in the country and the concentration of poverty.

I would couple that with oceanic shoreline access and proximity to known drug-running countries/areas. America is cursed with two oceanic borders, a large gulf border, and the border with a country known as a source and conduit for human and drug trafficking.

Switzerland, for example, is not.

I'm not saying that it's a source or two that take us to extremes, but they are definitely ingredients worth listing on the packaging.

Add in the ever-increasing expansions of concrete-jungle urban areas, and then we're starting to see the root of the problems. Like you noted and I think imply, humans were not meant to live packed in like sardines or thrown into dilapidating public housing--this has a terrible effect on the human psyche.

a reply to: UKTruth

Seriously, try and stop using league tables to compare countries. It does not work. The countries are so different as to render a straight comparison almost worthless.

This is exactly why I lean towards the Global Peace Index criteria for measurement. See my last two above post for more detail. Like seriously...it addresses "the countries are so different as to render straight comparisons almost worthless* a moot point. In fact, GPI exist for that very reason: it doesn't make straight comparisons and instead includes many variables and/or factors.

Here is an example. There are about 10 states in the US that have a lower murder rate than say Scotland. Many of them have pretty loose gun laws. Not only can you not compare country to country, even using stats for a whole country is misleading, especially for America. It has some vastly different places in it, something you know if you've been to 40 states.

Again: read my last two post. Especially the link to the US Global Peace Index which deals SPECIFICALLY with the US and compares many variables within each state to produce its ranking and overall index measurement.

There are many factors, but the two most important are the number of major urban areas in the country and the concentration of poverty.

That is an elementary way of looking at what variables play into the index rating. I agree, Socio-economics is still a factor, but not the only factors. Again, read my previous post and investigate the information in the links along with *going beyond that link* and connecting dots yourself. The issue is more sophisticated than you and I allude to. In fact, the Global Peace Index is a water-downed version of criteria. It just spelled it out in laymen terms. Hence:

In short, comparing the mean of various samples without understanding the makeup of those samples is a fool's errand.

After reading your entire response to me: I find your words very ironic...

a reply to: Involutionist

OK, i didn't want to assume that as your source.

My primary issue is that the graphics discuss peace, which is not really pertinent to the topic. That being said, its a topic that should be discussed. Because something i've been digging into is how our foreign wars/actions create a higher suicide rate among returning vets. I've been kicking this idea around for awhile after I pieced together something from random stories told to me by Marines returning home: of the 8 i know, all 8 have described similar behaviors such as arguing angrily with themselves in the mirror. None did this prior to deployment, all did it upon returning.

What an atrocity to commit against your own young men. If we aren't putting them in warzones, we are putting them in jail.

Our country has some serious, serious issues. Gun ownership doesn't seem to rank very high other than on the agendas of some people. If you ever start a thread on that information, drop me a PM. Ill contribute quite a bit of stuff.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

One has to wonder how on earth the WWII vets ever survived coming home?

a reply to: Involutionist

The Global Peace Index takes no account of the make up a country. Do your research and stop pushing nonsense.
It is a completely and utterly useless measure for a discussion on gun crime, murders, or even crime.
It uses 22 measures, none of which address the makeup of the populations of the country, urbanisations, etc.
Some of the measures are not even quantitative.



Number of deaths from organised conflict (external)
Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
Level of organised conflict (internal)
Relations with neighbouring countries
Level of perceived criminality in society
Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population
Political instability
Terrorist activity
Political terror scale
Number of homicides per 100,000 people
Level of violent crime
Likelihood of violent demonstrations
Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people
Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people
Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
Number of armed-services personnel
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people
Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions
Nuclear and heavy weapons capability
Ease of access to small arms and light weapons

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

One has to wonder how on earth the WWII vets ever survived coming home?

I'd guess that they were better men than we have now. I know the older guys I grew up around made my generation look like mere shadows of what we should/could be.

Even then, it broke them. Badly. Korea, too. A song that is in my all time top 100 that discusses a theoretical person named Sam Stone:

a reply to: UKTruth

What it does is provide insight into the overall attitude towards peace a country has.

Its impossible to argue that the US making nonstop war combined with our penchant for imprisoning our citizens doesn't really make the term "land of the free" ring true.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: UKTruth

What it does is provide insight into the overall attitude towards peace a country has.

Its impossible to argue that the US making nonstop war combined with our penchant for imprisoning our citizens doesn't really make the term "land of the free" ring true.

Agree with that - different thread.

originally posted by: Tempter

You can't outlaw guns. That's against our Constitution.

Next.

It's easy to outlaw guns. Just give it a different name.

Look, the constitution protects citizens, but by re-naming an individual "terrorist", or "enemy combatant", the constitution no longer applies to them, and you can now arrest that individual without cause, and hold him indefinitely without trial.

So, it becomes just a word game. After all, the constitution is just a bunch of words. Subject to interpretation.

None of the "guns" being sold today bear any resemblance to the "guns" that were present at the time of the writing of the constitution. So, the only thing in common is the name "guns."

Hence, all that has to happen, is for the Supreme Court to declare that the "arms" mentioned in the written constitution, referred to a significantly different type of weaponry from that available in the marketplace today, and the Founding fathers never intended for the ordinary citizen to be carrying about these dangerous modern weapons.

To make it clearer, they can call all modern guns by a new name like "peace sticks", and thus ban all "peace sticks", because the constitution doesn't mention them.

And just like the label "enemy combatant" removes all constitutional protections from an individual, the label "peace sticks" will remove the right of the individual to carry these things.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for your gracious post and apology. And I apologize for my frustration getting the better of me.
These are emotional times - for me; I'm sure for most people. I didn't want to touch the subject of gun control. But I have to talk about this. The senseless killing by a psychopath. We - citizens of planet earth - need to have a conversation about it. Because, I'm sure if there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that it shouldn't happen again. Tomorrow it may be you or me or one of our loved ones running away from gun fire. So somewhere, someone needs to do something about it. We cannot find a solution if we sit across from each other in dead silence.

Unfortunately the go-to solution is always gun control. I'm not a fan of guns. That much you could have guessed with your eyes closed. BUT I also understand rights. I completely understand the need to defend yourself and your loved ones. It makes complete sense, because the bad guys don't care about the law, so they will have guns - so you should at least be on equal footing.
As I've mentioned before - my dad is an avid hunter. So is my brother. I grew up with lots of guns in the house and shot my first one when I was knee-high to grasshopper. I was just never interested in it as a sport or a hobby. But that doesn't mean I want to take it away from my brother or my dad. They love it. Let them. I understand.

There are many things I don't understand. Like why someone needs 10+ guns when you can only shoot one at a time for self defense or to hunt. I don't understand how a TriStar KRX box feed is legal but a double-barrel sawed-off is not. But these are just many of the things in life I don't understand. You'll find in the same list Why do people buy $200 000 cars when $50 000 cars can get you there the same way. Or why you would need to buy a super-deluxe velvet lined coffin if a pine box does the same thing. I don't understand pumpkin spice beer. I don't claim to know or understand every thing.

That is why I ask questions. By now we know these gun control discussion turn in monotonous circles. And they divide people. We can throw statistics and numbers at each other all day long. About homicides, suicide, knife deaths, deaths by car, etc. etc. We can both find pages of statistics that will fit our agendas. We won't convince anyone of anything. Deaths due to hate, violence, evil - call it what you want - occur daily all over the world. However, mass shootings or rampage shootings does not occur daily all over the world. We don't need to argue about definition. We are talking about what happened in Vegas, in Charleston (the car and the shooting), Orlando, Fort Hood, Sandy Hook, etc. etc. We don't need statistics to know that events like these don't happen as often in other countries. Think about the last year. The last five years. Without looking at statistics or articles - just from memory: How many shootings like this happened in other countries?

Which finally brings us to the question: Why? Many very smart people have attempted to answer this.
And thus the second question; the purpose of my thread. Gun control may not work for the USA. It may have worked in some way for the UK and Australia. But the American culture is different. The American constitution is different.

So beyond gun control, what can we do to prevent this from happening? What safety measures - existing or imagined - are there that can prevent it or at least give better warning - Without infringing on the rights and freedom of people? What can be done to change the idea that it's fine to kill random (and innocent) people if you're angry with life? Is the media to blame?

I suppose question A cannot be answered mutually exclusive of question B.

My opening post is as much a rhetorical as a philosophical question. It is also a challenge: Gun control? Is that really the best or only solution anyone can come up with? Or should I rather ask - is that the best the politicians can come up with? Do they really care? You and I - our friends and family - we're the ones that have to sit in a movie theater with the chance of getting shot up by a nutjob. We have to send our kids to school with the knowledge that some moody emo teenager might have a bad day and kill our children. We are to ones going to concerts, to have fun and relax and enjoy freedom but may face a storm of bullets. There were 22 000+ people that could do nothing to stop it. 60 are no more. 500 have scars. Thousands of lives were changed forever.

Are we going to do nothing until the next one and we can have this discussion again?

Or can we at the very least agree that we can't do nothing?

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Hence, all that has to happen, is for the Supreme Court to declare that the "arms" mentioned in the written constitution, referred to a significantly different type of weaponry from that available in the marketplace today, and the Founding fathers never intended for the ordinary citizen to be carrying about these dangerous modern weapons.

Exactly.

Just like the Fourth Amendment only applies to physical searches of a person or belongings and individuals should have no expectations of privacy.

The Founding Fathers had no phones or computers so the Constitution obviously has nothing to do with wire tapping or electronic surveillance.

I wish more people could understand the document as easily as we seem to, life would so much simpler.

a reply to: Gaspode

I would caution that we don't need to, nor can we, solve or address every problem. Random occurances of horror happen from time to time. And with human population skyrocketing, its going to seem to be more and more frequent. Add to this the hyperawareness afforded by our current media when any "divide and conquer" topic comes up. You just cannot keep the random, irrational human from doing random, irrational things. Although you can try, and maybe make some improvement over all.

When someone has a right to do something, im not sure that they need a reason to do it. Or justification. I like to speak freely, and see no need to justify it. I don't like to allow officers quarters in my home, and don't see the need to provide a reason. I also have the 10+ guns you refer to. There shouldn't need to be a reason. Rights are rights, not privileges. The moment we have to justify it, it is not a right.

Im not a "very smart" person, but I can tell you exactly why shootings happen in the US and not in other countries. The answer is so simple you will wonder why you didn't come up with it on your own: in the US guns are legal, in other countries they are not. That's it. Add to this something you may not know: in the US suicide is illegal, in other countries it is not. So our suicides get lumped into "gun deaths" when reported.

What can be done to prevent it in the future? Well...the dude in Las Vegas...doesn't appear it could have been prevented (but the details are still scant). On the whole? Quit traumatizing our young men with needless war. Fix that one problem and you will fix much of the violence and drug problem in the US. Maybe not all of it...but it'll get you at least half way there.

Its not in fashion to state that our veterans come home mentally broken. Maybe because we like to give them a firearm and the authority that a badge brings. Who knows. We all know mental health care in the US is nothing short of a bad joke. And we know the VA is that bad joke. So it shouldn't be surprising that the things we don't do well, aren't being done very well.

Now for some perspective: guns kill around 34k people in the US each year. Of that, 21k are suicides, and 5000 are police shooting citizens. That leaves us with around 8k gun deaths each year made up of actual murders, accidental shooting, home invasion/self defense, etc. 8k is such a small percentage that im not going to bother typing it out. But its a fraction of a thousandth of a percent. From the perspective of living a longer, healther, happier life your time would be better spent trying to get legislative action against sugar, which causes heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and a whole host of inflammation related disease (respiratory, skin, intestinal, etc). The death toll from sugar dwarfs the death toll annually from any/all other causes combined.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Global Peace Index takes no account of the make up a country. Do your research and stop pushing nonsense.

Yes, they do. In fact, they make it very clear it is one of the variables taken into account to measure the climate of a nation.

Therefore, do your research and stop pushing nonsense back the goal post...

It is a completely and utterly useless measure for a discussion on gun crime, murders, or even crime.

I beg to differ.

It uses 22 measures, none of which address the makeup of the populations of the country, urbanisations, etc. Some of the measures are not even quantitative.

What variables would you like to see measured?

Are you implying that America's reputation of being the most crime ridden PER CAPITA and violent nation out of all *developed nations* is a myth?

Look, I like America. In fact, I have invested in property and business ventures there. I have friends there. I pay a lot of taxes that go to the US gov.

But if you actually believe America is on par with other developed nations then I suggest you get your head out of the sand. Part of the problem is some believe they are on par with the rest of its peers and America is getting unfairly smeared. I have come to discover travelling around the world many do not have a favourable impression of the US. The irony is: in real life outside of social media, I actually go to bat for America.

Again, America is a beautiful place with beautiful people. It has been empirically weighed.

The enculturation, violence, crime PER CAPITA, murder rate, infrastructure, healthcare, and a few other issues, is where the problem lays.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I starred your comment. I understand your perspective and agree with what you stated.

My primary issue is that the graphics discuss peace, which is not really pertinent to the topic.

Peace Index rating takes into account crime and violence along with socio-economic and domestic policy factors. The topic is gun violence and the high rate of mass shootings in the US *partially* affects this rating.

What an atrocity to commit against your own young men. If we aren't putting them in warzones, we are putting them in jail.

I feel you.

Our country has some serious, serious issues. Gun ownership doesn't seem to rank very high other than on the agendas of some people. If you ever start a thread on that information, drop me a PM. Ill contribute quite a bit of stuff.

Sounds fair. I look forward to your insight.

a reply to: Involutionist

I've given you the makeup of the index. It is even less useful than just taking deaths per 100000 because the index is diluted with things like nuclear arsenals. There is zero account taken for variables such as population densities, large urbanisations or poverty. Using it to compare countries and conclude on the question at hand is nonsense.

You are using a stupid index and you can't admit your error.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There it is. This is exactly the type of posts I was hoping for.

I would caution that we don't need to, nor can we, solve or address every problem.

I don’t know about that. Call me an eternal optimist, or perhaps naïve, but I believe there is a solution to every problem. Human beings have a knack for solving problems. They are (very broadly speaking) pretty intelligent – at least compared to the common garden rock. That is why we have constant advances in science, technology, medicine, travel, communication and so on. (Again, I am speaking in very broad terms.) There is however a second drive-force behind development: Money. People solve problems because they are lazy, for self-preservation or for money - my opinion. Mass shootings obviously fall into the second category. Perhaps if money were involved, a solution would present itself much faster and clearer. At the point the only money involves the NRA and politics. Let’s say the NRA offered $100 million for a solution to mass shootings to the general public, I bet there would be plenty of suggestions other than gun control.
Hippy tree-hugger optimist that I am, I think that this is a problem that needs addressing. It may be easy to sit far away in the safety of your own home and give opinions on the Internet like “this doesn’t really happen that often” or “it happens all over the world” or whatever rationalisation a person comes up with not to want to do something. Simply because it happened to someone else. Our lives were ultimately unaffected. And it will continue to be that way – until the day it isn’t. Up until Sunday mass shootings was something that happened to someone else for 600 people – or 22,000+ people, depending on your view. If we could have this discussion with each and every person that were running for their lives on Sunday night, what would their views be on the matter?

Random occurances of horror happen from time to time. And with human population skyrocketing, its going to seem to be more and more frequent. Add to this the hyperawareness afforded by our current media when any "divide and conquer" topic comes up. You just cannot keep the random, irrational human from doing random, irrational things. Although you can try, and maybe make some improvement over all.

Quite right. I don’t know if random is accurate, but the rest is undeniably spot on.
The question is, however, what is the difference between that one random person and the millions (or globally billions) of people that don’t randomly go on a killing spree? Many psychiatrists have spent years trying to answer that question. You and I can add our wild guesses or even educated guesses, but ultimately, we will probably never know.

I do think that you touched on one of the major reasons why mass shootings are so prevalent in the USA: The media. The media is quite unique compared to the rest of the world. The US media was first with so many news reporting strategies. First 24-hour news channel, broadcasting of live events, (Eyewitness news, action news, etc.) and so on. The news media has become one of the biggest businesses in the US. They are major role players when it comes to the economy, politics, religion – you name it. A news report can make or break a person or a company. And this is because the public loves it. The lines have become blurred between entertainment and journalism. Because of news coverage the world can become obsessed with a single topic. (Wave to the camera Mr Trump.) But what they do is also extremely dangerous. Each news station is so eager to be the first to report something, that they don’t mind reporting something that is not confirmed. Here’s a new drinking game: Watch a broadcast while events are still unfolding and take a shot every time a reporter says “reportedly”, “allegedly”, “unconfirmed”, “unofficial”, etc. Just be careful of alcohol poisoning. This is – as we see here on ATS – a breeding ground for conspiracies and confusion. How many shooters were there? That one guy on this one channel said there may have been two. And suddenly this becomes a fact that the government is supposedly trying to hide. It’s been 15 minutes, where is the CCTV of the past week of this guy going in and out of the hotel?
Look, there goes logic and common sense right out the door. But I digress. The point is when the media turns the cameras on the entire world comes to a stop. In that moment the entire nation – or even the entire world – is watching the actions of a single person.
And right there is the part a 21st century mass murderer is born. Instead of simply blowing their own brains out like the rest of the earth’s population, they go on a shooting spree. They know that for an hour; for two weeks they will have all the attention in the world. A “blaze of glory”.

Is the solution then that the media shouldn’t report on these events? I think that shipped has sailed. People are addicted to these live news coverage events. Rubbernecking. Human nature. We already see people – right here on ATS – getting angry if information isn’t available quickly enough. And the funny thing is, if information is available too quickly then it’s a conspiracy. “How did they identify the shooter this fast?” If information doesn’t become available fast enough: “Why are they not releasing the CCTV footage? They must be busy editing the footage.”
Could you possibly convince the media to back off? Then it may be argued that you’re infringing on people’s right to information. And we’re right where we are with the gun issue.

When someone has a right to do something, im not sure that they need a reason to do it. Or justification. I like to speak freely, and see no need to justify it. I don't like to allow officers quarters in my home, and don't see the need to provide a reason. I also have the 10+ guns you refer to. There shouldn't need to be a reason. Rights are rights, not privileges. The moment we have to justify it, it is not a right.

I’m not sure I agree. There must be a reason to have a right. A right needs to be justified. If I told you I have a right to have access to free Internet, your first question is going to be “Why”? You can’t simply claim a right without reason. That makes no sense.
You don’t need to explain your 10+ guns to me. It is your right to have them. But ultimately there is a reason you have 10 or 25 or 50 firearms. It may be because you love guns and you collect them. They are beautiful works of engineering in your eyes. I love books, so I collect them. Maybe you have a difficult wife and she only allows you to have 10 otherwise you would’ve had at least 50. The same with your right to free speech or education or whatever right. You don’t need to explain yourself to me, but ultimately there is a reason behind it. And there is a reason behind it. When the fellows came together back in the 1700s they didn’t just compile a list of amendments without rhyme or reason. Someone stood up and said “We need freedom of speech and religion because so and so”. You may not want or have to “justify” your rights, but that’s just because someone justified it for you many years ago. Ultimately there is a reason for everything. It can be historically traced – at least when it comes to the matter you refer to.
I know this is a giant sticky topic, perhaps best left alone for another day?

Im not a "very smart" person, but I can tell you exactly why shootings happen in the US and not in other countries. The answer is so simple you will wonder why you didn't come up with it on your own: in the US guns are legal, in other countries they are not. That's it. Add to this something you may not know: in the US suicide is illegal, in other countries it is not. So our suicides get lumped into "gun deaths" when reported.

No argument here. I would however like to point out that due to the constant rise of suicide, measures have been placed to try and prevent it. Suicide hotlines, therapists, general awareness on what the signs of depression are, and so on. They may not be 100% effective, but we do know of many success stories. It is probably impossible to imagine what the statistics would have been if there were NO suicide prevention measures in place. What we do know is that the solution was not immediately “gun control” because people were able to recognise that those that want to commit suicide will do so with or without a gun.

What can be done to prevent it in the future? Well...the dude in Las Vegas...doesn't appear it could have been prevented (but the details are still scant). On the whole? Quit traumatizing our young men with needless war. Fix that one problem and you will fix much of the violence and drug problem in the US. Maybe not all of it...but it'll get you at least half way there.

Amen to that. Sounds to me like politicians and/or the government and their agendas are ultimately part of the cause?

Its not in fashion to state that our veterans come home mentally broken. Maybe because we like to give them a firearm and the authority that a badge brings. Who knows. We all know mental health care in the US is nothing short of a bad joke. And we know the VA is that bad joke. So it shouldn't be surprising that the things we don't do well, aren't being done very well.

Preach sir, preach!

Now for some perspective: guns kill around 34k people in the US each year. Of that, 21k are suicides, and 5000 are police shooting citizens. That leaves us with around 8k gun deaths each year made up of actual murders, accidental shooting, home invasion/self defense, etc. 8k is such a small percentage that im not going to bother typing it out. But its a fraction of a thousandth of a percent. From the perspective of living a longer, healther, happier life your time would be better spent trying to get legislative action against sugar, which causes heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and a whole host of inflammation related disease (respiratory, skin, intestinal, etc). The death toll from sugar dwarfs the death toll annually from any/all other causes combined.

No arguing that. The only difference between, say sugar or tobacco, and murders is the fact that other people get hurt vs. self-harm. What you do to your own body is your problem. Do heroin all you want, it’s your right (?). But shooting innocent people in a movie theatre, school, concert, church – that is my problem, because I could be next. My mom could be next. You could be next. If there is something that could be done about it, it should be done.
If you were given the opportunity to save a single human life - that is 0.000000001343724805159903% of the earth’s population – by some action you take, would you do it?

Retracted. You deserve a better reply a bit later when i have more time

Btw...if giving up tye rughts of millions will save 100 lives a year im not willling to do that. While im empathetic to victims, im more empathetic to myself and people i know

Just so I'm clear, I have seen 3 unique opinions in this thread from individuals in support of guns rights regarding the recent tragedy in LV as well as the issue as a whole:

1. Do nothing - There are no amount of deaths, no limit to mass shootings that should in any way/shape/form limit/hinder/modify the existing gun laws or infringe in any way upon the 2nd amendment. Americans must simply become desensitized to the violence so we stop viewing it as a 'bad' thing and rather just accept it as a way of life.

2. Increase the proliferation of guns / relax the restrictions on guns - by adding more guns into the mix, we increase the odds that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

3. Focus on increasing healthcare/mental health services to ameliorate some of the causal factors that drive people to commit gun violence.


Personally I find the first 2 options abhorrent, and they've been talked to death already (in this thread and countless others of the last couple of days). The third option actually has some mass appeal, if only because its a net positive in all cases. Are there individuals here that support the third option as the best yet still vote for politicians that work to remove/reduce/limit access to healthcare (mental or otherwise), or is it partly due to the nature of the political divide that the type of politicians that support the third option tend to be against the first 2, and therefore those who do in fact think option 3 is the best approach feel hamstrung in their voting choices and side with some principle therein of options 1 or 2 as being intrinsically more important?