Nearly all mass shooters have four things in common(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Nearly all mass shooters have four things in common
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
77 comments
To be honest, the "mental health" thing kind of reminds me of the "bad childhood" excuse that was prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It's like, yeah, no. Lots of people have "mental health" issues. (In fact, there is a school of thought that would argue we all do.)
These guys are just Al Qaeda level terrorists.
The longer we ignore that reality, the higher the body count will climb.
It's like, yeah, no. Lots of people have "mental health" issues. (In fact, there is a school of thought that would argue we all do.)
These guys are just Al Qaeda level terrorists.
The longer we ignore that reality, the higher the body count will climb.
Someone can be sane but still have poor mental health.
Healthy people don't kill innocent civilians.
Healthy people don't kill innocent civilians.
How do you know these people view the victims as innocent?
What makes you say that? People choose bad things all the time. I don't think it's wise to pathologize bad behavior in every case.
[deleted]
Two of the main points...
>> practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
>> most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.
In other words, they talk to other people about their plans and grievances beforehand, so there is an opportunity for intervention.
>> practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
>> most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.
In other words, they talk to other people about their plans and grievances beforehand, so there is an opportunity for intervention.
And not a peep about the almost inevitable involvement with SSRI drugs, most of which warn about side effects like "suicidal, murderous ideations".
I was curious about this, but the only research I could find points the other way. For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395354/
I really, really, think this needs to be discussed.
I understand it's just an essay, but if their goal is "to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings" they need to add more data/evidence.
These may be the common things, but none of them is particularly discoverable, predictive and actionable. And indeed, the advice the article presents later amounts to more policing.
TL;DR;
1. > ...experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age... often a precursor to mental health concerns
2. > ...practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.
3. > ...most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.
4. > ...the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.
1. > ...experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age... often a precursor to mental health concerns
2. > ...practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.
3. > ...most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.
4. > ...the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.
[deleted]
Sadly the main site is gone, but here's a talk (transcript, and you can also open the YouTube video: https://web.archive.org/web/20160113163745/http://blogs.plos...
The gist of it is that people without future/community think jihad can be their community and their life work... Guess what, it also applies to people thinking you need to be a warrior for the "suppressed white race"..
The gist of it is that people without future/community think jihad can be their community and their life work... Guess what, it also applies to people thinking you need to be a warrior for the "suppressed white race"..
I don't know man?
I'll preface the following statement by saying that I'm not being racist, I'm just stating a fact. But it's clear that blacks and native americans have been "suppressed" and impoverished, and "people without futures" or whatever for a long, long time. Again, not a knock against native americans or blacks, just outlining reality.
Here's the thing though, to my recollection, I don't recall either group engaging in mass shootings of everyone else with the frequency we're seeing nowadays. There's something else going on here. Some added dimension that we're not considering.
I'll preface the following statement by saying that I'm not being racist, I'm just stating a fact. But it's clear that blacks and native americans have been "suppressed" and impoverished, and "people without futures" or whatever for a long, long time. Again, not a knock against native americans or blacks, just outlining reality.
Here's the thing though, to my recollection, I don't recall either group engaging in mass shootings of everyone else with the frequency we're seeing nowadays. There's something else going on here. Some added dimension that we're not considering.
They've missed out male and white.
Because that would be inaccurate.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in...
Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and August 2019, by shooter's race and ethnicity
White 64 Black 19 Latino 10 ...
Comparisons to population percentage, etc.
Female shooters are rare, but exist. " Women accounted for nine of 251 active shootings in the United States — or roughly 3.6 percent — between 2000 and 2017, according to the FBI."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-fe-female-shooter...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in...
Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and August 2019, by shooter's race and ethnicity
White 64 Black 19 Latino 10 ...
Comparisons to population percentage, etc.
Female shooters are rare, but exist. " Women accounted for nine of 251 active shootings in the United States — or roughly 3.6 percent — between 2000 and 2017, according to the FBI."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-fe-female-shooter...
The US is approx 73% white. All other factors being equal, I'd expect roughly 70% of the shooters to be white people. 64 a lot of shootings, but in context it's not surprising.
Black folks are around 12-14%, concentrated mostly in the south or big cities. 19% is a little high but still within a roughly corresponding population size.
The Latino population is roughly 16%, estimated to be 30% by around 2050. The real question is why the Latinos have less shootings, proportionally, than the other groups; my best guess is something loosely related to the "Hispanic Paradox" which is basically that Hispanic populations do better in terms of health outcomes and other health-related metrics than other poor, non-white Minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox
Black folks are around 12-14%, concentrated mostly in the south or big cities. 19% is a little high but still within a roughly corresponding population size.
The Latino population is roughly 16%, estimated to be 30% by around 2050. The real question is why the Latinos have less shootings, proportionally, than the other groups; my best guess is something loosely related to the "Hispanic Paradox" which is basically that Hispanic populations do better in terms of health outcomes and other health-related metrics than other poor, non-white Minorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox
The title is "nearly all", not "all".
Women experience these same things but, as you've said, tend not to go on murder rampages.
Women experience these same things but, as you've said, tend not to go on murder rampages.
Yes.
Female is 3.6% according to article I linked above, so some may consider male "nearly all".
White is 57% according to the statistics link I posted above, so white is inaccurate even with "nearly all".
Thus, "nearly all" "male and white" would be wrong and misleading.
The more important question would be, does either of those help identify potential risks? So you should turn the statistics around:
What percentage of males become mass shooters? (0%)
What percentage of whites become mass shooters? (0%)
So, yes, males and whites "tend not to go on murder rampages".
Not particularly helpful.
Of course, the same can probably also be said about their other "things in common", but maybe we can identify something that will help.
Female is 3.6% according to article I linked above, so some may consider male "nearly all".
White is 57% according to the statistics link I posted above, so white is inaccurate even with "nearly all".
Thus, "nearly all" "male and white" would be wrong and misleading.
The more important question would be, does either of those help identify potential risks? So you should turn the statistics around:
What percentage of males become mass shooters? (0%)
What percentage of whites become mass shooters? (0%)
So, yes, males and whites "tend not to go on murder rampages".
Not particularly helpful.
Of course, the same can probably also be said about their other "things in common", but maybe we can identify something that will help.
As a rhetorical question, I wonder what would occur if someone came up with the idea that gun possession should be restricted to women for safety reasons.
guns
Guns have existed for hundreds of years.
Why is this just becoming a problem recently?
Why is this just becoming a problem recently?
The sheer amount of guns owned by American civilians compared with the rest of the world is staggering, and, maybe not so coincidentally, so is the amount of gun related homicide. [0] The fact remains that even you in your comment called it a problem. Guns and gun ownership are the common denominator when it comes to mass shootings, and very little, if anything, is being done about it.
[0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
[0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
Why does California - a state with one of the lowest gun ownership rates, and extremely restrictive gun laws - have so many mass shootings, then?
The relationship you're proposing (more gun owners means more mass shootings) doesn't seem to hold within the US.
The relationship you're proposing (more gun owners means more mass shootings) doesn't seem to hold within the US.
That's true when you're looking at a statistic like guns per capita [0]. When you're talking about number of registered guns, however, the only state with more guns than California is Texas, which falls at number 3 on the list of states with the most mass shootings [1].
I do still believe that having more guns around does tend to lead to more mass shootings, along with other forms of gun related homicide.
[0] - https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-pop... [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in...
I do still believe that having more guns around does tend to lead to more mass shootings, along with other forms of gun related homicide.
[0] - https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-pop... [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in...
Your link 0 is absolutely ludicrous. That 21 guns per capita in Texas would mean ~600 million guns in Texas ALONE out of the ~400 million total in the US.
And you're right that these things should be counted per capita, but that still doesn't explain how Texas has a far higher gun ownership rate, 30% less population than California.... And HALF the mass shootings.
And you're right that these things should be counted per capita, but that still doesn't explain how Texas has a far higher gun ownership rate, 30% less population than California.... And HALF the mass shootings.
Just to clarify because my link 0 "guns per capita" was a bit misleading. It's actually per 1,000 people, not 1. Link to more original source [0].
Quick maths: 21 guns p/capita divided by 1,000 people = 0.021 * 28 million (pop of Texas) = ~588,000 guns.
Your observation about Texas is very interesting, and I don't have an answer for that. Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture? In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal.
[0] - https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/#_ftn1%20
Quick maths: 21 guns p/capita divided by 1,000 people = 0.021 * 28 million (pop of Texas) = ~588,000 guns.
Your observation about Texas is very interesting, and I don't have an answer for that. Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture? In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal.
[0] - https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/#_ftn1%20
> Just to clarify because my link 0 "guns per capita" was a bit misleading. It's actually per 1,000 people, not 1. Link to more original source [0].
Ahhh, registered guns per 1000 people. That makes a bit more sense, but is still probably not all that useful, as the vast majority of guns in the US are unregistered. AFAICT this is just counting NFA-registered weapons, such as fully automatic guns, destructive devices, short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc.
> In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal.
Ah, but it does provide a hint that the number of guns might not be the primary determining factor.
> Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture?
My guess would also involve "Texas's gun culture hasn't been killed off by state laws", as in California.
Ahhh, registered guns per 1000 people. That makes a bit more sense, but is still probably not all that useful, as the vast majority of guns in the US are unregistered. AFAICT this is just counting NFA-registered weapons, such as fully automatic guns, destructive devices, short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc.
> In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal.
Ah, but it does provide a hint that the number of guns might not be the primary determining factor.
> Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture?
My guess would also involve "Texas's gun culture hasn't been killed off by state laws", as in California.
Guns are part of the problem, but not even close to the entire solution. And guns are so ingrained in American lifestyle that they're not going away.
I like the fact that common factors are being found. Maybe flags can be raised and preventative actions taken, including temporarily moving guns out of reach of the at-risk individual.
I like the fact that common factors are being found. Maybe flags can be raised and preventative actions taken, including temporarily moving guns out of reach of the at-risk individual.
> guns are so ingrained in American lifestyle that they're not going away
then neither are the mass shootings. that's that.
then neither are the mass shootings. that's that.
Copycat syndrome.
The terrorists and the crazies in the 20th century seemed to prefer bombs for causing mass panic. There haven't been many bombings in the past 20yr except by "professional" terrorist organizations. Seems like shootings are more popular now.
That said, I haven't been keeping a list so I may be wrong.
The terrorists and the crazies in the 20th century seemed to prefer bombs for causing mass panic. There haven't been many bombings in the past 20yr except by "professional" terrorist organizations. Seems like shootings are more popular now.
That said, I haven't been keeping a list so I may be wrong.
After 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, it became harder to get the materials for bombs. Bullets did not become harder to obtain in the same way. So the method of choice for causing mass panic moved to shooting.
And so after someone gets their way with a national gun ban (and somehow magically that makes the guns go away), people will switch to UHaul. Or arson.
mass violent behavior has been around for a long time
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok
So mass shooters have
1) experienced violence before, often early
2) sometimes experienced psychological problems, maybe as a result of 1)
3) sometimes had some reason to become angry (before the mass-shooting, such as getting fired)
4) sometimes explore/study other mass-shootings before committing one themselves
5) had the means to carry out this crime
Ok, with a bit of flexibility (other than point 5) that could describe every last one of my coworkers, for none of which there is any chance whatsoever they'll ever commit a mass-shooting. The idea is ludicrous.
Typical psychological social-science "insight".
1) experienced violence before, often early
2) sometimes experienced psychological problems, maybe as a result of 1)
3) sometimes had some reason to become angry (before the mass-shooting, such as getting fired)
4) sometimes explore/study other mass-shootings before committing one themselves
5) had the means to carry out this crime
Ok, with a bit of flexibility (other than point 5) that could describe every last one of my coworkers, for none of which there is any chance whatsoever they'll ever commit a mass-shooting. The idea is ludicrous.
Typical psychological social-science "insight".
> that could describe every last one of my coworkers, for none of which there is any chance whatsoever they'll ever commit a mass-shooting.
Something I've noticed after mass shootings: newspapers will interview the friends and family of the shooters. And they'll frequently say things like (paraphrased) "I never could have imagined <shooter> doing this thing, they were always such a <nice person|quiet boy|sweetiepie|etc>."
You're saying something similar - just in advance. The truth is that while there are often red flags, at our core we don't consider each other to be capable of cold-blooded murder. Until it happens.
Something I've noticed after mass shootings: newspapers will interview the friends and family of the shooters. And they'll frequently say things like (paraphrased) "I never could have imagined <shooter> doing this thing, they were always such a <nice person|quiet boy|sweetiepie|etc>."
You're saying something similar - just in advance. The truth is that while there are often red flags, at our core we don't consider each other to be capable of cold-blooded murder. Until it happens.
My point is that the described "warning signs" are not red flags, unless you think that 30% of the population is just waiting to commit mass murder next time they get cut off at a red light.
I’m not sure where 30% came from.
But - given the data we have available - the only conclusion left is yes. Yes, there are more people than we’d like to admit that are capable of these horrible acts. Given the frequency of gun violence here, it’s very difficult to draw another conclusion.
But - given the data we have available - the only conclusion left is yes. Yes, there are more people than we’d like to admit that are capable of these horrible acts. Given the frequency of gun violence here, it’s very difficult to draw another conclusion.
Authors don't make the claim you argue against.
At least a majority of mass shooters seem have been on antidepressants at some point, and quite a few were receiving some form of treatment.
Why this won’t be popularized more is likely political reasons, SSRIs improve patient outcomes in nearly all cases, why allow controversy over SSRIs when it may be a factor in such a small handful of cases per year?
Why this won’t be popularized more is likely political reasons, SSRIs improve patient outcomes in nearly all cases, why allow controversy over SSRIs when it may be a factor in such a small handful of cases per year?
Because of:
1) the effects (esp. the long-term effects: permanent depression and suicide)
2) the addiction and dependency they create
3) their association with mental health
4) their abuse within the mental health institutions
The ordering may not be very accurate.
Also please note that depression rarely, if ever, results in violent behavior (other than suicide).
1) the effects (esp. the long-term effects: permanent depression and suicide)
2) the addiction and dependency they create
3) their association with mental health
4) their abuse within the mental health institutions
The ordering may not be very accurate.
Also please note that depression rarely, if ever, results in violent behavior (other than suicide).
Because you know better?
They’re all male, too.
That woman doesn't satisfy the definition in the article of mass shooter.
5. They live in the US.
The suggestion of metal detectors is laughable. You’d need to put one at the entrance of everyone’s home for that to be remotely effective. The solution is to ban guns, full stop. And then slowly start to address the rotten national psyche that has led to where we are today.
The suggestion of metal detectors is laughable. You’d need to put one at the entrance of everyone’s home for that to be remotely effective. The solution is to ban guns, full stop. And then slowly start to address the rotten national psyche that has led to where we are today.
> 5. They live in the US.
This is not factual. The Lankford study generally cited has been shown to ignore most non-US mass shootings.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238736
Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined."
Data available: https://crimeresearch.org/data/
Yes, the US has a problem with gun violence, mass shootings, and suicides. No, it isn't unique to the US, and gun ownership isn't correlated (at least with the murders and mass shootings).
"The US ranks 58th in attack rate and 62st in murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia are major European countries with at least 45% higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States. The rates in Pakistan and India are respectively 555% and 76% higher than the US rate."
> The solution is to ban guns, full stop.
Similarly inaccurate:
"Lankford’s claim that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with more mass public shooters completely disappears when this more complete data on mass public shooters is used"
This is not factual. The Lankford study generally cited has been shown to ignore most non-US mass shootings.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238736
Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined."
Data available: https://crimeresearch.org/data/
Yes, the US has a problem with gun violence, mass shootings, and suicides. No, it isn't unique to the US, and gun ownership isn't correlated (at least with the murders and mass shootings).
"The US ranks 58th in attack rate and 62st in murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia are major European countries with at least 45% higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States. The rates in Pakistan and India are respectively 555% and 76% higher than the US rate."
> The solution is to ban guns, full stop.
Similarly inaccurate:
"Lankford’s claim that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with more mass public shooters completely disappears when this more complete data on mass public shooters is used"
I'm actually ok with banning guns, but I very much dislike this reductionist mentality "these problems only affect Americans". As other commenters have pointed out, mass shootings happen everywhere, and acting like Americans are somehow special really bypasses a lot of problems.
> As other commenters have pointed out, mass shootings happen everywhere, and acting like Americans are somehow special really bypasses a lot of problems.
Not at this frequency! Truthfully - do you believe that mass shootings happen nearly _every day_ in other countries? No statistic I have ever read has supported that conclusion.
Not at this frequency! Truthfully - do you believe that mass shootings happen nearly _every day_ in other countries? No statistic I have ever read has supported that conclusion.
The US has a pretty large population, about 4x the population of Germany, 5x the population of England, 12x the population of Australia, and about 50x the population of Ireland, etc. By that virtue alone we are going to have more mass shootings. I don't have the statistics for China or India's mass shootings, but those would be more fair to compare in the shear numbers department.
I definitely think our gun laws are stupid, I would support legislation to curtail or completely eliminate guns, but it's not like the US just has one generic kind of person; a big and diverse population is going to bring a lot of really cool and awesome people (many of whom move to big cities like NY or Chicago, which is why I like the US), but also a bunch of xenophobic idiots that also really like guns.
I definitely think our gun laws are stupid, I would support legislation to curtail or completely eliminate guns, but it's not like the US just has one generic kind of person; a big and diverse population is going to bring a lot of really cool and awesome people (many of whom move to big cities like NY or Chicago, which is why I like the US), but also a bunch of xenophobic idiots that also really like guns.
But when they happen elsewhere we take action.
They happen every week in the US.
They happen every week in the US.
Sure, and again I'm somewhat on the side of banning or very-heavily-regulating guns.
I think it's a little unfair to take the US as a whole for this; the population of the US is 5x the population of England, and it's not a big homogeneous blob. Mass shootings don't typically happen in places like NYC, because there are much stricter gun laws.
I think it's a little unfair to take the US as a whole for this; the population of the US is 5x the population of England, and it's not a big homogeneous blob. Mass shootings don't typically happen in places like NYC, because there are much stricter gun laws.
Yes, the US and its cities like Christchurch and Copenhagen.
Do you really want to compare the frequency of mass shootings in Denmark, New Zealand and the USA?
It would only further support a gun ban.
It would only further support a gun ban.
[deleted]
>The solution is to ban guns..
There are logistical problems with that solution as well if we're being honest. How are you going to locate all however many hundred million firearms there are in the US? Even if it's just banning some weapons. How are you going to locate them all?
Even if you could, these terrorists would just use truck bombs.
As far as solutions go, the best option available in our current situation is probably to let our counter-terrorism operatives actually operate. At least up to now, they've been operating with kid gloves with respect to domestic terrorists.
There are logistical problems with that solution as well if we're being honest. How are you going to locate all however many hundred million firearms there are in the US? Even if it's just banning some weapons. How are you going to locate them all?
Even if you could, these terrorists would just use truck bombs.
As far as solutions go, the best option available in our current situation is probably to let our counter-terrorism operatives actually operate. At least up to now, they've been operating with kid gloves with respect to domestic terrorists.
Didn't the gun ban in Australia work pretty well? I know the US has a lot more guns (even per capita) than Australia did, but if we started the process couldn't we conceivably curtail the spread of guns?
This is one of the worst attempts at an unbiased analysis of the issue that I've ever come across. Nothing of value can be garnered from this article.
Clearly Albania, a country with per capita GDP less than a tenth of the US is not a suitable comparison. No attempt has been made to account for income as a confounding variable.
The figures for Norway are predominantly driven by a single data point over the period compared to 67 mass shooting in the US over that same period. Surely this should be mentioned to allow for a proper interpretation of the data?
Clearly Albania, a country with per capita GDP less than a tenth of the US is not a suitable comparison. No attempt has been made to account for income as a confounding variable.
The figures for Norway are predominantly driven by a single data point over the period compared to 67 mass shooting in the US over that same period. Surely this should be mentioned to allow for a proper interpretation of the data?
What about France, Switzerland, Finland? They're all above the US, and don't have low GDP per capita (although I'm not sure why we're supposed to associate poor countries with more shootings).
That would stop shooters, but we would see a great rise in arsons, car attacks and fertilizer bombs.. so kind of back to square one.
What struck me about the El Paso shooter's manifesto was just how poor his rhetoric and reasoning is. Perhaps we should better teach writing, philosophy, and rhetoric in schools and not just focus on STEM. Or at least stats courses better so that one can look at statistics around demographic change and know that it doesn't imply there is a conspiracy afoot.
The Netherlands has strict gun control and still has mass shootings. The last one a couple of months ago was with an illegally obtained AR-15. Four dead. Gun control did nothing to stop that.
You need to fix the rotten mentality that has corrupted many American brains. That's the reason we have so few mass shootings in Europe. Quality of life is much better, for starters.
You need to fix the rotten mentality that has corrupted many American brains. That's the reason we have so few mass shootings in Europe. Quality of life is much better, for starters.
> Gun control did nothing to stop that
[...] one but may have stopped many others where the difficulty in obtaining a firearm was the difference between an angry post on Facebook/Twitter/Livejournal and 9 dead in under a minute.
[...] one but may have stopped many others where the difficulty in obtaining a firearm was the difference between an angry post on Facebook/Twitter/Livejournal and 9 dead in under a minute.
> The Netherlands has strict gun control and still has mass shootings.
I can think of two in my lifetime. The one you mentioned in Utrecht, and the Alphen aan den Rijn one in 2011. Even accounting for population size it's nowhere near the severity/frequency of the US.
> Gun control did nothing to stop that.
Gun control obviously isn't going to stop every attack. That doesn't mean it can't prevent many of them.
I can think of two in my lifetime. The one you mentioned in Utrecht, and the Alphen aan den Rijn one in 2011. Even accounting for population size it's nowhere near the severity/frequency of the US.
> Gun control did nothing to stop that.
Gun control obviously isn't going to stop every attack. That doesn't mean it can't prevent many of them.
In post WW2 history we only had two mass shootings and the Moluccan train hijacking in 1975 and 1977.
Don’t forget everything that isn’t covered by the media. In 2018 we had 527 registered shooting incidents. In the last 18 months we had 44 gun related deaths. In 2018 the police seized 76 automatic weapons such as the AR-15.
For a country with strict gun control that’s a lot.
Don’t forget everything that isn’t covered by the media. In 2018 we had 527 registered shooting incidents. In the last 18 months we had 44 gun related deaths. In 2018 the police seized 76 automatic weapons such as the AR-15.
For a country with strict gun control that’s a lot.
I disagree about banning guns. There are other weapons mass murders could use. Anthrax in the mail and homemade bombs have both been used in US history. We cannot reasonably prohibit access to all dangerous materials. Even a large SUV can be used to kill/injury several people.
I think the biggest gains come from focusing on mental health. I see this is just one symptom of a much larger mental health crisis in the US. Other symptoms include high depression rates, high anxiety rates and high addiction rates.
I think the biggest gains come from focusing on mental health. I see this is just one symptom of a much larger mental health crisis in the US. Other symptoms include high depression rates, high anxiety rates and high addiction rates.
Don't worry msm will blame it on video games, like they do it already
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's irrelevant, not at all. But the ideology can't be ignored, it can't be separated from the act as if it's interchangeable.