US Mass Shootings Megathread - read OP

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121286955#Comment_121286955

The average road traffic accident doesn't end up with 22 dead... It would make far more sense to be comparing other country's levels of spree shootings.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287047#Comment_121287047

The average mass shooting in the US doesn't end up with 22 dead either. Not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023

As can be seen from the above page via a simple word search, a large number of US mass shootings happen at a "party". Other keywords to search include "domestic", "gang" and "school".

Anyway, there are plenty of reasons why other cause of death (including suicide and road deaths) in the US are relevant to any discussion on gun deaths and gun violence in the US. Individualism, culture, health and social care, drug use, inequality, poverty etc.

That's if people want to try to discuss and understand what's happening - which of course they don't, they want to entertain themselves and sneer at political opponents.

JP Liz V1

RIP those 22, so common hearing of gun crime violence in America, never be change in gun laws

President Joe Biden in a statement Thursday called the rampage in Lewiston, Maine, "yet another senseless and tragic mass shooting," and urged Republican lawmakers "to fulfill their duty to protect the American people" and work on gun laws.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121286950#Comment_121286950

I don't care if it sounds unscientific.

Clearly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287085#Comment_121287085

So uncommon that you are able to bring up a Mass Shooting Average stat!!!

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121285526#Comment_121285526

There is a right to keep and bear firearms in Czech law (the word "pistol" is Czech), and they haven't had a spree shooting with a higher body count than their worst truck-driving rampage. In fact, as a US citizen, I can obtain a carry permit in Czechia whereas a Czech cannot obtain a carry permit in the US. Czechs also have fewer restrictions on where you can carry a firearm (There are basically no 'gun free zones' in Czechia), and one out of every 30 Czechs aged 15 and up have a license to carry a concealed firearm in public. If you meet the basic criteria, you cannot be denied a permit to carry, it's what the US would categorised as a "Shall-issue" state, unless you're a foreigner from certain countries just visiting, in which case it's "may-issue"

I suspect that the distinction on why there are spree shootings in the US and not in Czechia isn't whether or not there is a right to a firearm, but something else.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121285360#Comment_121285360

They do, indeed, and they don't seem to care whether or not the proposed changes in gun laws make any practical sense. They sound good, are vote winners, and the Irish shooting community is too small to have any weight. Hop over to the Boards shooting forum and see their discussions on proposed legislation.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287484#Comment_121287484

 If you meet the basic criteria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic

The criteria sounds quite sensible comparted to parts of America.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-shooter-bought-gun-legally/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/know-maine-gun-laws-lewiston-shootings-no-background-checks-red-flag-l-rcna122293

Proposals to require background checks for private gun sales and create a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases failed earlier this year. Proposals that focused on school security and banning bump stocks failed in 2019.

Residents have also voted down some attempts to tighten gun laws in Maine. A proposal to require background checks for gun sales failed in a 2016 public vote

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287706#Comment_121287706

The point is that the basic criteria are about the same as in a lot of parts of the US as well.

In order to obtain a carry permit, I had to attend a course, demonstrate practical shooting proficiency, and submit my fingerprints for a background check which covered both criminal and mental history. Whilst there are those who are strongly against some those requirements (and I am forced to admit that some of them are actually demonstrated ineffective in practice), they do no huge harm. The only thing that the Czech system adds is a medical physical exam, which seems a bit redundant: If they can pass the practical tests, their eyesight and co-ordination are obviously good enough (And in fairness, when it comes to spree shooters, then by definition they are medically capable enough to use the firearm effectively).

As to the... individual over on the shooting forum, I agree he was advocating a little beyond what would be applicable for the Irish situation. That is not to say that the story of the sub-forum for the over two decades I've been on Boards is not one of shooters dealing with ever-increasing restrictions generally contrary to the recommendations of the Irish shooting community.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287794#Comment_121287794

The point is that the basic criteria are about the same as in a lot of parts of the US as well.

Just to obtain a gun?

After you pass all the criteria, it takes 30 days to get a permit, you then need to register the firearm within 10 days with the police.

I very much that is the norm in large parts of the states.

In Maine there is no background checks and

A Maine law enacted in 2015 allows people who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. Those between the ages of 18 and 20 are required to have a permit to carry concealed, according to state law.

Manic Moran

No, I admit that 'to obtain a gun' there needs to be better implementation of background checks. However, I believe you will find that in the cases of the vast majority of spree shootings, the firearm in question was purchased after having passed a background check (Subject to asterisks such as Lanza), so it's not much of an issue anyway. It would help, but only tangentially. That said, the long-term futility of it is demonstrated by two states recently having had legislation introduced for background checks on 3D printers, given the recent rapid advances in the reliability of 3D-printed firearms. Good luck with that, let alone things like regulating the high school's common use 3D printer or whatever.

The net merits of the 'waiting period' are hotly debated in the US, including in the courts. The strongest merits of waiting period laws is, contrary perhaps to some expectations, that it is shown to reduce suicide, as opposed that it is shown to reduce impulsive crime, particularly spree shootings. And, of course, it also discounts those who have discovered a need for a firearm before an arbitrary period of time have elapsed. Not that reducing suicide isn't a laudable goal in itself, but it's not the topic here.

Permitless carry is one of those situations which seems at first to be insane, but in practice there is no evidence to prove it is. Only one State has never required a license to carry a firearm, Vermont (which is why it's called Vermont carry by some), it's also routinely the safest State in the Union. As the majority of States have gradually loosened their laws from 'no carry' to 'permitted carry' to 'permitless carry', we have the ability to see whether or not these changes have had any statistical effect on crime or firearms crime rate in that jurisdiction. They have not. The merits of the first step have been to court, the 7th Circuit observing that Illinois being the last State to prohibit carriage of firearms could provide no evidence that the ban had any practical effect. To my knowledge, the second has not yet been evaluated in court, and with the result of Bruen, it seems unlikely it ever will be. Regardless, it seems that those who tend to carry firearms without hurting anyone (except in legitimate defense) are going to behave well with or without a permit, and those who tend to carry firearms and hurt people tend to do it without asking permission to carry the gun in the first place. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly advantages to having a permit even in a permitless State (Makes my interactions with police much less stressful), but that's less of a public safety issue.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121288061#Comment_121288061

The net merits of the 'waiting period' are hotly debated in the US, including in the courts. The strongest merits of waiting period laws is, contrary perhaps to some expectations, that it is shown to reduce suicide, as opposed that it is shown to reduce impulsive crime, particularly spree shootings

Which study is that?

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

The permissiveness or restrictiveness of state gun laws is associated with the rate of mass shootings in the US. States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership have higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divergence is noted in recent years as rates of mass shootings in restrictive states have decreased and those in permissive states have increased. 

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121286895#Comment_121286895

Gun ownership in Switzerland is a very, very different cultural phenomenon though. You are generally not allowed carry them in public and there is very little "hoarding" of firearms. Also I believe our suicide by gun rate is relatively high. I don't know the exact specifics, but while I have regularly gone past gun ranges here, I have literally never seen anyone outside of uniform carrying a firearm.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121288061#Comment_121288061

So you admit that the basic criteria is absolutley completely different and needs changing. Okey dokey.

Is it just me or did anyone else notice that of these thousands of mass shootings that are happening it's nearly always the easily available assault rifle that is used kill the most innocent victims?

As to your claim about background checks there was a mass shooting one last year where a young lad bought an assault rifle at a local store two days after his 18th birthday, he went back three days later to the same store and bought another one. Four days after buying the second one he shot his grandmother in the head and then went to an elemtary school where he murdered 21 people, 19 of them children.

I don't know why people try to ignore facts.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-shooting-texas-elementary-school-unfolded/story?id=84966910

Manic Moran

"Which study is that?"

The ones submitted by both California and the Plaintiff in Silvester v Becerra which directly address the effect of the waiting period. As you can imagine, each side picked studies which supported their cases. See for example

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods/suicide.html (Reduces suicide)

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods/mass-shootings.html (no effect on mass shootings)

For the full listing, see the briefs submitted to the Court.

The link you provide is useless for debating the merits of any particular policy. Worse, it's pretty useless as a general guide: It makes the obvious observation that more states with more guns have looser gun laws and more shootings, but without any control or any causation. After all, states which have lots of people who like guns are likely to buy more guns and not vote for gun control laws. States which have more anti-gun people are more likely to vote for gun control laws, and also less likely to buy guns, regardless of whether the laws are loose or not. Do the laws cause the reduction in shooting, or are both the laws and the shooting numbers merely the results of the population's attitudes? It is a comparison between different groups.

Instead it is more instructive to look at changes within a group directly resulting from a new policy, and establish a causal link from one to the other. The good news is that if you have a narrow subject, you can have more useful data. In Silvester, the only thing that mattered was the effect of a waiting period. They were able to show that in a constant population (eg a State), a change in the waiting period correlated with a reduction in suicide after that change, and there is a logical causative link between the two. In Moore v Madigan, the State was unable to show any example where a move from "no carry permit issued" to "carry permitted" had a negative effect, despite the fact that over the previous 25 years fifteen other states changed their laws in such a manner (Plus a bunch more which changed from "may issue" to "shall issue"). In those cases, again, the same group was subjected to a change in circumstances. If that change in circumstances resulted in no change in statistics, then even though there appears to be a logical causative link, the reality is that there is no effect. Whether the various states in question are generally pro-gun or anti-gun is irrelevant when the group being assessed is that State only. On the other hand, when you have a correlation, it's still worth looking for a causative effect. Only one paper I know of attempted to establish a causative effect on the Australian gun buyback (University of Melbourne), so while the correlation is obvious, they were unable to conclude that the reduction in firearms violence was caused by the buyback as opposed to other policies also enacted. You need to have both in order to make a statement that any law or policy had an effect.

Better yet, since we have differences in dates between the changes in law in the various discrete populations (and one or two States who never changed anything), you can have control groups to identify and thus remove some more nationwide trends. This article discusses the merits of this.

https://manhattan.institute/article/more-guns-same-amount-of-crime-analyzing-the-effect-of-right-to-carry-laws-on-homicide-and-violent-crime

Thus it is for permitless carry. In the last 20 years, 26 States have changed their laws to allow permitless carry. That's 26 different datasets one can look at, with a definable 'change' date. Did firearms deaths in Maine increase after the 2015 law? Answer, 2016 firearms deaths dropped 20% from 2015 (Both suicide and homicide). 2017 and later are higher than the 2015 figure, but the increase was substantially lower than that of the nationwide increase.

"So you admit that the basic criteria is absolutley completely different and needs changing"

Your definition of "absolutely completely different" and mine apparently seem to differ. I view it as differences in detail. "Absolutely completely different" would be between Vermont and Ireland.

I don't see how the Uvalde example makes any case for background checks or waiting periods. He passed the background check. He also waited nine days before buying a rifle and shooting someone. Is it your contention that there is any reason to believe that he would not have shot anyone had he been forced to wait ten days instead?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121288989#Comment_121288989

The link you provide is useless for debating the merits of any particular policy. Worse, it's pretty useless as a general guide: It makes the obvious observation that more states with more guns have looser gun laws and more shootings, but without any control or any causation. After all, states which have lots of people who like guns are likely to buy more guns and not vote for gun control laws. States which have more anti-gun people are more likely to vote for gun control laws, and also less likely to buy guns, regardless of whether the laws are loose or not. Do the laws cause the reduction in shooting, or are both the laws and the shooting numbers merely the results of the population's attitudes? 

So less guns, more gun control = less mass shootings. That's accepted established fact.

I have no idea what you mean by "the populations attitude"?

Could you explain please.

Rows Grower

You view it as differences in detail, that's how I and the rest of the world view it too. If the details are not the same then they are different. Absolutely completly different.

Your attempt to say the rules in Czechia and the USA are basically the same is wrong. Your attempt to portray Czechia as a country with more relaxed laws than the USA is also wrong.

I have no idea why you are trying to sidetrack the discussion with strawman arguments, but if it makes you feel good do whatever floats your boat.

randd1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287010#Comment_121287010

Tongue in cheek joke.

And of course it was distasteful, that's the point. The whole attitude to mass shootings in the US is distasteful, they treat it as a joke, so why not go along with it. As no joke could more perverse or disgusting than the continued reaction to these type of incidents in the US.

ArthurDayne

I fear that too many Americans have already decided in their own minds that partaking in a collective fantasy around the obscure fear of a tyrannical government is worth paying the price of living under the very real, tangible and regularly-fulfilled fear of lunatics shooting their children in schools, colleges and parties.

The fear of tyrannical government, whatever that means in each of their minds, seems to outweigh the fear of any number of nutcases within 100 miles of your home having relatively easy access to equipment that is built and manufactured specifically for the purpose of killing people.

At least that's what they seem to say. I suspect sometimes it's less about high fantasies about revolutionary action and more of "I think guns are super cool and I feel cool having them".

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121287484#Comment_121287484

I suspect that the distinction on why there are spree shootings in the US and not in Czechia isn't whether or not there is a right to a firearm, but something else.

What do you think that 'something else' might be?

yagan

Was chatting with a US relative and all they could home in on was that there must be some revenge angle, they must have pissed him off.

From the outside looking in it seems the usual problem, easy access to guns for someone hearing voices in their head telling them to just murder.

Christy42

I feel like a big difference is in how they treat guns. You see politicians with gun pins on their lapels.

There is never a complete focus on we will fix this, just whataboutism. Laws in many countries are likely too restrictive but they just made the decision that it is better to be too restrictive than too leniant.

Switzerland, Czechia have a lot of guns but it isn't part of a national identity.

I saw a joke on US employment laws and a load of comments were "well we can buy guns" ?!? Wasn't the best joke ever but how is that one up manship over some getting more holidays?

You see comments about people trying not to go anywhere without a piece, that is treating your home as an active war zone.

When guns become this critical to so many people's sense of self then this sort of thing will happen.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121289417#Comment_121289417

I don't think it's the cool angle. I think it pure narcissism. There is a culture of self righteousness, that I should have the right to kill because I am inherently "good" and there are bogeymen out there who are "bad". The nuance that all men are both good and bad including me is incomprehensible. You will hear them say things like the good guys need to be armed to stop the bad guys. It's the dumbest **** I've ever heard but they genuinely believe it. It's the intellect of a 14 year old boy having watched his favourite action movie star win an against the odds battle for good. If only life was that simple.

yagan

In the leadup to the last US election I genuinely thought that some militia would take over a state capital to declare it for Trump. The scenes in the Michigan state capital were half way there, but the capital riot could have been a lot worse if there had been more planning.

I won't be surprised if they end up with a city sized Waco siege.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121289417#Comment_121289417

I would have agreed with that sentiment a few years ago, but the rise of Trumpism has changed my mind. A tyrannical government appears to be a very real threat in the US now. Ironically, the people who fear it most think the threat is coming from the Left when actually in fact it's the Right and the Republican Party which is now fully in thrall to a would-be dictator, which presesnts the biggest threat to "muh freedom bruh!"

The thing Europeans often forget about America, and especially those of us in a relatively safe and prosperous and largely homogenous society like Ireland, is that there is very little concensus on anything in the US. Everything is a matter of hard earned "wins" that come in the teeth of massive opposition from groups who will gladly trample on other's rights if it keeps them in the manner they are accustomed to. It has always been a very dog eat dog society and it's only gotten way worse in the last 10 years.

I'd certainly agree that a large proportion of it is gun fetishism whereby the gun lobby has ingeniously connected their product with nationalism, patriotism and "freedom" in minds of millions of citizens.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121289426#Comment_121289426

Respect for life and government actions in response to crime. Most mass shootings in the US have a pre-existing criminal background, itself caused often by inadequate government or social policy. Solve that, and you solve more than just the problem of shootings. The other part of it is the attitude that too many Americans have that an appropriate response to 'something' is to shoot someone which needs to be removed from the culture, also something probably doable by social policy which will fix more than just shootings. Be it theft, getting dissed, feeling unwanted by women, unhappy with immigration policies... That, and the fame which comes as a result. It's been said many times before by psychiatrists, they seek fame, and we keep obliging. That needs to stop.

The problem? To do the job requires a multi-year, very complex and expensive effort which isn't going to show any benefit at all within an election cycle and probably requires working with other politicians. Much easier to pass a law which does little and issue a press release, then attend the next fund-raiser.

yagan

Plus the US is the most urban sprawly society where people can simply rot.

Australia is extremely sprawly too but the combination of mandatory voting so no one can be disenfranchised, access to good basic healthcare and education and restrictions on gun ownership after port Arthur just reduces the chaos.

It has its problems accepting legacy impacts on the native Australian, but it's probably the best template for the US to emulate if it reduces the mass gun death events.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121289417#Comment_121289417

You're hanging out on too many right-wing sites, or too many left-wing sites which like to amplify the worst of the right-wing. Yes, there is a definite group of vocal folks who make that a talking point, but unless you are willing to believe that 45% of US households live in fear of the tyranny of government, then that's not a reflection of overall US attitude. The Heritage Foundation does not represent most Americans.

Surveys indicate that the majority reason for firearm ownership is personal protection, followed by hunting and target shooting. Respondents who say "2nd Amendment" are about 5%.

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121291242#Comment_121291242

One would think that at least while they make multi-year efforts to resolve these deep-rooted social isues, they might also tackle the issue of access to guns at the same time.

As I've said before, if somebody is suicidal and has a history of cutting themselves, as well as making every effort to get to the root of their desire to do that, you hide the knives in the house.

Overheal

Useful here:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/the-view-airs-clip-of-reagan-arguing-to-ban-ak-47s-they-revere-him-why-dont-they-follow-him/

The answer though is they're hypocrites, they want power, not principles, and they all express nightmares of 'great replacement,' coupled with the fact they privately know they ushered in climate change, they stay up at night worrying not enough Americans have enough guns for what is yet to be the greatest mass migration in human history. Literally a monster of their own creation through decades of hypocritical policies that led us to that apparent Antarctic precipice, but that's what I've gathered from decades of listen to Republicans and the things they won't even repeat to me on the internet.