Another US Campus mass shooting.

[bstb3]

What I don't get is what is so different in American society that makes these mass attacks so much more common, if it isn't down to the saturation level of guns? I mean other similarly developed "1st World" countries aren't experiencing similar issues on anything like the same level of frequency. Some countries, like the UK and Australia, have gone down the route of severely limiting ownership and they don't have these problems. Yet other countries in Europe have increasingly higher level of gun ownership, yet there is no increasing trend in mass shootings by comparison.

So, why America? What is it particular to their society that is making these happen? Genuine question, not just fishing for "stupid muricans" type answers (I suspect it's a little more than just that as plenty of stupids elsewhere around the world too). Looking at the clusters on the timeline that was posted then I guess there is a large degree of copycat going on?

The only thing I can think beyond copycat is in the perception of guns themselves as empowering rather than just tools?

[jmorgan]

Always found Alistair Cooks succinct description very clear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q16zd

Bear in mind it was 1993.

[creampuff]

OpulentBob said:

Strange. The meaning of the second amendment and it's reference (when originally introduced) to militia was quite comprehensively discussed and described by a US (NYC) senator on BBCR5 earlier this week, on their up all night piece. Quite in depth, for a good 30 minutes.

I didn't hear it. Senators may have their own views, just like anybody else. However the supreme court found that the term "militia" refers to individual citizens. I'll quote from Wiki below, the reference to the case should provide sufficient detail for further reading if anybody is interested:

"In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues."

The 1993 BBC piece in the link above is also just an opinion piece and precedes the US Supreme Court decision which I have referenced in my post.

[durbster]

bstb3 said:

So, why America? What is it particular to their society that is making these happen?

Marketing. Guns have been idolised in film, TV and print for as long as I can remember.

[Truckosaurus]

bstb3 said:

So, why America?

I don't think any other country has gun ownership so deeply embedded in their whole national character, foundation of the country and history (the 'wild west' and Civil War are very much Recent History) so the USA is unique in its relationship to firearms (and also The Military).

[superkartracer]

bstb3 said:

What I don't get

Start with this -

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

[Fartomatic5000]

Lollers at Obama talking about gun control, what a hypocrite. I suppose he means more background checks and making sure the guns aren't going to get into the hands of crazed loonatics intent on mass murder?

When you realise that Obama is the biggest gun dealer in the world you have to ask what background checks he did when arming the radical islamist so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria. How many people have been killed because of the guns the US government has handed out to these groups?

[ewenm]

Truckosaurus said:

bstb3 said:

So, why America?

I don't think any other country has gun ownership so deeply embedded in their whole national character, foundation of the country and history (the 'wild west' and Civil War are very much Recent History) so the USA is unique in its relationship to firearms (and also The Military).

As an outside observer the impression I get is that the gun is not a last resort option for law enforcement, it's the default option. When the general population sees that, why wouldn't they adopt the same stance? Of course, I know the only incidents that make the UK media are those with the shock value of contraversial police shootings, so my outside observations are no doubt skewed. It'd be interesting to hear from any US PHers on whether they feel the police are too keen to use their guns or they feel it's at the appropriate level.

Desperately sad when these mass shootings happen.

[FredClogs]

An American problem which will require and American solution, besides being a good topic to have a right old barny about I'm not sure why so many this side of the Atlantic take so much interest in the failings of US culture. I'm as wrapped up in US led global 21st culture as the next person but I'm able to distance myself from the debate, as with many others about the finer failings of US culture, because it's really none of my business.

That said it would be wiser to not have as many guns floating around and pharmaceutical anti depressants and violent imagery in films and television and strange role models and cynicism toward the state and phony wars on drugs - but that's not just a US problem.

[Funk]

RobDickinson said:

Asterix said:

Apparently Obama has had 15 US mass shootings while he's been the boss.

Madness!

Hasnt there been 294 mass shootings this year in the USA?

Australia had 13 mass shootings (classed as greater than four fatalities) in the 18 years prior to gun control being introduced in '96.

Since gun control was introduced they've had ZERO mass shootings. None at all since 1996. They also saw a huge decrease in suicide rates involving guns.

Gun control works and saves lives.

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

Breadvan72 said:

many Democrats in the House and the Senate are pro gun.

Yep, and this is what so angers me. I read an academic paper last year which pointed out that Democratic politicians, particularly senators, flip-flop on gun control and backtrack on their stance as elections approach. Link below is a short precis


http://www.voxeu.org/article/guns-and-votes

You can get the entire paper here but they charge, I'm afraid, unless you're an academic, a journalist etc.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20253

... or a bazzer with a chambers subscription to Global academic online resources, so will give it a read later, ta.

[Fartomatic5000]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They appear to not give a toss because they understand what the second ammendment is about better than any disarmed Brit could.

[Munter]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because we love an underdog.

[Funk]

Breadvan72 said:

Obama should not hang his head in shame, but every member of Congress who has voted against gun control should do so, as should the majority of the Supreme Court who decided two important gun control cases in recent years (in a pro gun direction). They have blood on their hands, because of their insane worship of a sacred text (the Second Amendment), that in any event they serially misconstrue. Obama cannot act alone. No President can. The President needs the Congress to act with him (or, as it may be, her), and needs the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment correctly, as the minority Justices already do. Add one or two more Justices to their number when Scalia and one of the other conservative jurists retires, and then we shall see.

Completely agree with this. Senators are protecting themselves and their political interests rather than acting to save lives. Quelle surprise...

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

You are trying to change to a different subject. I use none of that rhetoric. The issues are far more serious than that. You questioned what guns have to do with penises. That is a truly absurd question to ask. Guns are closely associated with ideas of maleness and the phallic. The fact that some women also use guns does not negate that point. See above for phallic imagery in connection with women and guns, as well as men and guns. To suggest that guns and cultural concepts associated with the penis have no relation to one another is to be culturally tone deaf.

OK if you have a desire to make more restrictive laws around gun use and ownership, then I think equating them to penises is not the argument to use. It's just weird. It probably will have more success in the US than calling gun owners crazed murderers but only because the penis argument is so bizarre that it will leave the pro-gun camp totally befuddled for quite some time. You hold guns at eye level to shoot them btw, not at crotch level.

Crikey, I wasn't sure that you really could be that dense, but it appears that you really are that dense. The willy waving argument is a silly argument, but not one I make, and I am addressing a different point. You are still asserting, it appears, that guns have no connection with the penis (and by that I mean ideas of masculinity as well as the organ itself), and now it seems just because of the correct position for shooting a gun. You are not (always) even right about that, BTW, because in some situations rifle armed infantry have been trained to fire from the hip while moving forward, albeit that ordinarily they fire their weapons from the shoulder (I am not sure if current infantry doctrine endorses firing from the hip, or calls for personal (non pistol) weapons always to be at the shoulder when fired, but doctrine sometimes endorsed hip firing in WW2). The door gunner in a helicopter does not fire the weapon from his shoulder, AFAIK. See also the gun position mounted on top of an armoured fighting vehicle/personnel carrier. None of that matters, however. You are being culturally tone deaf.

[toon10]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why do we get worked up that innocent people, including an alarming number of children, are getting killed becuase of archaic gun laws and lack of controls?

[FredClogs]

My Auntie Loretta (from Texas) always used to say, "son, guns are like penises, I always keep a spare one in my handbag in case of emergencies."

[David87]

BlackST said:

http://poal.me/r9k/

The thread started by him last night saying he was going to do it. Unbelievable.

Blimey. Whilst that thread is absolutely shocking and clearly full of unstable people, has anyone else had a wider dig around that forum? Maybe I'm getting old, but I was genuinely shocked.

[Oakey]

Fartomatic5000 said:

They appear to not give a toss because they understand what the second ammendment is about better than any disarmed Brit could.

Because the right to own firearms is far more important than the right not to get shot going to school, college, work, the cinema, church, a restaurant, etc. Right, bro?!

[Funk]

My sister lives in Texas and informed me the other day she has acquired a revolver 'for protection'. I'm REALLY not happy about it but it's her life and she's an adult.

The stupid thing is that if someone breaks in she'll have no time to get to the gun, load it and threaten the intruder. I recall reading that many Americans who have an intruder in their home end up getting shot with their own weapon. The idea that having a gun 'protects' you is an utter fallacy.

The 'right to bear arms' harks back to a time of swords and muskets when the people may have had to actually fight Government forces. That time is long-gone and the US Government doesn't represent a physical threat to its people (virtual threat is where it's at now...).

Hard-of-thinking Americans have twisted the 'right to bear arms' into the 'right to keep semi-automatic weapons for fun'. I wouldn't care so much if it was them being shot rather than innocent school or college students.

America needs to instigate gun control - we know it can work because it did in Australia.