What I do know is that many countries have massive media coverage of mass shootings.
But I'm not sure if there is any country besides the US which has such massive problems with mass shootings.
So even if it might amplify thinks it seems unlikely to be the root cause.
And how do you define a mass shooting? The media equates a gangland battle between two groups of crack dealers to be the same thing as the Columbine shooting.
A country can still have nightmarish levels of crime while having strict gun control, like Brazil. A country can have nightmarish levels of crime with very little gun restrictions, like South Africa and The Philippines. A country can be very safe and have little gun control, like Switzerland, The Czech Republic and Israel. A country can have strict gun control and very little crime, like Japan.
You need to take a more holistic approach to understand what is really going on. And certainly to inform policy.
I really wish the US would focus on an infrastructure bill already. In my opinion that would do more to tackle the root of crime -- inequity than the current push being called for. I feel something like that over time would have a much more positive impact on the lives of more Americans than anything else discussed in recent memory. And it is not so divisive as other big govt ideas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-l...
> Using the four-person-killed definition, Lankford found that the United States had far more mass shooters (90 shooters in the 46 years, or 31 percent of the total) than the other countries, which averaged 1.7 public mass shooter per country. His research excluded gang-related shootings, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, robberies and acts of genocide or terrorism.
Under Lott's broader definition, the Phillipines had significantly more mass shootings than the US per capita.