U.S. Mass Shootings On Rise No Matter How You Define Them
themarshallproject.org
themarshallproject.org
There are several campaigns that argue that this is what is causing the proliferation of mass murders.
And, Georgelemental clearly labeled what he said as his "perception". It seems a bit unreasonable to ask for a source for something as weak as a perception. (And, adding more question marks doesn't make it any more reasonable.)
He really did seem to be maximizing attention more than anything else.
This last guy they made a big deal about was literally a jew (mother was a jew, he attended a synagogue etc) by the way. They say Hitler was a jew so I guess that's how you can tell the real Nazis apart from normal homophobes. /s
Mass murderers have been famous throughout history (by at least one reasonable definition, most of "history" is defined as a list of who killed who). But in 1962 the most effective weapon you could find to perform one was a bolt action hunting rifle, breech loading shotgun, or plausibly a six-shot revolver that took 90+ seconds to reload. Now you run to the corner store and get equipment that can deliver a hundred rounds in a minute. Arguing that this simple issue of equipment technology and availability is not at least part of the problem seems ridiculous on its face.
Here’s a 1964 ad for a commercial AR-15 model: https://www.ebay.com/itm/403353839122
Also, a six shot revolver can be reloaded in seconds using a speed loader; basically, a piece of plastic that holds six rounds of ammunition in the right position to drop directly into the cylinder.
Police officers commonly carried them.
Specifically, M-1 Carbines, which are all gone now from that program. My understanding is they're the easy-to-shoot, high-capacity magazine-fed predecessor to the AR-15.
Sort of says it all, really.
"There were more mass shootings in the past five years [2017-2021] than in any other half-decade going back to 1966"
So no, I don't think it correlates to recessions and/or inflation.
Ergo mass shootings are on the rise because there are more mass shootings, and no circuit-breakers to interrupt "the riot".
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-...
That said there's no doubt there's in my mind economic conditions contribute. The paths to middle class prosperity in the US are fewer and further between than they used to be. That deprives many of even the aspiration of a better life, leading to nihilism, which can be witnessed in many contexts outside mass shootings (what media is popular, sentiment polls, etc).
I also wonder if our Architecture itself contributes. A lot of bedroom community suburbs seem designed to create social isolation. They're just collections of crash pads for long commutes with no communal gathering places.
Maybe what we need is a version of the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer?
Look at HN. We discuss various events the same way ( process-wise anyway ) as people on FB discuss stuff. It is very interactive and we did not seem to develop appropriate firewall rules for social media yet ( as in, just because TV shows a guy running on water, doesn't mean its possible ). For some reason, we take informal social media utterance with more gravity than official White House statement.
I think you are really onto something.
It looks to me like they heavily correlate with presidential elections. Columbine and Virginia tech were the year before an election, Sandy Hook was the year of an election. Even now, it seems like we peak on shootings before elections.
1: https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/fatalities3.p...
The FBI investigated this and found only a minor correlation.
Whereas there is a high correlation between financial crisis and depression. Including suicide which accounts for a very large proportion of gun violence. Which made the FBI discovery rather shocking.
Social media is also minor correlation, something like 17%.
I think the point discovered is that mass shootings are not statistical. They are microscopic in terms of homicide, Mass shootings accounted for under 0.2% of homicides in the U.S. between 2000 and 2016, which spans the dotcom bust and financial crisis. They aren't even close in terms of gun violence or even gun crime in general.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
I will not concede on red flag laws that prop up false accusation. That's like having a backdoor in your encryption, willingly. And I know how 95% of the people on this site feel about that.
I will not concede on increasing the age to own firearms. There is no other right in our bill of rights that is only given in full well after legal adulthood has been reached. "You're allowed free speech, but only once your mind has developed enough to where you don't say as many stupid things." Sounds terrible to me.
I will not concede on banning certain types of firearms, nor firearm accessories, as the primary point of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow our own government if it became necessary.
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government (...) it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." ~ George Washington
The government will not abolish itself. It will go kicking and screaming. Jefferson probably wasn't talking about peacefully abolishing an entire government. You're being disingenuous if you think so. Washington wasn't talking about the Federal army having sole monopoly over the military supply manufactories, otherwise how would a militia function to keep a rogue military and Federal government in check? They wouldn't.
There is a problem with violence in America today. I'm not disputing that. The solution is not to ban certain firearms. Or to raise the legal age. Or to ban all firearms. Or to require the government's permission before obtaining a firearm. We need to take unnecessary government spending and put some of it towards training people to be comfortable with firearms, and to respect them. We need to fix society to understand the importance and beauty of life. We need to promote having fathers in the home to teach these kids how to behave.
I support fixing the mental health and societal problem. But when it comes to "gun laws", you can "come and take them."
Not to mention, that's not a good argument against the 2A. "Technology has advanced, and only the Federal government has that technology. Guess the 2A is pointless now and doesn't matter." Sounds to me like we deserve more access to advanced technology.
Friendly reminder that private citizens owned warships.
[0] https://thehustle.co/leonard-v-pepsi-harrier-jet-lawsuit/
"A majority of gun owners (61%) are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party, but NRA members skew even more heavily to the political right than other gun owners. Roughly three-quarters (77%) of gun owners who say they belong to the NRA are Republicans or lean Republican, while only 20% are Democrats or lean Democratic." [1]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/politics/republicans-j... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-o...
The Supreme Court begs to differ on something so simple as a woman and her own eggs. Can't have it both ways. Having more guns than people while taking away people's right to vote, or right to basic health services etc, is a recipe for disaster.
Also worth noting the counter argument is that the fetus and the mother may have competing interest. The controversy and lack of guidance in the constitution means democratic process within the states may not be the worst way to go about this.
Pretty categorical.
Again, can't have it both ways. The constitution did not define what "arms" were. The "competing interest" here is for all the lives lost in mass shootings with modern assault weapons.
[0] https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.ne...
Again there is no enumerated right to terminate a pregnancy. This is complete fabrication.
An AR-15 (I have no idea what an "assault weapon" is but I assume you include it) is clearly "arms." There's no ambiguity. Outlawing murder is constitutionally sound, outlawing arms is not. Inanimate objects do not commit murder.
> The "competing interest"
Abortion is literally the act of removing or terminating the fetus. Owning arms is not the act of murdering people in a mass shooting. You present a false and frankly poorly constructed false equivalence.
>Again, can't have it both ways.
The constitution literally set it up so we could have it "both ways." Enumerated rights subject to a much more difficult to alter process (such as the right to keep and bear arms). Then, tenth amendment allows issues like abortion to be delegated to the democratic process of the states. If you're looking for a boogeyman here, look no further than the electorate of your state.
> "both ways"
If half the US call abortion murder, and the other half treat it as a female health issue, then it's no longer "United" states. That's my point. It's a divided nation and armed to the teeth. Good luck with that.
At what point in US history was every state in complete and utter unity with every other state on every topic? Seems to me you have given the perfect example of the logic behind why individual states get to democratically determine their own laws.
If the Federal government shouldn't make laws unless every citizen of every state agrees with them, then neither should states. We should then devolve to autonomous, self-governing collectives based entirely on common political ideology. But wait, not every person's set of beliefs is uniform with every others. People may agree on abortion but disagree on other issues. Obviously we can't have people be half-governed.
The only answer is anarchy, then. Each individual acts as a law and government unto themselves.
Of course you can choose to reject all pooled systems of cooperation under anarchy, and be an "island" of your own, and that is indeed the most extreme for of anarchism. The issue being no man is an island, so if you're attacked by someone else for aborting you may not have anyone to have your back. Ultimately you need violence to defend against outside attacks, so in practice most will form some sort of alliance of mutual protection and arbitration for violation of certain "law" (the most basic often agreed upon law in anarchist thought is the "non-aggression principle" which itself is subject to interpretation.)
Interestingly, quite a few "anarchists" have been happy to tell me they'd happily execute a threat to "act appropriately" if they learned someone else aborted, as they see it as a violation of consent and non-agression against the fetus -- so even the "autonomy" to abort is pretty controversial in anarchist circles.
Abortion up to a certain point might have broad support, but polling shows that majority support starts falling off after the first trimester and I believe late to full term abortion availability (which the democrats set as their baseline) only has very minimal support in the general US population. I believe the support for full term abortion is like around 10% in some polling I have seen. Abortion support is definitely not black and white. Lot of gray in there.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Using your acid test though, assuming a majority support abortion access in a state—but if the state has anti-abortion laws, and candidates continue to run and win as republicans with anti-abortion as a core value of the party, then abortion is simply not a hot button issue among many of those voters who might identify as pro-choice on the issue. I know for me, I’m pro-choice, but short of extreme opinion on abortion on both sides, a candidate’s opinion on the subject will not deter me from voting for them. My neighbors are pro-life, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a cold beer and hot dog together on Independence Day. It’s also damned likely we have voted the same candidates despite our terrible and insurmountable differences. Insurmountable differences, according to some maybe.
Sounds highly illogical to me. That totally won't ever be abused, like every vague law is, by every political party ever.
Your hard line interpretation in this thread is a pretty recent thing in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and Burger's opening sentence in that quote is accurate.
It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one.
Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia?
What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft.
> Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms
"(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." [0]
Also bear in mind the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If it meant just the militia they would have written it was the militia's right not the people's right.
Your interpretation here is merely one of a few, rather than factual. There have been many Supreme Court justices who did believe the wording gave militias (or "collective") a right. It mostly stems from the opening ("prefatory") clause, and the meaning of the comma separating it from the final ("operative") clause.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
I linked it because the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia (whether they want to be in it or not). Ergo, if only the people of the militia have a right then 17-45 y/o men have the right to the exclusion of (non-uniform) women etc.
The fact that it says "the people" rather than "the militia" have the right is not an "interpretation." It is verbatim. There is nothing left to chance here. If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people.
Also even if it is only to the militia, US code makes literally almost every able body 17-45 year old male members of the militia. It's basically women, children, the older and elderly, and the non-citizens and non-able-bodies that aren't militia.
The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more.
> If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people
See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92:
> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/i...
Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years.
That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups.
There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.
It's not the amendment that it defines though. It is defining members of a militia. Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all? US Judges yield to chevron deference all the time including ATF's interpretations on restriction of 2A, why would they not respect US code to be able to define a militia?
The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is not interpretation. It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people. It is not interpretation to note the right was not explicitly assigned to the militia.
Re "the people" as collective right: Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons (4th) or to petition their government (1st) not individual rights? Do I have to be a part of the militia or collective to assert 4th and 1st amendment rights?
I suspect you haven't been reading my links :)
One reading of the Second Amendment has the opening clause restricting which "people" are being talked about, i.e. "people in a well-regulated militia." This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008, where Scalia had to argue why the prefatory clause is irrelevant.
> Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all?
The common understanding of that specific clause as seen through the lens of James Madison (see: Federalist No. 46) is that it protects the rights of National Guard members to bear arms.
Not "everyone is in a de facto militia."
Then a militia can't be specified by US code, because that wasn't there during ratification of the bill of rights. No they were talking only of the modern National Guard which did not come until 1903, which they envisioned as the militia while magically excluding militia in the US Code. Nevermind that the militias in the late 1700s were often closely related to the body noted in the US Code, which was basically every able bodied youngish man (and possibly also some others.)
>This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008
"Enshrined" is not a good word for it. For instance, as far back as the shameful period of slavery in the US, the supreme court in Dred Scott made the shameful but telling statement that argued blacks can't be considered citizens in part because that would give these black individuals the right of citizens such as the ability to keep and carry arms.
Of course, perhaps on this occasion the "bad faith" claim is merely a face-saving attempt or a mental shut-down after various mental gymnastics come against the hard reality of the fact patterns present.
Those countries that gave up the right to bear arms are such failures of democracy.
Basketball is an amazing game because you can go to almost any court in the evening and you will find guys who want to play. I often play with scrawny, pimply faced guys who I don't doubt have had thoughts of violence at one point or another, but on the basketball court they ball hard and earn the respect of everyone on the court through teamwork and hustle. It's totally evident to anyone who has experienced it how one good play can do away with anger, resentment and doubt, do the work of years of therapy.