Mass shootings

[BmorePat87]

(02-15-2018, 04:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood.  With respect, your source actually bolsters my point.  I'll past the findings from your source for clarity.

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1910s: 2

1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6

You see an obvious uptick in the 30's, which I think we can al logically agree has to do with the dire economic straits people were in during that decade.  But, again, what strikes me is the low number in decades following major conflicts, in which millions of soldiers returned home, bearing the scars of these conflicts.  Guns were more easily available, outside the NFA, they were barely regulated by today's standards.  Yet the number of such shootings remained comparatively low.  Even factoring in your per capita point, which I concede as a solid counter, the numbers are significant.  There are obviously huge social factors playing into this that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.  IMO you'd have to include poorly supervised children (disintegration of the nuclear family included), narcissistic and solipsistic worldviews brought on by social media and mollycoddling children (i.e. a lack of accountability) and the sensationalism in the coverage of these events.  For some people being famous is such a goal that being famous for a bad reason is a viable alternative.  Lastly, how we deal with mental health issues.  I actually agree with GM's slippery slope argument in this regard, but there has to be a middle ground between the abuses of psychiatric commitment in the past and today's almost totally hands off approach. 




Sure, a point that goes hand in hand with my post. 



Indeed.  It is also, IMO, a very important right.  The government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.  An 80 year old woman should have the means, if she chooses, to be able to realistically be able to defend herself from a 20 year old man.  The interesting trend to me has been the number of more left leaning people acquiring firearms do to Trump's election.  I'll completely concede that gun ownership still strongly coincides to a more right leaning ideology, but it is apparent that when people fear the potential abuses of their government they will arm themselves.  Of course, that fear is almost always predicated on the ideology of the current government and how closely it coincides with your own.

I don't disagree that numbers are worse now and that it is strange that we didn't see these issues in the 50's considering the return of soldiers. Providing some context, though, this wasn't unheard of in the 40's. Nearly similar numbers (by population) as last decade. But information didn't spread as easily. 


I interpreted the upticks in a similar way: economy and opportunities. The soldiers came home to a country that celebrated them and gave them the chance to buy affordable homes, go to school, and get good jobs immediately. 

For the most part, we have a similar view on this issue. We both understand that gun violence is an obvious side effect of pretty open gun ownership which is a constitutional right. We can't talk about what England, Australia, or Sweden does. We need to find uniquely American solutions.