Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Some experts also point to the rise in life stressors, both in general and as a result of the pandemic, especially hardships related to finances, employment or family and relationships.
These issues can lead some people "to act out or respond violently", said Jaclyn Schildkraut, the interim executive director of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium at the non-partisan Rockefeller Institute of Government.

This is reflected in an analysis by the US Secret Service of 173 mass casualty attacks - around three-quarters of which were carried out by a firearm.
The report, published on Tuesday, found that nearly 93% of assailants had dealt with a personal issue prior to their attack, whether it be divorce, health problems, or issues at school or work, and that 10% of assailants behind mass casualty events between 2016 and 2020 died by suicide.

“The factor that explains it the most is easy access to firearms in the United States and it’s really easy access for people who are dangerous,” Lankford said.
Lankford also found that in the U.S., people’s chances of being killed in a mass shooting are greater if they are at work or school compared to incidents typically happening near military bases overseas.
In more than half of the U.S. incidents, Lankford says the shooter had more than one firearm…many of them didn’t own firearms until the last year of their attack.

In their responses to heightened community concerns over the threat of mass shootings, numerous public officials in recent years have pointed to “mental illness” as a simplified explanation for these terrifying acts of violence. The “deranged shooter” narrative resonates with a persistent (if largely false) belief among majorities of adults in the United States: the notion that people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia are likely or very likely to be violent. This construction of the problem relies on an elastic and pejorative definition of mental illness and places psychiatrists in an often unwelcome yet strategic spotlight.

Politicians and media commentators often quickly label mass shooters as “mentally ill” without defining the term and before any valid psychiatric history is known, simply on the basis of the aberrant nature of the crime itself: “What sane person could do such a thing?” Media-stylized accounts of the motivation of mass shooters tend to rely on misleading stereotypes of the inherent dangerousness of mental illness. When such accounts are widely adopted as master explanations for shooting rampages, the easily recognizable features of the narrative can obscure the role of many other potentially important contributing factors. These might include the perpetrator’s stressful economic circumstances and level of social disadvantage, maladaptive personality development in response to early-life trauma, the psychological sequelae of domestic violence exposure, aggrieved resentment and smoldering anger against individuals or groups perceived to be hostile and threatening,18 and male gender and aberrant constructions of masculinity—all enhanced by the disinhibiting effects of substance intoxication and easy access to a semi-automatic firearm.

In some sense, each mass shooting incident is unique. Substance use comorbidity and a range of putative risk factors ranging from the shooter’s level of economic distress and housing insecurity to politically extremist attitudes and ideology, to social isolation have been cited as stressors in analyses of mass shootings.21 No single variable emerged as a common feature of mass shooters.

tl;dr it's important to not fall into the memes of mass shooters are disturbed loners who are mentally ill and getting revenge for a lifetime of bullying. 3/4 had no mental problems at all, and each one tends to have their own motives & circumstances. There is a similar incredulity that Europe faced regarding its home grown terrorists; there was a persistent narrative that terrorists came from marginalised migrant communities, but they actually tended to come from better than average naturalised homes. There would always be that disconnect between those that knew the killer as an otherwise regular upstanding member of the community, and those in the public who could not believe that a regular person could conduct such an act. The only thing mass shooters in America seem to have mostly in common is that many of them did not own any guns until they decided to begin planning their mass shooting, upon which they had ready access to purchase firearms

Importantly, the way that the media report an event can play a role in increasing the probability of imitation. When a mass shooting event occurs, there is generally extensive media coverage. This coverage often repeatedly presents the shooter’s image, manifesto, and life story and the details of the event,13 and doing so can directly influence imitation.

Social status is conferred when the mass shooter obtains a significant level of notoriety from news reports. Images displaying shooters aiming guns at the camera project an air of danger and toughness.14 Similarities between the shooter and others are brought to the surface through detailed accounts of the life of the shooter, with which others may identify. Fulfilled manifestos and repeated reports of body counts heap rewards on the violent act and display competence. Detailed play-by-play accounts of the event provide feedback on the performance of the shooter. All of these instances serve to create a model with sufficient detail to promote imitated mass shootings for some individuals.

With the media actively promoting mass shooters encouraging why such peoples seem to be picking this particular crime to act

[McTraveller]

Acute mental illness is still mental illness; it doesn't have to be chronic. I do agree that the media doesn't help here, because that tends to perpetuate the "mental illness is chronic" mentality.  The US health care system doesn't seem to be well-equipped (equipped at all?) to deal with emergent mental health issues other than perhaps suicide hotlines.

Also, any system of rule based on popularity (including voting) is necessarily going to suffer from tyranny of the threshold required to pass the vote.  You either have to accept that possible tyranny or the possible tyranny of a dictator.  Now the real interesting thought experiment: is it easier to depose a tyrannical dictator, or a tyrannical majority?

[Dostoevsky]

That's the fun part.

Nobody has any idea how that would work, because it has never been done. There's a mention of it as part of the process in the Constitution, but no instructions how to do it. The several states would have to essentially manufacture a process to set up their delegation. Practically speaking, the option doesn't exist.

And yet a substantial number of states (nearly enough to trigger it, depending on how one counts it because of course that isn't clear either) have called for one!

Doing a constitutional convention on this that or the other has had waves of popularity over the decades, and most experts involved (who aren't pushing a particular constitutional amendment that's in fad) are pretty horrified at what would happen. Hypothetically states could be effectively locked out, the convention could just redo the entire constitution with no accountability once they're there, etc. etc.

From what I remember most states that are currently calling for a convention via state legislation (again depending on how it's counted, etc. etc.) have done so to force a balanced budget amendment to the federal government. Back when I did a bit of work relating to the question of constitutional conventions there was a lot of concern that it'd become red states forcing a ban on birth control or banning gun restrictions. Regardless of how it shakes out it'd be a pretty destabilizing event for the country.

[Vector]

Frustrated. A bunch of wingnuts are calling to ban all gun sales to trans people based on the recent shooting. Between that and the registries shit is getting stressful.

(I am not a 2A fan, but banning sales of weapons or land based on group status, rather than individual behavior, is one of those... red flags).

[MorleyDev]

Don't you know, only white cisgendered men are allowed to commit mass murder? ...

*screams into pillow*

[da_nang]

Fuck those wingnuts. Demonizing trans people isn't going to help.

The Owner class are up to their usual divide et impera.

[nenjin]

That will fail the logical test almost immediately.

Too bad logic stops right at the Mason-Dixon line. But good luck figuring out how is trans and who isn't

[McTraveller]

So... what criteria do you all use to determine if someone is in the owner class?

Asking for a friend...

[Naturegirl1999]

I'm not sure who the Owner class is, but I think logic and facts should be used to dictate decisions, not...whatever is being used now

[Vector]

I would say that anyone who owns three or more residential properties, or a business larger than a mom n pop store, or any commercial property which they rent to others, or whose stock investments allow them to stop working well before age 65 without penalty; or whose holdings allow their children to never have to work.

[jipehog]

Frustrated. A bunch of wingnuts are calling to ban all gun sales to trans people based on the recent shooting. Between that and the registries shit is getting stressful.

(I am not a 2A fan, but banning sales of weapons or land based on group status, rather than individual behavior, is one of those... red flags).

I haven't seen that one, where does is coming from left or right?  In the past I seen many similar suggestion, which argued to change regulation for young adult males citing the static that 98% of all mass shooting were perpetuated by said group (same argument as with raising drinking age i.e. lack of emotional and physical maturity)

I doubt that second amendment crowd would genuinely argue for anything of the sort, allowing government regulation a foot in the door. So if it is coming from them it could be a smart narrative, instead of making the same arguments about individual rights you tweak it and let the left do it for you.

[Lord Shonus]

Without looking, it is almost certainly the Tucker Carleson crowd. Not necessarily him (though I would not be surprised), but that wing of the wingnuts that keeps trying to double-down on the Culture War despite increasing evidence that they're losing said culture war.

[jipehog]

That's more of mainstream demagoguery no?

[MrRoboto75]

Who disarmed the Black Panthers?

[Frumple]

Without looking, it is almost certainly the Tucker Carleson crowd. Not necessarily him (though I would not be surprised), but that wing of the wingnuts that keeps trying to double-down on the Culture War despite increasing evidence that they're losing said culture war.

Nah, it was explicitly him, at least in part. Forget the exact details 'cause I let that sack of shit sit in my head as little as reasonably possible, but he was definitely banging on that general drum in the last little bit.