More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?

[Starboard Tack]

America has long been heavily armed relative to other societies, and our arsenal keeps growing. A precise count isn't possible because most guns in the United States aren't registered and the government has scant ability to track them, thanks to a legislative landscape shaped by powerful pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association. But through a combination of national surveys and manufacturing and sales data, we know that the increase in firearms has far outpaced population growth. In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump. The US population, now over 314 million, grew by about 20 percent in that period. At this rate, there will be a gun for every man, woman, and child before the decade ends.
There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 23 of the 60 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been five mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with 102 people injured and killed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

Some food for thought!

[Starboard Tack]

1. Even more food for thought

Among the more striking measures: Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if "acting in self-defense." In Kansas, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools, and Louisiana allows them in houses of worship. Virginia not only repealed a law requiring handgun vendors to submit sales records, but the state also ordered the destruction of all such previous records. More than two-thirds of these laws were passed by Republican-controlled statehouses, though often with bipartisan support.

Makes one wonder if the heartland has gone completely nuts.

[gejohnston]

4. actually more like 33

The Missouri law says it is illegal to carry while intoxicated, but won't charge you if you use it in legitimate self defense, that is how it looks to me.

Houses of worship should be no different than any other private business. Banning guns in churches violates the separation of church and state.

In Kansas, many of those kids probably take guns for rifle club like I did. What's your point? You have to show an empirical threat to public safety. It is safer than leaving the gun in the car.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Most of the mass shootings are in gun-free zones.

Further, mass shootings by CCW holders is extremely rare. It does happen some, but with extreme rarity. In most of the mass shootings the shooter is already breaking some laws.

There have been several cases of mass shootings that were stopped by CCWers.

[geckosfeet]

39. Massachusetts allows concealed carry in bars, restaurants etc. You are discouraged from drinking.

[gejohnston]

2. and there is no evidence

removing them will decrease mass murders either. The worst ones in US history, including a rural school in the 1920s, were done with bombs.
As for the good doc, ER docs playing criminologist don't impress me at all.

I actually think it has more to do with cable news creating copy cats, population, austerity cutting mental health, too many people feeling disconnected from real human contact. I blame Facebook.

[holdencaufield]

3. "At this rate, there will be a gun for every man, woman, and child before the decade ends. "

Woo Hoo!

"The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?" -- Lord of War

[Starboard Tack]

12. You win the Darwin Award for that post.

[holdencaufield]

22. Are you genuinely unaware ...

... for what a Darwin Award is given? The particular circumstances required to win one?

I don't mind a feeble insult or two thrown my way -- but at least try and make them either witty or applicable. Is that too much to ask?

You could, for example, say ... "Quoting a movie with an anti-gun message to make a pro-gun point wins you the Emily Litella Award"

But .... NEVER MIND.

[Simo 1939_1940]

54. !!!

[Remmah2]

61. Now you know where the candidates for the Darwin Awards come from. nt

nt

[4th law of robotics]

66. I think the poster genuinely believes that owning a gun is a death sentence

which would mean that the population of the US has been greatly reduced in the past few decades and is now but a pitiful remnant hiding in the deserts and mountains lest they come across some gun store or personal armory.

[Starboard Tack]

74. No, I don't believe that and you know it.

I think the poster I was addressing is still living in a tree. His post was asinine and though he is obviously still alive, I doubt that is due to his attitude or his awareness, but rather to good luck on his part. The OP is about mass killings and the possible relationship to increased gun sales. I have taken no position on this. That's why I posted it, to see what others think. Well, those who actually think.

[4th law of robotics]

75. So you're unaware of what the Darwin Award entails?

though he is obviously still alive, I doubt that is due to his attitude or his awareness, but rather to good luck on his part.

Probably true of 99% of the population.

The OP is about mass killings and the possible relationship to increased gun sales.

Even assuming the stats in the article are 100% accurate and not at all misleading they failed to show any meaningful correlation.

I have taken no position on this. That's why I posted it, to see what others think. Well, those who actually think.

Let me guess; proof of actually thinking is siding with your non-position that guns lead to mass murder?

[Starboard Tack]

80. Psychos with guns lead to mass murder

Some are lucky enough to get other Darwin Awards. They're like runner-up awards.

[ileus]

20. Good movie.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. "Personally...

...I blame MTV." - Andre Baptiste Sr.

[oneshooter]

78. I prefer "Quigley Down Under".

I shows the British in such a good light.

[Renew Deal]

5. Could it be argued that there are more people, so more mass shootings?

[former-republican]

10. I don't thnk you can

Firearms laws were more lax in the 50's 60's and 70's but you never heard of school shootings.

During hunting season we had our rifles , shotguns locked in our vehicle's in high school .
We would get out and go goose hunting or deer hunting after school.

Most kids I knew had easy access to guns in the home.

What changed in 20 years so much?

[pipoman]

58. Reduced, almost non-existent

access to mental health services unless a person is either wealthy or has already committed a criminal act...Thank Raygun for that...

[Starboard Tack]

11. Right. I wonder how they missed that one?

[former-republican]

21. I'm not sure what you mean

Are implying it wasn't the case ?

You really think the reason for more shootings is easier access to firearms?

The data proves you wrong. Firearms were more easily obtained than they are now.
There was no NICS check for long guns.
You showed you ID filled out a form and bought one. No waiting period , no back ground check.

Yet schools weren't shot up .

go figure....

So what changed in the last 20 or 30 years?

[Starboard Tack]

29. "So what changed in the last 20 or 30 years?"

That's what the article is all about.

In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump. The US population, now over 314 million, grew by about 20 percent in that period.

You mention schools, which is an interesting point. What has happened regarding education, the youth culture, the gun culture and society in general during that period? For the sake of this discussion we should recognize that guns and gun sales are part of the equation, which begs the question "What, if anything, do we do about it?"

You have joined the party that actually tries to think rationally about this issue. But it ain't easy.

[gejohnston]

34. gun culture has nothing to do with it

since most if not all get their first gun just before, like Holmes and JL. US kids don't play outside and ride bikes around the city anymore. Then there is what the right did to the public health system. Now they play video games, often "shoot em ups". That creates less community and more social isolation. During my last deployment, our site commander banned video games for that specific reason. I think that is why places like Norway, Czech Republic, and Switzerland doesn't have the problem. Oh yeah, single payer mental health and a good public health system too.

US society has become more shallow and superficial, confusing fads and pop culture with substance.

How many of these mass shootings were there pre Brady? Pre GCA-68?

[former-republican]

38. I read the article and it falls flat

If we were to equate why there are more highway deaths a comparison in numbers like this would make sense.

What the article fails to mention is that millions of those guns are still in the hands of people that have always owned guns.

Some people collect them , own 5 , 10 , 20 or 30 guns.
It doesn't mean 300 million people own guns in this country.

Access to firearms is not easier in our country now.

The reason for more shootings is not more guns in private hands.

[Jessy169]

51. What changed in the last 20 or 30 years? Right-wing hate speech.

Starting around the time of Reagan, the right-wing lie, propaganda and hate machine has evolved into a well oiled and well financed machine. Google "right-wing hate speech" and there are plenty of articles and references to studies which clearly link the increases in violence to the atmosphere created by that right wing hate machine. We only have to look at recent mass shootings -- Gabrielle Giffords, the Sikhs, Breivik from Norway -- all of them were heavy consumers of right wing hate. The availability of semi-automatic weapons just makes it easier, but availability of weapons is not the base cause.

[holdencaufield]

53. There was no Right-Wing hate speech...

20, 30, 50, 70 years ago?

As a Jew, I can tell you that's not the case. Hate speech (left and right wing) was much more prevalent in the past than it is today because it was more openly tolerated. Today -- the only socially acceptable venue for hate speech is the Internet.

[jeepnstein]

59. Back in the Roaring Twenties...

we had a great deal of gun violence. Most of it was directly tied to the trade in bootleg booze. Today we have gun violence tied most directly to the trade in illegal street drugs. Prohibition is a failure.

Then of course we have the crowd that wants to get their taxes cut. They don't really care about the guy living across town who is a raging mental case and receiving little or no care for it. No problemo, he can't get through to their gated community. So they just want to disarm everyone except those people they hire to protect them. And just like the the tax cuts they are doing their darndest to tell us it's for our own good.

[4th law of robotics]

68. "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

1963. 49 years ago.

Yeah, that's a new invention.

[4th law of robotics]

67. Your article cites a 50 percent increase in total number of guns over that time period

and yet there was not a corresponding 50% increase incrementally as the numbers increased.

Actually there doesn't seem to be any pattern except for two high profile cases that really bumped up the average.

[ellisonz]

6. The issue is the ease of access.

Let's face it: a background check doesn't really do much to stem the flow of guns to improper ownership. This is why we need to close the private sale loophole (that's accurate) and require psychological interview before purpose.

And don't give me that anti-government crap...

[gejohnston]

7. you mean purchase

I wonder why it never occurred to anyone in 1993, but then the Swiss didn't care about private sales either until they signed the Schengen treaty. Do you know of another country that has such interviews or liability insurance?

[Missycim]

8. I am going to give you some anti-government crap

When it come to a "psychological" interview who's to say it will be objective? What happens if the interviewer is like you and other anti-choicers and they decide you aren't good enough to own a weapon?

[rDigital]

9. Anders Breivik passed psychological and shooting tests in Norway. He then killed 72 people. Nt

[Starboard Tack]

14. Breivik was an anomaly, not a trend

We have become inured to these events and nobody wants to discuss it as a societal problem.

[petronius]

17. The question is whether filtering through every person to detect those rare anomalies

is an effective and efficient method - I'd say 'no'. Any psych test that can effectively screen the incipient mass murderers from all the others, without too many misses or false positives, is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time consuming. I doubt we have enough psychiatrists/psychologists, and I doubt those disciplines really want to take on the responsibility.

The bigger objection, though, is the notion of any sort of subjective test as a prerequisite to exercise a civil liberty - I just can't get behind that idea...

[rrneck]

47. And what a database that would be. mt

[holdencaufield]

13. Go back and take a look ...

... at literacy tests administered to voters in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A literacy test is significantly less objective than a psychological test -- either you can, or cannot read -- but were they administered fairly and objectively? Or, were they used as a tool to strip people of their rights -- in this case, the right to franchise.

There can be no test to exercise a right -- else is ceases to be a right.

[Starboard Tack]

16. I think he said psych test, not literacy.

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Nice obfuscation. The test should be for concealed carry permits, not the right to own.

[holdencaufield]

23. Do you know understand ...

... there is a difference between literacy test and literary test? If not, you may be unable to pass either.

But, my point is, if objective literacy tests, with demonstrable test results, have a long-history of being used to strip people of their Constitutional rights, then how much more so would a subjective psych test, with it's dependency on examiner's bias, be subject to abuse by those seeking to strip other people of their rights?

So, my post is neither obfuscation nor a straw-argument -- but it cuts right to the matter of the subject -- WHO gets to interpret how rights are exercised according to the Constitution, the Judicial or the Executive? If you have ever passed a civics test, you would know the answer.

[Starboard Tack]

31. You should check your own posts before sniping at typos.

"Do you know understand .."

Psych tests are not subject to one individual's bias. They are totally doable, in the same way a MMPI test is.
There is no Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. That's why you need a permit, except where you don't.

[holdencaufield]

40. The OP is about Mass Shootings ...

... not about right to concealed carry.

Do you care to tell the assembled crowd how many mass shootings have been perpetrated by legal concealed-carry license holders? How does that compare to mass shootings perpetrated by persons carrying illegally?

Could it be that you're confusing your bias with the facts?

[GreenStormCloud]

30. The best test is already given in most states.

The best predictor of future actions is past actions. A person with a lifetime clean record of being law-abiding is extremely unlikely to abuse the permit. Checking a person's record is far cheaper than a psych test and far more accurate and is completely objective.

[Starboard Tack]

32. That may work for older applicants

Not so much for a 21 year old. Think about it.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. People who have anger management problems...

...tend to get into trouble early. Think about the teens that you knew growing up. In general, the good kids stayed good and became good adults, the bad boys who got into trouble from poor impulse control tended to grow up to be bad men, Street gangs don't try to recruit 21 yr olds, they recruit teens.

Also, only a tiny percentage, (In Texas about 1.4%) of permit holders are 21, then it drops dramatically. (1.05% at age 22.) Most people who get first-time permits are in their 50s or older. Peak age for first issue is age 64 at 2.65%. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/2011Calendar/byAge/9LicenseApplicationsIssued.pdf

As I have posted many times, the Texas statistics show that our system is working very well.

[rDigital]

15. Ellison, do you support complete civilian disarmament? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Yeah, but they'll never admit it...

[hack89]

24. But it used to be much easier.

no background checks, no.waiting periods, guns by mail order.

Now it is harder to get a gun then before so I question your logic.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Considering we have 2 members who lost ther guns this week

I'd say it's pretty easy to get a gun if you really want one. After all, there are about 2 guns for every adult in the country. That's more guns than cars and bicycles combined. You might want to check that, 'cos I made it up, but it sounds right.

[hack89]

56. Yet gun violence is at historic lows and still declining

so what problem are you trying to solve?

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. "so what problem are you trying to solve?". Guns in the hands of civilians.

ST is a little less forthright about it than shareunited/Loudly is, but be assured their goal is exactly the same.

[hack89]

71. Perhaps one day he will be honest and say what he really means. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Probably not. Most of them keep their opinion on the QT so as to appear 'reasonable'

Keep that in mind the next time one of them complains about one of their "common-sense" proposals being blocked, or our being unwilling to "compromise".
My response to the "compromise" schtick has always been along the lines of:

"Since rather too many of you lot have stated that banning gun ownership is your goal, I have to ask what you are willing to give up in
order to acheive 'compromise'?" In the course of 6+ years here at DU, I've yet to see a one of them willing to give up anything.

That's the kind of people we are dealing with.

[former-republican]

25. it's not ease of access

There were no back ground checks before for long guns
No waiting period.

nothing ..........

So in order to determine why more mass shootings are happening access is ruled out.

Data will prove my point but I'm pretty sure everyone knows this.

So again I ask what changed in society?

[rrneck]

48. Utter horseshit. nt

[Jenoch]

50. "This is why we need to close the private sale loophole (that's accurate)"

Since the background check system in place was never intended for use by private citizens, how can privates sales of guns be considered a 'loophole'?

[Trunk Monkey]

57. Kudos for your honesty

But there is no "loophole" private sales are by intent unregulated in most states.

A 'loophole" would be a poorly written law that allows private sales when such was not the intent of the law.

That said, at least you were honest about wanting to ban all private sales

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Access was easier when I was a kid.

I remember that the Sears catalogue had a guns section. You could order the gun and it arrived in the mail. How's that for ease of access? But we didn't have school shootings back then.

[Eleanors38]

63. On point.nt

[krispos42]

18. You need one gun for a mass shooting.

One.

At no point has anybody who's had a hankering for mass shooting been unable to get a gun, even a break-action shotgun. So the difference between 727 guns per 1,000 people and 955 guns per 1,000 people isn't really relevent.

I'd also counter than a slightly smaller percentage of Americans own guns. So while guns per overall capita has gone up an amount, gun owners per capita has gone down.


The problem is mental health, economic stress, and RW hate radio.

[ileus]

19. I need 25 more myself.

Of course that's about 3or 4 years worth ...

25 more and I'd have most all the ones on my must have list covered.

[Starboard Tack]

37. 3 to 4 years? Does it take that long to lose 25?

I've always said boats and guns don't mix too well.

[ileus]

41. I lose them in the 5th year.

It's hell being a duck hunter.

[Starboard Tack]

43. LOL

[TPaine7]

26. I'll wait till a leading authority on modern art

and close combat small arms tactics weighs in.

...Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin...

[rrneck]

45. Now that would be a Renaissance man. nt

[Clames]

28. Food for thought?

No wonder the anti-gunner are so intellectually starved. There is no evidence that any of the proposed gun control laws would prevent mass shootings either. What law would have stopped Anders Breivic and the Aurora shooter?

[Starboard Tack]

35. So you see no problem here? Therefore no solution needed.

All is good in the land of Clames. Nice one.

[Clames]

46. I see problems but your "solutions" are certainly not needed.

All is good as long as the anti-gun brigade chooses to waste its efforts and continue the tradition of irrelevancy.

[Oneka]

55. Mass shootings are an anomoly

The "trend" is fewer gun related homicides. This trend has been ongoing for 20 plus years as found here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

So it seems the solution is doing nothing.

However ending the drug war and its prohibitions on some drugs would actually have a net effect of less gun related deaths, slowing down gun proliferation? probably not so much.

[rDigital]

44. More guns, more hamburgers. - Coincidence? nt

[Clames]

49. Or maybe we need more pirates.

[alabama_for_obama]

52. Arrrrgh!

As a teacher of art, a connoisseur of small arms, and one of the few remaining pirates, I approve this message. Aye, I do.

[Remmah2]

60. Another pirate?

See ya at the union meeting.


Arghhhhhh....

[Eleanors38]

64. Actually, mass murders (5+ vics) acct for approx...

20 deaths/yr in usa. Is this worthy of central gov action, and how would such prevent ol carrot top from risin?

[4th law of robotics]

65. But from 1995 until today crime rates have plummeted

despite that 50% jump.

Huh.

[rDigital]

69. I now consider the OP to be thoroughly thrashed. THRASHED. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

76. It doesn't really matter.

There are lots of things that could contribute to a sense of isolation and alienation that gives rise to violent acting out.

But it really doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter how many people commit crimes with firearms.

The second amendment is about keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military forces in an emergency.

There is no clause in the second amendment that says, "All of this is to be ignored of crime hits rate X".

It's a happy coincidence that in spite of more guns, violent crime has continued to decline for decades.

But the reality is, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the crime rate is, that is irrelevant to the intent of the second amendment.

[DonP]

77. Ironic isn't it?

Anytime you point out the continuing drop in crime with guns ... and anywhere in the same paragraph or two mention the rise in CCW, the gun control "fans" go ape shit.

"You can't prove causality" "There's no relationship" "It's only because the population is getting older" et. al. ad nauseum.

But the OP postulates a direct relationship between gun sales overall and high profile mass murders and none of them says a word.

You'd almost think they didn't actually believe their own stories about no relationship?

[DWC]

79. Yes. n/t