That’s a serious answer??
I think I’ll keep ‘empire in decline’ locked in, thanks. :rolleyes:
Another murder spree not counted by Mother Jones. Their method, whatever it is, is crap.
There’s no evidence that mass shooting rates have gone up in recent times.
Your answer is unsupported by evidence or, for that matter, logic, and so frankly isn’t a very serious one at all.
Oh, really… File:Cole Thomas The Course of Empire Destruction 1836.jpg - Wikipedia
Sure looks like declination to me.
This is exactly the first thjng to come to mind after seeing the thread title.
Firearm availability has not changed much since 1998, and overall violent crime has been dropping steadily since ~1993 or so, until it is down around the 1960’s rates.
General rates of firearm ownership are up since Obama took office, but the economic instability predates this administration, beginning in the last 12-18 months of the Bush Admin, but really hitting full-stride after Obama took office (this is not trying to shift blame in a political game, just establishing timeline).
Overall violent crime bumped a bit in 2010 or '11, yet 2012 has been a hell of a year for mass shootings, and I think the drawn out economic woes, coupled with the incessant media coverage these events receive, is bringing these people out of the wood work.
For the overall population, our current firearm regulatory scheme appears to be mostly adequate, IMO; for people inclined to be a Jared Loughner, and take out as many people at once as possible, they are ridiculously permissive.
It’s a matter of being able to separate the sheep from the goats at, or prior to, a firearms point-of-sale.
I want to see proof that there has been an increase, let alone a ‘huge increase’ before we start speculating as to why.
-
The premise is, we have seen, very debatable, if not out and out false.
-
Events like these are highly visible but represent a very small absolute number compared to homicides and suicides over all.
-
If one accept the premise that they are increasing then one must accept that it is increasing while homicides are decreasing, especially among teens. In contrast however the rate of suicide has been increasing. Especially in teens. “Overall, the suicide rate among teens has climbed in the past few years, from 6.3% in 2009 to 7.8% in 2011”
-
Therefore if one accepts that the rate of mass shootings (however defined) is increasing, then one should consider not the factors associated with homicide but the factors associated with suicide, especially suicide by teens and young adults as those seem to be the group most often involved in mass shootings.
That’s the paradox to explain that may shed light on any increase in mass shootings if such really exists. What is going on that allows homicide rates (and a wide variety of other risk taking associated behaviors for that matter, from teen pregnancy to driving drunk) to decrease, while teen suicide increases and mass murders by teens and young adults minimally stay level, if not increase?
Your argument that the US is in decline and furthermore that this decline is leading to the increase in mass shootings is a link to a piece of art that’s 180 years old?
You’re right, my previous answer wasn’t serious. Let me update: alien mind control rays are causing man to turn against man. Cite? (http://www.robotpegasys.com/alienswfs/alien_forw/grey-greys-alien-aliens-zeta-g_b.jpg)
Checkmate!
Why isn’t it? The statistics of incidences that average in the single digits each year is going to be very noisy!
I also think that the “copy-cat” effect might come into play and cause some clustering of such events…but we haven’t yet had any convincing evidence presented that there is something statistically-significant going on that needs an explanation.
My WAG is media coverage. Every such shooting whips the media into a frenzy greater than the last. Since 9/11 they have refined their techniques so that they can keep the screens filled with experts/witnesses/talking heads for longer and longer. This just eggs on the copy-cats.
I don’t see the relevance. If you don’t have anything to contribute to this thread, you shouldn’t post in it.
Agreed
Are we moving to a mass shooting a week? I swear this shit used to be much rarer. :mad:
Again, the availability of weapons hasn’t changed significantly in the past few years; what the HELL is going on??
If you don’t restrict it to just incidents with four dead, but rather incidents with four or more people getting shot, we have had nearly one mass shooting EVERY DAY this year.
I’m confused. Gun advocates on this board routinely tell me that gun ownership is skyrocketing. Guns are flying off the shelves, they tell me. They cannot buy ammo fast enough, they tell me.
Seems like when they want me to feel sheepish about my position on gun control and how numerically superior the support for their position is, guns are flying off the shelf. On the other hand, when we’re talking about the effects of gun violence going up, the number of guns hasn’t meaningfully changed.
So which is it? Gun availability has stayed the same, or it is skyrocketing?
Furthermore, “the economy” isn’t a particularly good explanation. Of the most severe incidents of mass gun deaths in US history (with 12 or more deaths), half of them have occurred in the last six years.
We’ve had prior economic downturns, recessions and depressions. Our peak gun problems are happening right now.
The economy was even worse in the 70s with double digit unemployment combined with double digit inflation.
Nevertheless, the homicide rate in the US has been steady declining for over 20 years, and 2013 will probably have the lowest rate in the past 100 years.
I said “availability”, as in ability to obtain guns, not total ownership.
Fewer homicides certainly means fewer gun homicides. And if the rate of mass shootings is constant, they become a greater proportion of all shootings. (Right?)
So that really is an argument for smaller magazines, especially in places with concealed carry- you can shoot the shooter when he reloads.
OTOH, the media cannot very well not report such things as the Washington Navy Yard massacre.
This may be true, but they also don’t need to sensationalize it, particularly given how god-awful their coverage has been. They fill vast amount of air space with wild speculation, rumor gone rampant, and pure nonsense. Than again, if they stuck to the facts they probably wouldn’t be the media, would they?