The American mass shooting thread

[Ax^]

Yup, ok. No argument from me there.

I hate guns- really hate them. Pics of people posing in gun marts and new posters attention seeking by fellating replicas on here make me feel faintly ill. But I am also aware that is a very European response- to most of us over here guns aren't sexy or cool, they are a dangerous tool, to be used in a very limited way when absolutely necessary. I do think the issue in the US as well as availability, is sexualisation of violence, particularly gun violence

Fair point, selling them in the equivalent of car boot sales is still a messed up situation..

 

[Manter]

Snip but if your argument is valid there are also more people there with that state of mind. One would have to ask why?

This is what interests me. I think the argument may be true, but wonder why?

 

[Manter]

Fair point, selling them in the equivalent of car boot sales is still a messed up situation..

Yes. The gun marts aren't much better in many states. And free sidearms with your home insurance? Give me an irritating anthromorphic meercat toy any day

 

[DJ Squelch]

As I posted earlier there was also an attack on a primary school in China yesterday, a man attacked a load of kids with a knife, injuring 22. No fatalities luckily, bet that wouldn't of been the case if he had a gun.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

 

[Ax^]

46.5 million people living beneath the bread line

Underfunded medical/mental health schemes not universally accepted by private medical care providers

And a fuck tons of guns..

Cannot see any reasons for the state of affairs

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly. Don't be derogatory.

Guns are the most efficient killing machines. They're easy to use, easy to get hold of, very accurate and horribly effective on the human body. That's what they're made for, and that's why these school mass murdering sprees almost always involve them and not napalm attacks.

As usual, in your rush to score a point, you MISS it. My point was and is that even without guns/even if guns didn't exist, then people psychologically-damaged enough to want to kill a roomful of children would be able to do so. That guns are easily available makes guns the obvious choice.

By the way, a gun is not a "killing machine", it's a tool for killing. "Killing machines" are generally the humans using the firearms.

 

[spring-peeper]

I think over here we also underestimate the good about some core American values- or even that they are honestly held. They do have a love affair with guns, but remember this is a society that was hewn out of some seriously inhospitable terrain. In relatively recent memory, it was a settler society- you looked after yourself. If your neighbour tried to steal your land, or wolves ate your livestock there was no government or social structure to deal with it- your family starved. It is almost a folk memory that you needed a gun to protect you and yours. Then you have British tyranny, the civil war- it is an article of faith for many Americans that authority is not especially trustworthy and you need to be able, if necessary, to strike out alone. Many genuinely fear that the government will come for their guns and then start on their freedoms... They aren't by definition bad, trigger happy etc..... They are working from a totally different starting point, we as Europeans see the outcome of their conclusions and find the whole thing insane (if I had a freedom that resulted in however many dead children, I'd be inclined to give it up....) we do have a totally different history and social context.

Slightly rambling post, but I guess what I am saying is that if we dismiss these atrocities as the product of a sick culture, we are not really understanding them

Both Australia and Canada had the same problems as the States while settling their countries. They had animals raiding their farms, people trying to steal their land, and all those nasty natives trying to kill them. Neither of those countries seem to have the same problem with guns.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Seriously are we doing the


"Guns don't kill people
,People do"

Stick

schtick, you wazzock.

 

[Manter]

Both Australia and Canada had the same problems as the States while settling their countries. They had animals raiding their farms, people trying to steal their land, and all those nasty natives trying to kill them. Neither of those countries seem to have the same problem with guns.

Yes, good point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No. We're dong the guns wielded by people, kill people

Quite. A loaded gun untouched by human hands is vanishingly unlikely to kill people.

 

[Manter]

Quite. A loaded gun untouched by human hands is vanishingly unlikely to kill people.

I still won't like it though

 

[Ax^]

schtick, you wazzock.

You are appearing to be promoting the aforementioned line.

I'll resist picking something to call you

 

[magneze]

Well, you're making a few assumption in your disagreement, IMO. 1) that the killer would be at all bothered by getting their hands bloody, and 2) that they wouldn't have planned their massacre and subsequent suicide well enough to, for example, enter the classroom and then chock the door closed behind them so that no-one can escape. Not every spree killing is in a shopping mall or cinema with plentiful convenient exits.

They're not my assumptions, they're just two reasons that mass killings are more difficult without guns. I never said that they don't happen, merely that guns enable them more effectively.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wouldnt dismiss media factors so easily. And its not an argument the media itself makes enough really, since they dont point the finger at themselves very much.

More usually, it's one arm of the media (print and broadcast news) pointing the finger at another part (entertainment), and the arguments made are generally facile and shallow, given how little proof has been found to substantiate such claims despite 25+ years of research.

Certainly people are capable of going on a rampage without getting the idea from the media, but that doesnt mean there are no issues to explore here. Especially when it comes to younger shooters, 'fame', and concepts that capture the popular imagination. Its given rise to a particular form of 'revenge fantasy' for the unimaginative, which thanks to the easy availability of weaponry is much easier to turn into reality than it is in many other countries. A world of fantasy is one refuge from isolation and lack of self-worth and feelings of impotence, just as for example conspiracy theorists may imagine themselves uncovering the truth and basking in glory.

Well sure, narrativisation of violent acts as somehow being steps on a pathway to truth and glory a la "Die Hard" don't help, but do they actually act as an enabler, as an inspiration for such actions, or are they merely a convenient post hoc justification for the unjustifiable?

Its only one factor, so I wouldnt want to overstate the point. Other factors may include a variety of pressures others have mentioned in recent posts, a claustrophobic suffocating form of community, excessive moral or religious double-think, uptight refusal to look at issues, eg of parent-child relationships on a less superficial level. Plus the geography of the nation (eg isolated communities), a variety of authoritarian tendencies in wider society and state organs, oversubscription of inappropriate psychiatric drugs and a 'quick fix pop a pill for that' attitude, a failure to make the most of certain forms of humour as a self-preserving lifeline, immature idealisation that reality cannot live up to, the superficial disconnected form that gun-related violence takes as opposed to more physical forms of violence. I'm even tempted to include the higher age limits for drinking alcohol as a small part of the mix, when considering isolated youth who lack other outlets for their frustrations. And if Im going to go that far I may as well thrown caffeine in there.

Obviously there are economic and political factors at work too, though I'm not dwelling on those so much in this particular case because of how young the perpetrator was, and other apparent demographic features of this case.

Some of my above points can be tested by considering what factors the UK has in common with the USA, and which ones are different. Obviously the largest practical difference is in terms of gun culture & politics, but in some other regards we may be closer to the USA than many parts of Europe when it comes to certain economic, media, violence and explosive mental meltdown factors. But our coping strategies vary, more likely to find rivers of vomit here than rivers of blood.

We're also surrounded, in Europe, by the legacy of mass violence. It's everywhere we go. I suspect that for the last 60+ years at least, that's put a brake on our willingness to indulge in casual fatal conflict.

 

[Yossarian]

Maybe the lifestyle and pressures of living in the US are greater in other countries, (eg the constant fear about paying for overpriced healthcare or people losing their homes over unfairly charged debts) play a factor in making people crack up that may not have done otherwise. This plus easy access to guns and the cultural factor (think how people are brought up with all that 'you can become anything you want' stuff) means that when the people do crack under the pressure they can easily get hold of some serious fire-power and go berserk.

I don't see why mass shootings are being talked about as if they're a mostly American phenomenon - if Dunblane, Hungerford, or Cumbria had happened in the US, they would all have ranked among the 10 or 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history.

 

[Ax^]

Guy was playing doom..


Let's bomb Id software

 

[weltweit]

We would need to compare the USA with Europe to have a meaningful comparison, or parts of Europe that approximate to the population of the USA. And then you would bring in Anders Breivik and Hungerford and Raul Moat and the like. Was there not an armed amoklaufer in Germany recently?

 

[Diamond]

This BBC article is a particularly egregious piece of reporting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20738732

Reading it, you can feel the correspondent's towering contempt, not for the fact that the man killed a large number of individuals, but that he had the temerity to have no facebook page or any other easily accessible online identity from which he could cobble together some kind of meaningful pop-pysch profile.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed there was a kindergarten attack in London iirc where the perp used a machete.

But there *seem* to be more of these attacks in the USA, there are more guns there I think that is indisputable, but if your argument is valid there are also more people there with that state of mind. One would have to ask why?

You could start with something like the perception of what constitutes social "success" or failure" in the US, which can often be based around material factors to a greater degree than in Europe (although we're catching up fast). You're judged on what you have and/or what you earn, as opposed to how socially-valuable what you do happens to be. More people experiencing angst or crisis because they don't achieve the supposed norm can mean more people with neuroses, and possibly more people developing psychoses.
That in itself doesn't militate toward the likelihood of spree killing, but it's certainly a factor that can put people on the path to working out their psychoses on others rather than through treatment (which may be unaffordable or minimal).

 

[likesfish]

We have have 3 mass killings with guns in 36 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States
They had 78 plus we took actions which may or not had helped ( both killers had massively broken the laws as they stood before the committed mass murder so shouldnt have had there weapons anyway.)

 

[Manter]

You could start with something like the perception of what constitutes social "success" or failure" in the US, which can often be based around material factors to a greater degree than in Europe (although we're catching up fast). You're judged on what you have and/or what you earn, as opposed to how socially-valuable what you do happens to be. More people experiencing angst or crisis because they don't achieve the supposed norm can mean more people with neuroses, and possibly more people developing psychoses.
That in itself doesn't militate toward the likelihood of spree killing, but it's certainly a factor that can put people on the path to working out their psychoses on others rather than through treatment (which may be unaffordable or minimal).

This is a slight derail, but to your first point- at least what you earn is, on some level, within your control. Before we paint Europe as a utopia, remember we have a history of valuing things like class that are completely un-influence able and so could potentially put more pressure on an individual because whatever they do they can't compete

 

[weltweit]

We have have 3 mass killings with guns in 36 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States
They had 78 plus we took actions which may or not had helped ( both killers had massively broken the laws as they stood before the committed mass murder so shouldnt have had there weapons anyway.)

I think for comparison we have to compare all the mass killings across Europe with the USA.

 

[Ax^]

Norway is not an eu member I'll point out at this stage

 

[butchersapron]

This is a slight derail, but to your first point- at least what you earn is, on some level, within your control. Before we paint Europe as a utopia, remember we have a history of valuing things like class that are completely un-influence able and so could potentially put more pressure on an individual because whatever they do they can't compete

Wtf?

 

[Manter]

Wtf?

It's history dear. Go to your local library, try looking up European social history in 19century

 

[butchersapron]

It's history dear. Go to your local library, try looking up European social history in 19century

Wow. Class is 'un-influence able' and an attempted patronisation. Careful now. I mean really really careful.

 

[butchersapron]

That full quote:

we have a history of valuing things like class that are completely un-influence able and so could potentially put more pressure on an individual because whatever they do they can't compete

Can anyone explain what this utter pimms-mess actually means? Maybe do a quick detour via European social history in 19century?

 

[Manter]

Wow. Class is 'un-influence able' and an attempted patronisation. Careful now. I mean really really careful.

FFS, you knew exactly what I meant, but are claiming not to to pick a fight. You are clearly not stupid, so excuse me if this seems patronising;
We were talking about the US aspirant culture of only valuing the money an individual has. I said that Europe has a history of valuing things like class which may not be better. An individual cannot become a member of the 19th century aristocracy in Spain if they are not: they can earn more money

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Except they don't - not even close - no matter how many times gun nuts trot out this particular line bit of disinformation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

It would be interesting to compare the higher rates of gun crime with something social and/or economic, say the Gini Coefficient or similar.

 

[butchersapron]

FFS, you knew exactly what I meant, but are claiming not to to pick a fight. You are clearly not stupid, so excuse me if this seems patronising;
We were talking about the US aspirant culture of only valuing the money an individual has. I said that Europe has a history of valuing things like class which may not be better. An individual cannot become a member of the 19th century aristocracy in Spain if they are not: they can earn more money

I had no idea what you meant. Your post was utterly unintelligible and seemed to be based on crude misreadings of the history of not one but two continents. As does that cliche ridden reply-which offers no explanation as to why you posted the rubbish in first place. Europe has no history of doing any such thing btw - the dominant elite cultural expression is that it did. Does that make it true?