Misdirection of values. We tell children there’s a path, go to school, get a job, find a spouse, get married, get a house and have kids, but life isn’t that simple. As life introduces chaos into the path, people fall off and some have a hard time getting back on. We’ve spent so much time on developing social media and marketing platforms that idolize those that make it through the path that no one looks out for those that fall off, making them feel isolated and unheard. Niche social media and mass marketing for weapons has made it easy for lone wolves to seek revenge on the system that let them down.
I think we can generally say the above is true across all political spectrums. The below might be rejected, but it’s my view.
The right has made increasingly extreme statements to pull in these vulnerable people in order to make them feel heard, but it’s just for show and votes. We’ve seen how politicians like Trump are really just using them for his own gains and as the NRA funnels more money into the “system”, it really takes huge government action to curb this cycle.
AR-15s existed long before the ban and people didn’t much care for them. They use an intermediate round which hunters consider too low-power to be humane, and I believe it’s illegal to hunt with those rounds in some states. Anybody could get one, only few people did.
So what happened? Democrats said, “You can’t have these!” and Americans, predictably, flipped out and bought tens of millions once available. Hell, I wasn’t interested until everyone was screaming BAN after Uvalde. Figured if I was ever going to get one, might as well get grandfathered in. The long-standing joke is that Democrats are the best gun salesmen of all.
Also, the media hype. Have you noticed the media salivates over “assault weapons” given the opportunity? ALL long guns, of which AR-15’s are a subset, are responsible for only 4% of the killing. Our media has beat it into our heads that the best way to kill a bunch of people is the AR-15.
There are so many other gun death related issues we should be beating the drum about. That’s another long post. :(
Actually, the data shows that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents^[1][5][6]. During the ten-year period of the ban, there were lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception[1][5][6]. However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths^[1][5][6]. Between 2004 and 2017, the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons^[1][5][6]. It is important to note that many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups^[1][5][6]. Nonetheless, the data suggests that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents, while the expiration of the ban was associated with an increase in mass shooting deaths^[1][5][6].
Actually, the data shows that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents
Correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real significance, there would need to be a drop in mass shooting counts.
That aside, your own citation shows any change in deaths is questionable at best - it looks as if the average may have even increased, by the included graph.
It also seems to pretend that _merely banning the sales of more “assault weapons” would have nullified the impact of existing assault weapons.
However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths.
Again, correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real meaning there would have to be only one changing factor… and the trend would have had to been consistent with a near-elimination of the count of events.
Can you truly think of no other changes? No, say, incredible spike in the media glorifying and sensationalizing such events, inadvertently promoting them as a means of getting violent retribution as one commits suicide?
It boils down to this: was there any direct scaling of such values with the actual count of owned “assault weapons”? Of course not.
It is important to note that many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups
Wow. So, you dilute the value of your own correlation by highlighting factors known to be common underlying issues, yet double-down on “suggest” and “decrease”.
In order to judge the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, we need to look at if the usage of the banned weapons themselves decreased in mass shootings. If mass shootings dropped by half, but the banned weapons only compromised a third of the shootings prior to the ban, then clearly there is much more at play.
As is most mass shootings are committed using handguns, not rifles. Even on the higher-end of causalities, handguns comprise about 50 percent of the biggest mass shootings. (Incidents like Orlando and Virginia Tech were committed entirely with handguns, Ar-15s aren’t actually advantageous in most shooting incidents, it’s purely aesthetic).
This is simply wrong. Many of the worst mass shootings in the last decade were committed with low power rifles and handguns. I’m actually pretty sure the two worst mass shootings (by count of those who were killed) in the US were done using .22 ammunition. Those weapons were not covered by whatever ban you’re talking about
It’s not about “assault weapons” and it’s not even about guns. It’s about the inability of our government to pass meaningful legislation around gun ownership and mental health and especially where those two topics intersect
The problem is that human suffering is normalized because the wealthy political class and those who fund them are not going to let things change for the better if it means less money for them.
Reporting and tracking. Before the automatic weapons ban you had prolific bank robbers that shot their way out of many situations, but it wasn’t generalized to mass shootings.
Rico was created to combat organized crime in the 70s. Lots of people were killed, but it was presented as an organized crime problem not a mass shooting problem.
Since Columbine you have school shootings. One of the biggest predictors has become media reporting of a shooting. That’s obviously not the sole cause though.
Essentially the US has always been violent, it just hasn’t always been lumped into a single mass shootings bucket. Rival gangs fighting is totally different than a school shooter, and a murder suicide is also entirely different.
The point he’s making is that the title asks what changed to make mass shootings more commons “in the last 30 years” and you answered it by blaming the difference between guns today and guns 250 years ago, so he pointed out that there was at least a 30 year period where the guns of today were available and yet the mass shooting problem of today didn’t exist (1960-1990).
That would mean that the cause of mass shootings today isn’t necessarily because we evolved beyond the musket.
Ah. My point was not to say that mass shootings are strictly because of advancements in firearm technology. Anyone who thinks it’s not multifactorial is a moron. But anyone who thinks the underlying technology isn’t fundamentally required for the phenomenon to occur is also a moron.
I was only responding to the fact that OP said 200 years, and just from a practical perspective 200 years ago you just couldn’t do a mass shooting. If you ask me why we didn’t have mass shootings in the 50s through 70s that’s a different question that actually gets to the point of the matter. 200 years is such a long timeframe as to be silly. Might as well ask why people didn’t send bulk emails in the 20s.
Well OP is framing the entire timeframe as 200 years but he also specifies the last 30. So 35, 40, 45, 60, 100 years ago are all still more relevant than over 200 years ago.
Were those assault weapons as easily aquirable then as it is now? I imagine back then every supermarket was not suffed with them and they might’ve been much more expensive relatively.
Were those assault weapons as easily aquirable then as it is now?
A lot more easy as a matter of fact. All the stores stuffed with guns now were just as stuffed with them back then, if not more so, and it was easier AND faster to get them into your hands. I mean you’re casually calling a semiautomatic AR-15 an “assault weapon” because it LOOKS like a military gun. But prior to 1986 you could just go and buy a fully automatic machine gun that also FUNCTIONED like a military gun. I mean there was a point in time in American History where you could order a rifle in a paper catalogue.
You could argue that we’re not doing enough to prevent guns from entering the hands of mass shooters, but we are doing more than we ever have before and yet it’s worse than it’s ever been before. At the end of the day guns are a tool used in these crimes that can and do make their execution far more bloody and deadly and something should be done to minimize that as much as reasonably possible, but they aren’t at all the cause.
“Assault weapon” doesn’t mean anything in actual weapon terminology. Regular citizens cannot acquire fully automatic firearms without tens of thousands in permits. The guns used in shootings are all semi automatic, just because it’s stylized like an M-16 doesn’t mean it’s more powerful or capable of anything beyond any other semi automatic weapon.
Yes, you could always go and buy a semiautomatic weapon from the Walmart down the road. I don’t think they changed in price except with inflation though.
The technology and accessibility have always been similar, that’s why it’s weird that the issue seems to have significantly spiked in 1999 when Columbine happened and the entire planet spent a month doing deep dive investigations into the shooter psychology.
It seems more like the change is that incel wannabe badasses realized they can have five minutes of infamy by just grabbing a gun and going to kill some random people. Considering everything else is the same.
Probably because they’re new and don’t realize how pedantic people can be.
The point is that weapons capable of doing this have been available for much longer than the curve of mass shootings, so another factor is likely at play. The SKS, AR-15, and AK-47/Mak-90 have been on the market and owned by citizens of the US for decades prior.
A lot has been said already, but it’s worth mentioning that modern guns are much more capable of killing than guns 200 years ago. Back then, guns were very inaccurate and had to be reloaded one shot at a time and packed by hand. Now we have automatic weapons with large magazines that can be swapped out in seconds. They have less recoil and greater accuracy. Regardless of cultural and political issues, guns are just more capable of killing than they used to be.
People aren’t buying automatic weapons now. You have to jump through a LOT of hoops to acquire an automatic gun, they can cost as much as $40K, and have to be manufactured before 1986. But 50 years ago they absolutely were available. They were banned in 1986.
Correction: they can cost as little as $40,000 now. That’s close to the minimum price for a legally tranferrable machine gun. An M134 minigun would currently run right around $200,000. There is no legal way for a regular person to get a post-'86 machine gun; dealer samples, et al. are not generally transferable (see also: Larry Vickers).
No, but 100 years ago, you could buy actual machine guns out of the sears catalog. No background check, no ID. Just a money order and postage on delivery.
I remember when my oldest sister bought her first AR-15 at the hardware store, for cash. They didn’t so much as ask for ID. It wasn’t locked up or anything, just take it off the shelf and go check out, no big deal.
Uh, when I first got an AR-15 about ten years ago, I went to Walmart first to see what they had. They had a bunch on a rotating rack you could pick up. Magazines and ammo were inside a glass shelf next to it. You just bought it all there, the only thing they did was walk you out of the store before handing it over.
I didn’t actually end up buying one though, I was given one by a local gun store as payment for saving them about $3500 a year on their IT bill and building them PCs. A nice little mostly custom AR chambered in .300 BLK. My father-in-law took it hog hunting one year.
Actually, before 1986 and the Hughes Amendment, anyone could buy an automatic weapon in Walmart (idk if Walmart sold them, but legally they could). After 86 they became effectively impossible to get (takes months for extensive background checks and costs more than a car)
Thompson submachine guns (Tommy guns) were available by mail order in the 1920s with zero background checks. All you had to do was fill out the order slip, a check or money order, and drop it in the mail.
… which is exactly what the prohibition era gangs did.
blackpowder rifles were actually really good just hard to use. Modern reproductions are interior copies and modern black powder is worse (it’s optimised for different things) .
For example many mid to late 1800s guns could hit point targets out to ~300 yards.
My wife is really into this shit and apparently being a first grade rifleman required something like being able to shoot accurately from a field position to 1000 yards. It was very hard to get that good but many did.
Keep in mind by this time they had all sorts of bells and whistles. Basic cartridges, specialised bullet geometries, progressively narrowing rifling etc.
They were quite slow to fire, but loading a cartridge wasn’t that slow. you basically either breech loaded it or just pushed it down the end and lightly packed it (bullet expands when fired to lock with rifling).
EDIT: she informs me that the 1850something Enfield had assessments hitting a 3 ft wide target at up to 900 yards.
The cartridges were not like modern brass ones but paper, they were more like 2 stage packets that you tore open and poured first the powder, then the bullet. The bullet would readily fall clear down the barrel and require only light tamping to make ready to fire.
apparently this rifle is basically the pinnacle of muzzle loaders.
Also apparently it was mostly used in the north American civil war, but they didn’t buy the English bullets designed for it and consequently it earned a terrible reputation in that war. Don’t cry though as the slavers used it so that’s kinda funny.
Anyway, people are smart and guns have been good for a long time.
50 years ago you could shock the city, maybe the country. Now you can livestream it for the whole world and media makes a huge profit from these incidents I bet. So in short; attention. If you’re nobody and want everyone to know your name tomorrow - this is the way.
My theory: In the last 30 years, the topic “gun ownership” has been politicized. Which in turn brought in people who mix up “enjoying freedom” with “being able to own a gun, the bigger, the better”. Those people are part of an extreme end of a political spectrum. And guess what you also find at extreme ends of the political spectrum? People who want to cover up their insecurities, people with mental problems, people with extremist worldviews.
The political usurpation of the 2nd amendment by the right just to get a strong=fanatical voter base basically led to this rise in gun violence in the USA. Gun ownership as an “expression of freedom” is an artificial construct to harvest votes, just like “fear of immigration” (or worse: “replacement theory” bullshit) or abortion are artificial topics for the same reason. Although the abortion topic has the additional “benefit” of being a part of “suppressing women”, which also appeals to certain voter bases.
It is a lot more complicated than that. There are strong cultural reasons we defunded them but in essence they had become so toxic it was best to close them.
I think at the high level it’s the military industrial senatorial complex, the deregulation and reagonomics under Republicans, the neoliberalism under democratic, globalization, de-industrialization, the modern banking/credit system, the modern media complex, and personalized engagement algorithms… Downstream of that is a high rate of poverty, debt, illiquidity, a poor healthcare system, reliance on jobs for affordable healthcare, a lack of access to robust mental health treatment, modernization of weaponry, a radicalized and angry society, collapsing social cohesion, division along small tribal lines, lacl of patriotism, and upregulation of the average amygdala. Downstream of that you have homelessness, addiction, mental health crisises, violence, suicide, murder, and the institutional inertia that makes these intergenerational problems.
Yes, we need a multifactorial approach to all of these things both acute and chronic. It isn’t as simple or as possible to get rid of the guns, but we can increase gun laws. We could require training of all citizens, we can give a budget to support red flag law enforcement, we can give the alcohol and tobacco regulation to the FDA, and let at the ATF focus on firearm enforcement, or roll it in to the secret service or fbim We can make healthcare free. We can spend a fuckton of money on it. We can raise the minimum wage. We can actually govern the economic policy rather than outsourcing it to the Fed, and focus on demand-side instead of supply -side economic solutions, pay for college, guarantee a living wage and housing.
But not with most of the Republicans in the way and the lobbyists at the ear of our representatives.
We need a modern Robespierre. A charismatic leader to lead the public by uniting them rather than dividing them, who will make such massive changes that they’ll come for his head.
Exactly. Around the world, western countries seem to be enshittifying. The only difference is that the US has widespread access to guns which seems to lead to lots of shootings of all flavours. We don’t have that shit here.
The repeal of the fairness doctrine, tv news no longer needs to be actually fair.
Back until the mid 80s there were really only 3-4 channels… everyone relied on the same news and we HAD to agree on facts. But there are almost no common facts today. There are 10000 sources and no matter where you are it can look like you’re correct, and very much in the center, and you can’t understand why those crazy “others” can’t see the truth.
Financial stress. Go take a closer look at the crime stats that right wing racists like to hammer the black community with. Then adjust them for poverty rates in the community. All of a sudden the racial divide in violent crime goes away. If anything, poor white men are the most violent, but not by enough to really be significant. The driving factor, by around 10 or 15 to 1, is poverty.
We’re seeing declining standards of living across the country, while technology hides the true depths of it. The whole, you can’t be poor if you have a wide screen TV and a refrigerator, is almost true. It’s just enough to make it look like having no bargaining power, being locked into your zip code, buried in debt, and renting everything you own, somehow represents wealth.
If we’re setting the calendar back 200 years, I’d have to guess that one of the contributing factors is records keeping and reporting. The definition of what is considered a “mass shooting” has also been fluid over the past 50 or so years.
These are not likely to be major contributors, but from Hollywood’s depictions, mass shootings may have been pretty common around 150 years ago.
Add comment