It is only the big ones that get noticed. Defining a Mass shooting as an event where 4 or more people (not including the shooter) are shot. there have been 255 such events this year, with 275 dead and 1065 wounded. August is a big part of that with 7 incidents, 36 dead and 74 wounded in just 5 days.
Despite all the attention Mass shootings get, even with broad definition they represent under 2% of the gun deaths in the US.
So? They are entirely preventable if the US cared enough. The fact that statistically people are more likely to die from cancer than be the victim in a mass shooting is a pretty stupid reason not to do anything about mass shootings.
I'm curious how you would completely prevent mass shootings.
I'm sure the US is doing plenty to prevent mass shootings. Even though they get little attention, I see a lot more news reports of actual prevented mass shootings than unprevented ones. So a lot is being done.
Gun laws. Gun laws would be a way to prevent them. One idiot tries to board a plane with a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.
We have gun laws, dude. Can't you be more specific? I can hardly believe you really think you have the knowledge to completely, 100% prevent mass shootings.
I know/presume you're trolling, but are you claiming that unless you can stop 100% then don't bother? And I will point out again that EVERY comparable country has this problem licked, it's not unsolvable unless you try really hard to to find reasons or excuses not to.
Of course I'm not claiming that. And I've pointed out, the US has done and is doing plenty of work and spending plenty of money to try to prevent as many mass killings as we can. And I know we actually are preventing very many from occurring.
These events will continue as long as people continue to state that guns are not the core issue. President Trump will always refuse to do anything about it because it would mean losing votes. Those who quote the Second Amendment forget that it was drafted well before assault rifles were made. Based on current statistics, there will be more than 120 mass shootings this year. For goodness sake, please do something about gun ownership in the US.
It was chilling enough to read all the names of cities where there have been mass shootings, and even more chilling to realize that Joe left a lot of places out. But most chilling is the unsaid people left for dead in each location, that each location created a horrible ripple effect of despair and heartbreak.
Thanks for this, Joe. Some of your best writing, ever.
As a practicing physician, I have seen numerous complications from gunshot wounds -- many of these go on for years or even a lifetime, and cause terrible suffering. It adds to the heartbreak.
Doctors in other developed countries do not. That's the way it should be.
I'm heartbroken too, especially because it doesn't have to be this way - and it hasn't always been this way! We banned the sale of assault weapons once in the 1990s - the ban was allowed to expire and then within the decade, assault weapon mass shootings start happening. We can do it again. We can ban them again and that's what needs to happen. This country is awash in guns and there's no way that's ever going to change, and honestly I'm resigned to that if not happy about it. But assault weapons? We banned them once, and we CAN do it again.
A little piece of me has died with each of these events you point out. The problem I wrestle with though is this. When I grew up, at least a third of all the trucks in our high school parking lots had gun racks in them and most had a shotgun and a rifle hanging in them. Not once did anyone get shot. I look at Chicago and the Illinois tight gun laws and restrictions and then see that they also lead the nation in the number of deaths by gunfire. I don't think that the guns are the core issue here.
But then the question becomes what is the core issue. Unfortunately I think the issue comes down to the fact that as a society we have lost the respect for others and for human life in general. When we were kids for the most part bullying stopped when we left school. Today that bullying continues non-stop via social media. We flood our kids with screen time that is full of violence and killing. I know that other countries have access to these same things and their young adults don't seem to be doing the same things. There has to be more to this than any of us see.
My personal opinion is somewhere we lost the desire to teach our kids to love. To embrace differences in opinions and people. Some of my best friends don't look or think like me and I celebrate this. I would think that living in a world where we all looked alike and thought the same would be boring.
I think the real solution to the problem is LOVE. We have to relearn to LOVE one another.
"I look at Chicago and the Illinois tight gun laws and restrictions and then see that they also lead the nation in the number of deaths by gunfire. I don't think that the guns are the core issue here." Guns can easily get over the border from all the neighbouring states, which have no gun laws.
On the other hand, look at Hawaii. It has the strictest gun laws in the country, and can actually enforce them since it's (obviously) harder to sneak them in. It as the lowest gun death rate in the country.
Hawaii has the highest %age of east Asians, of course, and east Asians are very unlikely to commit violent crime. The cause is demographic, as it usually is.
That's quite the statement- if that's the case, why are the Phillipines (57) and Mongolia (79) among the 100 countries in the world with the most homicide victims per capita? If you look at https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/, they agree with SDG that stronger gun laws correlate to fewer homicides and vice-versa. In fact, Alaska has the highest gun death rate and the weakest gun laws.
It's a fact that east Asians commit very little violent crime. I'd expect two of the many east Asian countries to be in the list of 100 highest homicide rates, after all, there's only about 200 countries total.
You're making a common mistake by equating homicide with gun deaths; the former is merely a subset of the latter.
Actually gun deaths are a subset of homicides and I'm not sure how you think I'm making a mistake by quoting a correlation... I'd also like to see the source of your so-called fact...that is, the study that separates the homicides that don't occur in East Asian countries due to gun laws versus the homicides that don't occur due to East Asians' propensity not to commit violent crime.
As I pointed out the Phillipines is actually number 57...for a country filled with people who don't commit violent crime, that sounds like a pretty high ranking to me (higher than a number of countries in Africa and south/.Central America).
oh, part of the confusion may have been that you referenced violent crime. so, when I quoted homicides in countries, I did so because all homicides would be considered violent crimes...
As far as states with strong gun laws, Illinois' gun death rate in 2018 (12.1 per 100,000 population) was at about the national average. States such as Alaska and Alabama, with weak gun laws, were much higher (24.5, 22.9, respectively).
The data on gun death rates clearly shows that states with lax gun laws have higher gun death rates.
Where did you get that data? Those numbers are way over the UCR murder rates, which I think are extremely accurate: I see 8.4 for AK, 8.3 for AL, 7.8 for IL, and that's total murder, not just gun murder. I'd really like to know the cause of the difference. Certainly suicide, accidents, and legal homicide can't make up the difference, can they? (My source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate)
OK, thanks, I'll plan to look at that data later. I had forgotten it, but I think the suicide rate is of the same order of magnitude as the homicide rate. I might as well look it up: the 2018 rate appears to be 13.4, while the 2017 homicide rate was 5.3. So, wow, I didn't know it was that different. Oh wait, that 13.4 is split about evenly into gun-related and non-gun-related suicides, so it's about 6.7.
So, perhaps states with lax gun laws have higher gun suicide rates. Is the same true for homicide rates, or mass shooting rates?
I wouldn't disagree with your point that we can all practice more Love and Empathy in our lives. But I strongly disagree with your point that Chicago's high levels of gun violence are proof that gun control is not a potential solution here.
The piece below does a better job explaining it than me, but here's one common-sense reason that argument makes no sense. Yes: Illinois/Chicago have higher-than-average levels of gun restrictions (for the US at least). BUT: the city is less than an hour drive from Wisconsin and Indiana, both of which have almost no gun restrictions in place.
It's much more meaningful to compare the US against other countries: the US dwarfs all other industrialized nations in two stats: gun-related deaths and private gun ownership.
The US also has a completely different racial demographic than all other industrialized nations. This matters because there are vast, enormous differences in how frequently the different races commit gun violence. For example, blacks are eight times more likely than whites to commit murder. The rate of murder by whites is actually about the same in the US as it is in western Europe (I think the rate in Eastern Europe is a little higher than it is for US whites).
I'm not sure how race is relevant. Nearly all spree shootings, which we discuss here, were committed by white men. No one disputes that they are far, far, overrepresented in mass killings.
You're conflating murder, and murder with a gun, which are of course two separate things (I know you're smart. You're doing it deliberately because you're not interested in actually discussing anything). Actually, the most common gun death is by suicide. The suicide rate in the US is higher than most countries, virtually all developed countries, especially for a country that's not in the far north. You know why? I THINK IT MIGHT BE THE GUNS.
Suicide is a separate problem than homicide. Race is not just relevant, it's the primary factor in violent crime.
I dispute that whites are "far, far overrepresented" in mass killings. They might be slightly overrepresented. I'm curious to know how many times more likely whites are to commit mass killings than blacks are. Again, there are so few mass killings per year (according to the AP), that the possible ratio is fairly limited.
Go to the wikipedia page listing mass shootings in the US. Most were white. A few were East Asian. An even smaller few were black. One guy I can think of off the top of my head was Middle Eastern.
And you're STILL conflating gun deaths, mass shootings, and violent crime. Not the same thing.
Suicide is a separate problem than homicide but the reason the US has a higher rate than other countries? The guns.
That's far less likely to do with race (which is mostly a social construct rather than a scientific one) than with income levels. Blacks in the US have much higher rates of poverty, and murder rates correlate with poverty levels more than any other factor (except for sex -- almost all murders are committed by men).
Also, the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by whites.
Well, the biggest problem with that is what I said before -- there's no real scientific (genetic) basis for race, so I don't think it's a good basis for data analysis. Since there's no specific definition for what constitutes any specific race (and really can't be in any scientific sense), any analysis based on it is inherently flawed.
Regardless, I'm certain I've read a study that correlated violent crime with poverty levels above all other factors -- I'll see if I can find it.
Of course there's a scientific basis for race: whites have more DNA in common than they do with blacks, blacks have more in common than they do with east Asians, etc. I hope you're not saying this isn't true. Anyway, I would like to see a real study that correlated violent crime with poverty at a higher level than with race.
I sit here, and I weep until I have no tears left. We keep hearing the voices saying that there was nothing that could be done to stop this. But it is a lie, and we all know that it has been a lie for a long time. And the longer the lie keeps being repeated, the more hollow it rings.
There are sane ways to both preserve the right to bear arms and remove military-grade weapons from the public. But until we stop shouting at each other, and start grieving with each other, we will never come close enough to find them.
I suppose to assuage our own consciences, we should certainly "do something," even if it's misguided, or wrong-headed, or ineffectual -- as long as we "do something" we can rest easier and turn our attention away and pat ourselves on the back, rather than tackling the hard issues and root causes of these atrocities. Easier to write poems than change minds, or face difficult challenges, or create real change. So let's indulge in virtue-signaling at its finest instead.
Phil - after a night's sleep I'm less angry at everyone. Can you please explain your personal stance on the mass shooting issue? - I don't think you have actually stated it, except that reading between the lines of your post it appears that you're saying that doing nothing is better than doing something. Is that my misreading, or are you basically ok with things the way they are?
Are you really saying that it is better to take no action because there is a possibility that an action taken could be misguided? Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain or President James Buchanon- 2 leaders who famously did not take a stand in time of crisis?
Do you really think that writing doesn't change minds or lead to real change? Have you never heard the proverb that "the pen is mightier than the sword?"
And really, i'm just ticked off that you are so caught up in your support for gun right's (I'm making an assumption here, but I certainly don't think it is a stretch) that you take a deeply cynical and contrarian look at what Joe wrote instead of appreciating the compassion with which he wrote.
Go ahead, make asinine assumptions. It frames the “discussion” so well when you assume the higher moral ground. I certainly appreciate Joe’s take on this, but I’m similarly frustrated by the lack of constructive dialogue across the spectrum. And I do appreciate the responses to my initial reaction, however couched in the cloak of smug superiority.
Phil, you seem to be asking for a constructive dialogue on this topic. So let's start one. What exactly do you consider the root causes of these atrocities? That is the only place to start, if we are going to find a solution or, at a minimum, common ground. In my opinion, mental illness; normalization of hate; and unfettered access to weapons and ammunition designed for killing are my big 3 causes. We can save the "what to do about it" for later.
What do you mean by "unfettered" access to weapons and ammunition? I think access to guns is fettered at least somewhat.
I hope you guys are aware that the murder rate in the US dropped by about 50% from its peak in about 1995 to about 2015. (I'd guess that it's continued to drop since 2015, but I'm not up on the latest statistics.)
Do you know for sure that deaths due to mass shootings have risen since 1995? There were an awful lot of them back then.
I think the only place to start is with statistics. Numbers matter, and you need to know them to know if the problem is worsening or improving.
Yes, even in the context of overall violent crime decreasing (which of course includes crimes not committed with a gun, most aren't) mass shootings have gone way, way, up.
Mass killings have remained constant or slightly declined in the last 13 or so years. There are about 20-30 each year. I saw a statistic about this today, from the AP. Mass shootings have risen, but there are so few of them, you can't really apply an adverb to "risen". But everyone seems to have their own definition of "mass shooting". That's why I asked the fellow above what definition he was using. What definition are you using?
I think a more concise way to say it would be "easy access to weapons of war". The guy in Dayton had a device that allowed him to load 200 rounds into a military level weapon that he acquired legally. That's a problem. The guy in Las Vegas had several military weapons with bump stocks that allowed him to fire his weapons automatically. At least there is a ban on bump stocks now. High capacity magazines are very common among mass shooters, as are military style weapons that are built to inflict maximum damage on humans. We do draw some lines, in terms of not being able to buy grenades, rocket launchers or tanks. I thing we should re-draw them. That does not, by itself, solve the problem. I'm not that naïve. Mental health is clearly an issue. Hate sites that radicalize people online are a big problem. Politicians, especially in the white house, that use fiery rhetoric to demonize immigrants and against people they perceive to be their enemies is a huge problem. Lots of problems to solve. But guns that can be used to inflict maximum damage that are legally obtained are a big part of it.
I absolutely agree with your three points: thank you for the reasoned response. I would add the marginalization of certain demographics and the overall devaluing if the individual in our society. It’s easier to lump people into groups if “us” and “them” so we do it too often, to our collective detriment. The climate of hate is so much worse than I can ever remember: just look at the vitriol I engendered with what was essentially a politically neutral opinion. For the record, I wholeheartedly admire Joe’s writing, and his ability to pluck emotional strings is laudable. I just thought this one was too pat, too color-by-number. Just my option: as all of this has been. Cheers.
You've got to be kidding me...Joe's writing here doesn't take any side except to imply that SOMETHING ought to be done; how is that "too pat, too color-by-number?"...To imply that your response to what did not come across as a political piece was politically neutral is disingenuous.
"I certainly appreciate Joe's take on this" vs. "Easier to write poems than change minds ... So let's indulge in virtue-signaling at its finest instead."
Virtiue signalling is such an odd criticism. I'm sure Joe loved it when dozens of children were massacred at their own school. He's just pretenfing it was tragic. You know, for the cool points.
You're criticizing Joe - a writer, a PROFESSIONAL WRITER - for writing a poem? You don't wanna read what Joe writes, there's plenty of dadaist poetry on the Drudge report and Breitbart for you, Phil. Head on over there and take your garbage take with you. "Virtue signaling." The hell does that even mean, in the real world.
What "virtue signaling" means is this: "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue." (from Google)
Actual definition: "I can't disagree with the opinion on its merits, so I'm going to accuse the speaker of not really believing what he says, making the discussion about his alleged hypocrisy or fakeness rather than the subject at hand."
When the NRA has politicians in a vice grip *not* to do anything that actually *is* effectual, that is where the difficult challenge lies. Perhaps laws made when muskets were state of the art should be updated.
What to write? I'm on a dozen edits of this first sentence - everything is inadequate or mean. but F' it. I'm a non-American and I do not live in America - so I shake my head at this "unsolvable" problem that pretty much every other country has solved.
As a non-American I can't help fix it but I will offer some small advice - thoughts and prayers are worthless, man up and take and demand action and hold accountable.
It isn't just one man, whatever shape his Office is;
It isn't just one man, however his upbringing went;
It isn't just one man, whatever the color on his ribbon;
It isn't just one man, holding the gun.
It's all of us, who keep on dying,
Or staring away,
Or justifying the actions of the others,
Or accusing the other side of the aisle.
We need to scrap boundaries,
We need to stop grouping or separating,
We need to look in the eye of the stranger and see ourself,
We need to live together.
It is only the big ones that get noticed. Defining a Mass shooting as an event where 4 or more people (not including the shooter) are shot. there have been 255 such events this year, with 275 dead and 1065 wounded. August is a big part of that with 7 incidents, 36 dead and 74 wounded in just 5 days.
Despite all the attention Mass shootings get, even with broad definition they represent under 2% of the gun deaths in the US.
So? They are entirely preventable if the US cared enough. The fact that statistically people are more likely to die from cancer than be the victim in a mass shooting is a pretty stupid reason not to do anything about mass shootings.
I'm curious how you would completely prevent mass shootings.
I'm sure the US is doing plenty to prevent mass shootings. Even though they get little attention, I see a lot more news reports of actual prevented mass shootings than unprevented ones. So a lot is being done.
Gun laws. Gun laws would be a way to prevent them. One idiot tries to board a plane with a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.
We have gun laws, dude. Can't you be more specific? I can hardly believe you really think you have the knowledge to completely, 100% prevent mass shootings.
I know/presume you're trolling, but are you claiming that unless you can stop 100% then don't bother? And I will point out again that EVERY comparable country has this problem licked, it's not unsolvable unless you try really hard to to find reasons or excuses not to.
Of course I'm not claiming that. And I've pointed out, the US has done and is doing plenty of work and spending plenty of money to try to prevent as many mass killings as we can. And I know we actually are preventing very many from occurring.
Pro tip: Stop accusing people of trolling.
This is beautiful and very, very sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
These events will continue as long as people continue to state that guns are not the core issue. President Trump will always refuse to do anything about it because it would mean losing votes. Those who quote the Second Amendment forget that it was drafted well before assault rifles were made. Based on current statistics, there will be more than 120 mass shootings this year. For goodness sake, please do something about gun ownership in the US.
How are you defining "mass shooting" and "assault rifle"?
You can't be serious!
Terry, don’t engage Invitro. He’s the ultimate troll.
It was chilling enough to read all the names of cities where there have been mass shootings, and even more chilling to realize that Joe left a lot of places out. But most chilling is the unsaid people left for dead in each location, that each location created a horrible ripple effect of despair and heartbreak.
Thanks for this, Joe. Some of your best writing, ever.
As a practicing physician, I have seen numerous complications from gunshot wounds -- many of these go on for years or even a lifetime, and cause terrible suffering. It adds to the heartbreak.
Doctors in other developed countries do not. That's the way it should be.
Thank you, Joe, for posting this beautiful piece.
https://twitter.com/PaulSaxMD/status/1158336716807254016?s=20
I'm heartbroken too, especially because it doesn't have to be this way - and it hasn't always been this way! We banned the sale of assault weapons once in the 1990s - the ban was allowed to expire and then within the decade, assault weapon mass shootings start happening. We can do it again. We can ban them again and that's what needs to happen. This country is awash in guns and there's no way that's ever going to change, and honestly I'm resigned to that if not happy about it. But assault weapons? We banned them once, and we CAN do it again.
A little piece of me has died with each of these events you point out. The problem I wrestle with though is this. When I grew up, at least a third of all the trucks in our high school parking lots had gun racks in them and most had a shotgun and a rifle hanging in them. Not once did anyone get shot. I look at Chicago and the Illinois tight gun laws and restrictions and then see that they also lead the nation in the number of deaths by gunfire. I don't think that the guns are the core issue here.
But then the question becomes what is the core issue. Unfortunately I think the issue comes down to the fact that as a society we have lost the respect for others and for human life in general. When we were kids for the most part bullying stopped when we left school. Today that bullying continues non-stop via social media. We flood our kids with screen time that is full of violence and killing. I know that other countries have access to these same things and their young adults don't seem to be doing the same things. There has to be more to this than any of us see.
My personal opinion is somewhere we lost the desire to teach our kids to love. To embrace differences in opinions and people. Some of my best friends don't look or think like me and I celebrate this. I would think that living in a world where we all looked alike and thought the same would be boring.
I think the real solution to the problem is LOVE. We have to relearn to LOVE one another.
"I look at Chicago and the Illinois tight gun laws and restrictions and then see that they also lead the nation in the number of deaths by gunfire. I don't think that the guns are the core issue here." Guns can easily get over the border from all the neighbouring states, which have no gun laws.
On the other hand, look at Hawaii. It has the strictest gun laws in the country, and can actually enforce them since it's (obviously) harder to sneak them in. It as the lowest gun death rate in the country.
Hawaii has the highest %age of east Asians, of course, and east Asians are very unlikely to commit violent crime. The cause is demographic, as it usually is.
That's quite the statement- if that's the case, why are the Phillipines (57) and Mongolia (79) among the 100 countries in the world with the most homicide victims per capita? If you look at https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/, they agree with SDG that stronger gun laws correlate to fewer homicides and vice-versa. In fact, Alaska has the highest gun death rate and the weakest gun laws.
It's a fact that east Asians commit very little violent crime. I'd expect two of the many east Asian countries to be in the list of 100 highest homicide rates, after all, there's only about 200 countries total.
You're making a common mistake by equating homicide with gun deaths; the former is merely a subset of the latter.
Actually gun deaths are a subset of homicides and I'm not sure how you think I'm making a mistake by quoting a correlation... I'd also like to see the source of your so-called fact...that is, the study that separates the homicides that don't occur in East Asian countries due to gun laws versus the homicides that don't occur due to East Asians' propensity not to commit violent crime.
As I pointed out the Phillipines is actually number 57...for a country filled with people who don't commit violent crime, that sounds like a pretty high ranking to me (higher than a number of countries in Africa and south/.Central America).
You think gun deaths are a subset of homicides? Think about the mistake you're making here.
The Philippines have many different ethnic groups, and that is probably part of the reason why they're higher-than-average for violent crime.
You can just Google the rates of violent crime by ethnicity to see that east Asians commit very little of it compared to other races.
oh, part of the confusion may have been that you referenced violent crime. so, when I quoted homicides in countries, I did so because all homicides would be considered violent crimes...
As far as states with strong gun laws, Illinois' gun death rate in 2018 (12.1 per 100,000 population) was at about the national average. States such as Alaska and Alabama, with weak gun laws, were much higher (24.5, 22.9, respectively).
The data on gun death rates clearly shows that states with lax gun laws have higher gun death rates.
Where did you get that data? Those numbers are way over the UCR murder rates, which I think are extremely accurate: I see 8.4 for AK, 8.3 for AL, 7.8 for IL, and that's total murder, not just gun murder. I'd really like to know the cause of the difference. Certainly suicide, accidents, and legal homicide can't make up the difference, can they? (My source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate)
Giffords Law Center website. It's not just homicides, it's all gun deaths including suicides.
I don't see how the data is flawed, except you could maybe argue how they determine relative strength of gun laws.
OK, thanks, I'll plan to look at that data later. I had forgotten it, but I think the suicide rate is of the same order of magnitude as the homicide rate. I might as well look it up: the 2018 rate appears to be 13.4, while the 2017 homicide rate was 5.3. So, wow, I didn't know it was that different. Oh wait, that 13.4 is split about evenly into gun-related and non-gun-related suicides, so it's about 6.7.
So, perhaps states with lax gun laws have higher gun suicide rates. Is the same true for homicide rates, or mass shooting rates?
I wouldn't disagree with your point that we can all practice more Love and Empathy in our lives. But I strongly disagree with your point that Chicago's high levels of gun violence are proof that gun control is not a potential solution here.
The piece below does a better job explaining it than me, but here's one common-sense reason that argument makes no sense. Yes: Illinois/Chicago have higher-than-average levels of gun restrictions (for the US at least). BUT: the city is less than an hour drive from Wisconsin and Indiana, both of which have almost no gun restrictions in place.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
It's much more meaningful to compare the US against other countries: the US dwarfs all other industrialized nations in two stats: gun-related deaths and private gun ownership.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-mass-shootings-us-america
The US also has a completely different racial demographic than all other industrialized nations. This matters because there are vast, enormous differences in how frequently the different races commit gun violence. For example, blacks are eight times more likely than whites to commit murder. The rate of murder by whites is actually about the same in the US as it is in western Europe (I think the rate in Eastern Europe is a little higher than it is for US whites).
I'm not sure how race is relevant. Nearly all spree shootings, which we discuss here, were committed by white men. No one disputes that they are far, far, overrepresented in mass killings.
You're conflating murder, and murder with a gun, which are of course two separate things (I know you're smart. You're doing it deliberately because you're not interested in actually discussing anything). Actually, the most common gun death is by suicide. The suicide rate in the US is higher than most countries, virtually all developed countries, especially for a country that's not in the far north. You know why? I THINK IT MIGHT BE THE GUNS.
Suicide is a separate problem than homicide. Race is not just relevant, it's the primary factor in violent crime.
I dispute that whites are "far, far overrepresented" in mass killings. They might be slightly overrepresented. I'm curious to know how many times more likely whites are to commit mass killings than blacks are. Again, there are so few mass killings per year (according to the AP), that the possible ratio is fairly limited.
Go to the wikipedia page listing mass shootings in the US. Most were white. A few were East Asian. An even smaller few were black. One guy I can think of off the top of my head was Middle Eastern.
And you're STILL conflating gun deaths, mass shootings, and violent crime. Not the same thing.
Suicide is a separate problem than homicide but the reason the US has a higher rate than other countries? The guns.
Most people in the US are white, so what?
That's far less likely to do with race (which is mostly a social construct rather than a scientific one) than with income levels. Blacks in the US have much higher rates of poverty, and murder rates correlate with poverty levels more than any other factor (except for sex -- almost all murders are committed by men).
Also, the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by whites.
What is your source for this claim? I've seen that race correlates more strongly with violence than income.
Well, the biggest problem with that is what I said before -- there's no real scientific (genetic) basis for race, so I don't think it's a good basis for data analysis. Since there's no specific definition for what constitutes any specific race (and really can't be in any scientific sense), any analysis based on it is inherently flawed.
Regardless, I'm certain I've read a study that correlated violent crime with poverty levels above all other factors -- I'll see if I can find it.
Of course there's a scientific basis for race: whites have more DNA in common than they do with blacks, blacks have more in common than they do with east Asians, etc. I hope you're not saying this isn't true. Anyway, I would like to see a real study that correlated violent crime with poverty at a higher level than with race.
I sit here, and I weep until I have no tears left. We keep hearing the voices saying that there was nothing that could be done to stop this. But it is a lie, and we all know that it has been a lie for a long time. And the longer the lie keeps being repeated, the more hollow it rings.
There are sane ways to both preserve the right to bear arms and remove military-grade weapons from the public. But until we stop shouting at each other, and start grieving with each other, we will never come close enough to find them.
Thank you, Joe, for helping us grieve together.
I suppose to assuage our own consciences, we should certainly "do something," even if it's misguided, or wrong-headed, or ineffectual -- as long as we "do something" we can rest easier and turn our attention away and pat ourselves on the back, rather than tackling the hard issues and root causes of these atrocities. Easier to write poems than change minds, or face difficult challenges, or create real change. So let's indulge in virtue-signaling at its finest instead.
Phil - after a night's sleep I'm less angry at everyone. Can you please explain your personal stance on the mass shooting issue? - I don't think you have actually stated it, except that reading between the lines of your post it appears that you're saying that doing nothing is better than doing something. Is that my misreading, or are you basically ok with things the way they are?
You're right.
Your post got me fired up for multiple reasons.
Are you really saying that it is better to take no action because there is a possibility that an action taken could be misguided? Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain or President James Buchanon- 2 leaders who famously did not take a stand in time of crisis?
Do you really think that writing doesn't change minds or lead to real change? Have you never heard the proverb that "the pen is mightier than the sword?"
And really, i'm just ticked off that you are so caught up in your support for gun right's (I'm making an assumption here, but I certainly don't think it is a stretch) that you take a deeply cynical and contrarian look at what Joe wrote instead of appreciating the compassion with which he wrote.
Go ahead, make asinine assumptions. It frames the “discussion” so well when you assume the higher moral ground. I certainly appreciate Joe’s take on this, but I’m similarly frustrated by the lack of constructive dialogue across the spectrum. And I do appreciate the responses to my initial reaction, however couched in the cloak of smug superiority.
Phil, you seem to be asking for a constructive dialogue on this topic. So let's start one. What exactly do you consider the root causes of these atrocities? That is the only place to start, if we are going to find a solution or, at a minimum, common ground. In my opinion, mental illness; normalization of hate; and unfettered access to weapons and ammunition designed for killing are my big 3 causes. We can save the "what to do about it" for later.
What do you mean by "unfettered" access to weapons and ammunition? I think access to guns is fettered at least somewhat.
I hope you guys are aware that the murder rate in the US dropped by about 50% from its peak in about 1995 to about 2015. (I'd guess that it's continued to drop since 2015, but I'm not up on the latest statistics.)
Do you know for sure that deaths due to mass shootings have risen since 1995? There were an awful lot of them back then.
I think the only place to start is with statistics. Numbers matter, and you need to know them to know if the problem is worsening or improving.
Yes, even in the context of overall violent crime decreasing (which of course includes crimes not committed with a gun, most aren't) mass shootings have gone way, way, up.
Mass killings have remained constant or slightly declined in the last 13 or so years. There are about 20-30 each year. I saw a statistic about this today, from the AP. Mass shootings have risen, but there are so few of them, you can't really apply an adverb to "risen". But everyone seems to have their own definition of "mass shooting". That's why I asked the fellow above what definition he was using. What definition are you using?
I think a more concise way to say it would be "easy access to weapons of war". The guy in Dayton had a device that allowed him to load 200 rounds into a military level weapon that he acquired legally. That's a problem. The guy in Las Vegas had several military weapons with bump stocks that allowed him to fire his weapons automatically. At least there is a ban on bump stocks now. High capacity magazines are very common among mass shooters, as are military style weapons that are built to inflict maximum damage on humans. We do draw some lines, in terms of not being able to buy grenades, rocket launchers or tanks. I thing we should re-draw them. That does not, by itself, solve the problem. I'm not that naïve. Mental health is clearly an issue. Hate sites that radicalize people online are a big problem. Politicians, especially in the white house, that use fiery rhetoric to demonize immigrants and against people they perceive to be their enemies is a huge problem. Lots of problems to solve. But guns that can be used to inflict maximum damage that are legally obtained are a big part of it.
I don't see any reason why guns that fire 200 rounds should be legal.
I absolutely agree with your three points: thank you for the reasoned response. I would add the marginalization of certain demographics and the overall devaluing if the individual in our society. It’s easier to lump people into groups if “us” and “them” so we do it too often, to our collective detriment. The climate of hate is so much worse than I can ever remember: just look at the vitriol I engendered with what was essentially a politically neutral opinion. For the record, I wholeheartedly admire Joe’s writing, and his ability to pluck emotional strings is laudable. I just thought this one was too pat, too color-by-number. Just my option: as all of this has been. Cheers.
You've got to be kidding me...Joe's writing here doesn't take any side except to imply that SOMETHING ought to be done; how is that "too pat, too color-by-number?"...To imply that your response to what did not come across as a political piece was politically neutral is disingenuous.
Some actual studying of the subject: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
"I certainly appreciate Joe's take on this" vs. "Easier to write poems than change minds ... So let's indulge in virtue-signaling at its finest instead."
Virtiue signalling is such an odd criticism. I'm sure Joe loved it when dozens of children were massacred at their own school. He's just pretenfing it was tragic. You know, for the cool points.
You're criticizing Joe - a writer, a PROFESSIONAL WRITER - for writing a poem? You don't wanna read what Joe writes, there's plenty of dadaist poetry on the Drudge report and Breitbart for you, Phil. Head on over there and take your garbage take with you. "Virtue signaling." The hell does that even mean, in the real world.
What "virtue signaling" means is this: "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue." (from Google)
Actual definition: "I can't disagree with the opinion on its merits, so I'm going to accuse the speaker of not really believing what he says, making the discussion about his alleged hypocrisy or fakeness rather than the subject at hand."
When the NRA has politicians in a vice grip *not* to do anything that actually *is* effectual, that is where the difficult challenge lies. Perhaps laws made when muskets were state of the art should be updated.
A writer writing to encourage doesn't seem out of line. Knock me out with the actions you're taking, Phil
What to write? I'm on a dozen edits of this first sentence - everything is inadequate or mean. but F' it. I'm a non-American and I do not live in America - so I shake my head at this "unsolvable" problem that pretty much every other country has solved.
As a non-American I can't help fix it but I will offer some small advice - thoughts and prayers are worthless, man up and take and demand action and hold accountable.
Thank you Joe for not letting this pass.
Exactly. Do something about it.
It's way beyond time to do something. No other country experiences this type of tragedy the way the US does. https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-america-sandy-hook-gun-violence.
Amen Joe. Amen.