What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

[billh58]

When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.

But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

- Snip -

If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?

Study after study shows that the gun violence problem in the USA is NOT a mental health issue -- it is an overabundance of guns issue. It is much too easy for people who should not have them to acquire a gun in this country. According to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley:

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

No we can't confiscate all of the guns already in the wrong hands, but we can certainly take steps to strongly regulate who gets to purchase or otherwise own a gun, and where they can carry or use them. Like all other civil rights, the Second Amendment can be sensibly regulated to ensure the welfare and safety of the public at large.

[defacto7]

1. I think everyone knows this.

Many just refuse to admit it.

[flamin lib]

2. No regulation would stop the Texas shooting of 50 pdople

or the Las Vegas shooting of 550 or the Pulse nightclub shooting of 104.

Okay, suppose I buy that stupidity. How about we just limit the carnage? Reduce the rate of fire. Define assault weapon as any semi automatic firearm with a removeable magazine. Then ban the mnufacture, import, sa!e, possession or transfer of assault weapons under penalty of 20 years in federal prison.

Works for this Federal Firearms License holder and collector.

[jimmy the one]

3. wayne la derriere

bill: No we can't confiscate all of the guns already in the wrong hands, but we can certainly take steps to strongly regulate who gets to purchase or otherwise own a gun, and where they can carry or use them.

As far back as I can remember regarding gun control debate (70's), gun control advocacy has only seriously contended that a marginal improvement is the best America could hope for in reducing gun violence.
Like a 10 - 20% improvement over gun murder & gun crime - well it's better than arguing to do nothing like wayne la-derriere & the gunnuts do.

bill: Like all other civil rights, the Second Amendment can be sensibly regulated to ensure the welfare and safety of the public at large

That's even the perverted subverted interpretation of 2ndA, which was manipulated by creepy scalia into an individual rkba (right to keep bear arms). The 1939 supreme court ruled UNANIMOUSLY 8-0 (one recusal for late arrival) for the militia interpretation, as did the amicus brief to the 1939 court.

1939 supreme court (their caps, not mine): THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
"TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH {militia} FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW. http://www.guncite.com/miller.html

Amicus brief from dept of justice, 1938, to supreme court 1939 re miller case:
That the foregoing cases conclusively establish that the Second Amendment has relation only to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes and does not conceivably relate to weapons of the type referred to in the National Firearms Act cannot be doubted.....
In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Adams), the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. * * * http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm