I think it's a combination of several factors, most of which have been covered ad nauseum. However, I think there is another big factor- the shooters have a good feeling that nobody will kill them back. I think this is why schools are so frequently targeted. Who is going to pull a pistol out of their pocket and shoot the assailant in a high school or college campus? Nobody, that's who, and we're to blame for it. We make laws to assure that we're all unarmed. Everyone is a target. The shooter has a guaranteed moment of fame. What's the fame in shooting a time or two and falling yourself? The news coverage would say that some hero killed a madman before he actucally got to kill someone. In the end game, I think that the shooter killing himself is not the same as someone else killing the shooter. If the shooter kills himself, he left the world on his own terms- the world that has let him down.
My statement wasn't meant to contradict yours; we're saying the same thing. I don't think anyone would dispute that there are underlying differences in the socialization process that lead to these tendencies. Whether there is an underlying genetic basis is a much more contentious topic. My guess is yes, there is some, but I am no scientist and I'm not especially familiar with the state of research on the topic. And even if we admit that there are genetic predispositions at play, there is then the further issue of how much causation comes from which source, and how they interplay with each other. In other words, it's undoubtedly super-duper-complicated. As causal determinations usually are. I'm only tangentially familiar with the academic literature on the topic, but my general impression is that it is less an unstudied issue than it is an unresolved one.
Are you seriously suggesting that an appropriate way to curb violent shooting is to arm EVERYBODY? Like, school children as well? I really think this logic is horrible. And clearly it doesn't work - somebody just shot up a military base. Surely, if the prospect of getting killed in retaliation was an effective deterrent then NO ONE would consider walking into a room full of trained soldiers with a loaded weapon, right?
Mind you that he knew these trained soldiers were also unarmed, trained soldiers. Had they been armed, casualties would have been much less, if not zero.
No publicity is bad publicity. If you have nothing to live for and you don't believe anyone cares about you as a person what can you do to get attention? Grab a gun and go smoke some fools. The guy from Ft. Hood was nobody, today he is considered a hero to a significant percentage of the planet. I think he and all the others do it for selfish reasons because they lack validation.
I think that law abiding citizens should be able to carry a firearm wherever they would like- schools, churches, airports, bars, restaurants, you name it. I do not believe that schoolchildren should be allowed to carry guns, but I do believe that every teacher should not be prohibited from carrying a gun either. This introduces the element of the unknown and mass killers don't seem to like the unknown very much. What if Mr. Jones has a .45 in his desk or in a concealed carry holster? What if the woman with the giant purse is also carrying a .40? How does this change the predatory nature of mass killers? As pointed out earlier, the man who shot up the miltary base knew that most, if not all of the people in the room were unarmed. How much time did the Va Tech shooter have before anyone who could even threaten him showed up? A lot. How much time did the boys in Columbine have? Again, quite a bit. What if 1% out of a 25,000 student college campus exercised the right to carry a gun and did carry a gun? What would have happened then?
I don't want this to come across as bitchy - it's not, I'm genuinely curious. Based on what you've written, I get a sense that you feel proper, legal use of firearms contributes to a nation's overall safety. Can you supply any evidence to back this up? From what I've found, the United States has the highest level of guns per capita (legal, registered ones) by a long shot. Followed by Yemen and Finland (distant second and third). Also from my research the United States has the highest level of gun-related death per year based on its population. By arming more people - even if they're "law abiding citizens" (and by the way, how do you determine that? How do you make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands?), aren't you just increasing the overall likelihood that there will be more gun violence?
This is nearing political debate. Switzerland requires all male citizens to serve in the army. As well as making them maintain their service weapons AT HOME. I suggest you check out the facts on their per capita gun-murder rates. The gun-toting mad man that kills a score of people is such a rare occurrence that it's almost statistically insignificant in debate, you just hear about it 24/7 on media outlets over much more common and just as disturbing crimes.
I'm not going to trot out the data that shows a correlation between the adoption of "shall issue" (meaning, if you aren't insane or a criminal, you can get it) concealed carry permits and a decrease in crime, because I have not looked at the crime rates in otherwise comparable places (say, Florida, which adopted a "Shall issue" policy, and California, which has a "oh hell no you ain't hiding a Glock unless you've got cash to contribute to Mr. Sheriff's election campaign" policy). I am posting mainly to respond to some things: How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen? For weapons that are deemed more potentially dangerous than Granpa's varmint gun, you have to get a little background check. It won't weed out all criminals, of course, but it weeds out those who got caught by the police/spent time locked up. Of course, you could have an upstanding character who straw-purchases weapons for another person, but that's illegal (but enforcement is apparently lax). By increasing guns aren't you increasing gun violence? I'd say that the USA is pretty well saturated with enough guns for criminals no matter what you do. The difference would lie in how well equipped the rest of the population is. There might be an increase in gun violence, but I would hesitate to say that it would overall decrease violence if guns were removed from the equation. It would be harder to do mass killings without use of explosives or traps, but Jolly old England seems to demonstrate that just ridding the law-abiding citizens of guns (mostly) hasn't seemed to impact the criminal element significantly, aside from the whole "lets use knives instead" thing. From my perspective, a gun is a tool. Guns make it really easy to kill stuff, but they make it really easy for anyone who can pull the trigger. As a large young male, I have a distinct physical advantage over most people with other weapons, I can impart more force through sheer muscle mass, I have a height advantage, etc. With a 230gr .45 ACP FMJ, I can impart 477 Joules of energy to the projectile. So can the old lady down the street. If you arm a society then you do have to rely on the society stepping up to the challenge and not abusing their newfound power. In this country, it has been established that there is an individual Constitutinal right to own firearms. Since we cannot get rid of firearms while obeying the supreme law of the land, it seems that making sure everyone (who checks out mentally and legally) is equal.
I think guns are an all or nothing thing. Either everyone has them, or none. I agree that people should be allowed to carry, if they qualify, and so desire. The Fort Hood shooting would have had a much, much different outcome if those around him were armed.
Interesting day to say that guy "won" in the end: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33827106/ns ... nd_courts/
I think that if you were to pull out a list of spree killings, you would see the frequency growing faster then the increase of the American population. In regards to why this is happening, a factor that I never see others mention is that this is something that a lot of otherwise suicidal people would be doing. A generation ago, I think a lot of these people, the spree, and family killers would have hung themselves but today they either don't have the courage, or do have the desire for revenge and decide to do it this way instead.
Not to nit pick, but I feel the need to make this point: anytime you debate touchy social issues, critical reading is a must. In this context, the use of the qualifier "gun" before the word violence is used for purposes of skewing a statistic. Just like I could easily show that more chopsticks results in higher levels of chopstick violence. The real important metric is "just plain violence", whether it is gun violence, croquet mallet violence, knife violence, whatever. Next time you read about a hot social topic, try picking out the "qualifiers", it'll be pretty evident which side of the debate wrote the piece. OK, carry on.
What we see today is the cowardice of those wishing to commit mass murders. Almost every single mass murder by shooting you see these days happens in a "Gun Free Zone." That is, every mass shooting you see happens in a place where the law abiding citizens are not legally permitted to carry guns. Every mass shooting you see happens in a place where the victims cannot legally fight back. The reason this happens much more frequently in modern times is the prevalence of "Gun Free Zones." Schools and Universities are some of the biggest Gun Free Zones, and victims of mass shootings. You (almost) never see a mass murderer shooting up a Gun Show, or an NRA meeting. This is because the mass shooter is a coward. He skews his risk reward judgement on the extreme side. Hi reward, very very very very low risk of him getting shot in the act by someone legally carrying a gun. So, being the logical people that we are... If every mass shooting has taken place in gun free zones almost without exception, what are we going to do now?