If only enough people cared. There are tons of people who are perfectly fine with the 30-40,000 gun deaths every year just so they can continue to have guns.
If only enough people cared. There are tons of people who are perfectly fine with the 30-40,000 gun deaths every year just so they can continue to have guns.
I think there are reasons for this, and I definitely fell into this camp once before (and sort of do now, I guess). Most gun deaths are suicides, which are tragic, but not really gun violence...
I think there are reasons for this, and I definitely fell into this camp once before (and sort of do now, I guess). Most gun deaths are suicides, which are tragic, but not really gun violence related. I have mixed feelings on suicide in general, so this is a complicated topic. I wouldn't disagree with someone who wanted to attempt to reduce this number through whatever means is effective.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.
But their CDC link doesn't use even have that information. Why would the CDC track gang activity? How many people are going to parse a 52 page technical document for that info when the author of the article conveniently told them what they wanted to believe and "sourced" it?
According to the Department of Justice’s National Gang Center, particularly in urban areas, significant percentages of gun-related homicides (15 percent to 33 percent) are linked with gang and drug activity.
The majority of standard gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Although black men make up roughly 7 percent of the population, they account for almost two-thirds of gun murder victims every year.
With these two numbers taken into account, it's easy to "dismiss" 60%-75% of firearm deaths in the United States, especially by white men. With those numbers dismissed, it's easy to look at the US firearm related death rate per capita of 4.46 (in 2017) can reduce it by 65-75% which is around 1.12-1.56, which isn't great but it's not nearly as terrible as "the media" makes it out to be. I would even venture that many would consider this an "acceptable" price for the "liberty" of gun owning.
I guess I used to fall into this camp and rationalize it that way. I fall into the "white men hoarding thousands of rounds of ammo and many guns" since I still own about 3000 total rounds of various calibers (~1000 5.56, 1500 .22lr, ~500 of various other calibers) and a dozen guns, though almost all of mine are collectible, old, bolt-action war rifles like an Arisaka, M1903, M1898, etc.
They are related in that a lot of those people wouldn't have attempted suicide if they didn't have access to a gun. It takes a lot more willpower to intentionally overdose or slash your wrists...
Most gun deaths are suicides, which are tragic, but not really gun violence related.
They are related in that a lot of those people wouldn't have attempted suicide if they didn't have access to a gun. It takes a lot more willpower to intentionally overdose or slash your wrists than to pull a trigger.
With these two numbers taken into account, it's easy to "dismiss" 60%-75% of firearm deaths in the United States, especially by white men. With those numbers dismissed, it's easy to look at the US firearm related death rate per capita of 4.46 (in 2017) can reduce it by 65-75% which is around 1.12-1.56, which isn't great but it's not nearly as terrible as "the media" makes it out to be. I would even venture that many would consider this an "acceptable" price for the "liberty" of gun owning.
I don't think your math is right. I don't understand why you're reducing the homicide rate by 75%. Reducing the death rate by 33% to "dismiss" gang murders (which I don't think should be dismissed) still puts the per capita rate at about 3, which is still triple that of the next highest developed country. It's a travesty that anyone could claim we're one of the greatest countries in the world and yet our homicide rate ranks among much less-developed countries. There are 39 countries on that Wikipedia list whose homicide is an order of magnitude less than ours and I think that's fucking pitiful, and that doesn't even get into the suicide rate. If you combine the two together our gun death rate is tenth in the entire world. Most of the rest of the world does just fine without guns and we should be able to too. The common thread in every single mass shooting is guns.
I think you're confused (or I wasn't clear in my post). I'm not advocating for these things, I'm trying to explain how people can rationalize them. These aren't views I hold.
I think you're confused (or I wasn't clear in my post). I'm not advocating for these things, I'm trying to explain how people can rationalize them. These aren't views I hold.
I feel like there's a huge thing they're missing here -- 98% of mass shooters are male. Women in the U.S. have just as easy access to guns as men in the U.S. do. We even own 22% of them, but we...
I think by definition someone who commits a mass shooting is mentally ill. However, they may have no substantial history of mental illness. I think the more critical metric would be access to...
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.
I think by definition someone who commits a mass shooting is mentally ill. However, they may have no substantial history of mental illness.
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.
I think the more critical metric would be access to mental health care. We spend a lot more on health care than other countries but still get less out of it.
Besides those details, I think this article makes a good argument.
Philosophy tube has an interesting discussion about whether or not a suicidal person is mentally ill (I think it's his latest? Sorry, on mobile). On the face of it, it feels obvious that suicidal...
I think by definition someone who commits a mass shooting is mentally ill
Philosophy tube has an interesting discussion about whether or not a suicidal person is mentally ill (I think it's his latest? Sorry, on mobile). On the face of it, it feels obvious that suicidal people are I'll. Oliver then goes on to argue by example that not all suicides are due to illness; people can rationally choose to die.
Similarly, I'd like to argue that people can rationally choose to commit mass murder. Consider major terrorist attacks --- 911, London tube, the Troubles. Can you see how these people work under some framework (us vs them, perhaps) in which it is imperative to kill them, to defend or to free oneself?
I've actually seen that video, it's excellent. I suppose I don't quite know what the real definition of mental illness is. Would it encompass both structural problems (for example, if your nerves...
I've actually seen that video, it's excellent.
I suppose I don't quite know what the real definition of mental illness is. Would it encompass both structural problems (for example, if your nerves don't fire when they should due to chemical issues) and harmful thoughts in an otherwise functional brain? Is an otherwise healthy person who becomes brainwashed mentally ill?
I know that your thoughts and habits can actually influence the structure of your brain. Repeating certain tasks can increase or decrease the mass of certain parts of the brain. So I would guess that you can't really separate the structure from the thoughts if the thoughts are prevalent enough.
That's a fair response. Honestly I don't think I can give a good definition of mental illness, beyond the standard ones you'll see in textbooks or on Wikipedia. It's hard to define.
That's a fair response. Honestly I don't think I can give a good definition of mental illness, beyond the standard ones you'll see in textbooks or on Wikipedia. It's hard to define.
Why are they by definition mentally ill? I'm not saying mass murder is a healthy reaction to the world, but as far as I'm aware we don't consider people who participated in the Holocaust (for...
I think by definition someone who commits a mass shooting is mentally ill. However, they may have no substantial history of mental illness.
Why are they by definition mentally ill?
I'm not saying mass murder is a healthy reaction to the world, but as far as I'm aware we don't consider people who participated in the Holocaust (for example) to have been mentally ill. Most of them were average citizens living otherwise average lives, able to function without issues in society. People can do horrific things without having a diagnosable mental illness.
This became a hugely controversial issue in the case against the perpetrator of the July 22 attacks in Norway, which killed 77 people. The issue was whether the terrorist was so mentally ill that...
This became a hugely controversial issue in the case against the perpetrator of the July 22 attacks in Norway, which killed 77 people. The issue was whether the terrorist was so mentally ill that he was not legally accountable for his actions (which would force a conviction of involuntary confinement in a mental hospital) or acted sanely, if motivated by an unsavory ideology. The first report on his mental health concluded with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. This was widely criticized. Among other things, the court pointed out that what the first report called "delusions of telepathy" was justified by the defendant, who claimed he could figure out what other people were thinking from their statements and body language due to experience as a professional salesman. The court also pointed out that the long period of planning before his misdeeds were incompatible with the highly disorganized thinking found in schizophrenia. A second report, and the court, concluded that he was legally accountable and did not suffer from psychosis.
Sadly, it's possible for perfectly sane people to do perfectly insane things, from a moral standpoint.
This article is almost 2 years old now, but thought it was pretty relevant given recent events.
You mean persistently recurring events.
Sadly, yes. One day we can hope it is no longer relevant.
If only enough people cared. There are tons of people who are perfectly fine with the 30-40,000 gun deaths every year just so they can continue to have guns.
I think there are reasons for this, and I definitely fell into this camp once before (and sort of do now, I guess). Most gun deaths are suicides, which are tragic, but not really gun violence related. I have mixed feelings on suicide in general, so this is a complicated topic. I wouldn't disagree with someone who wanted to attempt to reduce this number through whatever means is effective.
Many people on the right and/or gun advocates also believe that most gun violence is perpetuated by gangs, but that's not really true. . This narrative is pushed inside those circles, so they don't see a 'real' problem. Here are some more examples of this:
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm This link even tries to source this:
But their CDC link doesn't use even have that information. Why would the CDC track gang activity? How many people are going to parse a 52 page technical document for that info when the author of the article conveniently told them what they wanted to believe and "sourced" it?
The Heritage Foundation does something similar, but as far as I can tell they actually correctly sourced their information presented.
With these two numbers taken into account, it's easy to "dismiss" 60%-75% of firearm deaths in the United States, especially by white men. With those numbers dismissed, it's easy to look at the US firearm related death rate per capita of 4.46 (in 2017) can reduce it by 65-75% which is around 1.12-1.56, which isn't great but it's not nearly as terrible as "the media" makes it out to be. I would even venture that many would consider this an "acceptable" price for the "liberty" of gun owning.
I guess I used to fall into this camp and rationalize it that way. I fall into the "white men hoarding thousands of rounds of ammo and many guns" since I still own about 3000 total rounds of various calibers (~1000 5.56, 1500 .22lr, ~500 of various other calibers) and a dozen guns, though almost all of mine are collectible, old, bolt-action war rifles like an Arisaka, M1903, M1898, etc.
They are related in that a lot of those people wouldn't have attempted suicide if they didn't have access to a gun. It takes a lot more willpower to intentionally overdose or slash your wrists than to pull a trigger.
I don't think your math is right. I don't understand why you're reducing the homicide rate by 75%. Reducing the death rate by 33% to "dismiss" gang murders (which I don't think should be dismissed) still puts the per capita rate at about 3, which is still triple that of the next highest developed country. It's a travesty that anyone could claim we're one of the greatest countries in the world and yet our homicide rate ranks among much less-developed countries. There are 39 countries on that Wikipedia list whose homicide is an order of magnitude less than ours and I think that's fucking pitiful, and that doesn't even get into the suicide rate. If you combine the two together our gun death rate is tenth in the entire world. Most of the rest of the world does just fine without guns and we should be able to too. The common thread in every single mass shooting is guns.
I think you're confused (or I wasn't clear in my post). I'm not advocating for these things, I'm trying to explain how people can rationalize them. These aren't views I hold.
Ok, that's fair. I gotcha.
I feel like there's a huge thing they're missing here -- 98% of mass shooters are male.
Women in the U.S. have just as easy access to guns as men in the U.S. do. We even own 22% of them, but we are 2% of mass shooters.
Seems like there's something afoot, and whatever it is, it's tied to masculinity. Sorry dudes, I know, not all men, but those're some funky numbers.
Yeah, it's pretty funky even within the context that males commit the vast majority of violent crimes.
I think by definition someone who commits a mass shooting is mentally ill. However, they may have no substantial history of mental illness.
I think the more critical metric would be access to mental health care. We spend a lot more on health care than other countries but still get less out of it.
Besides those details, I think this article makes a good argument.
Philosophy tube has an interesting discussion about whether or not a suicidal person is mentally ill (I think it's his latest? Sorry, on mobile). On the face of it, it feels obvious that suicidal people are I'll. Oliver then goes on to argue by example that not all suicides are due to illness; people can rationally choose to die.
Similarly, I'd like to argue that people can rationally choose to commit mass murder. Consider major terrorist attacks --- 911, London tube, the Troubles. Can you see how these people work under some framework (us vs them, perhaps) in which it is imperative to kill them, to defend or to free oneself?
I've actually seen that video, it's excellent.
I suppose I don't quite know what the real definition of mental illness is. Would it encompass both structural problems (for example, if your nerves don't fire when they should due to chemical issues) and harmful thoughts in an otherwise functional brain? Is an otherwise healthy person who becomes brainwashed mentally ill?
I know that your thoughts and habits can actually influence the structure of your brain. Repeating certain tasks can increase or decrease the mass of certain parts of the brain. So I would guess that you can't really separate the structure from the thoughts if the thoughts are prevalent enough.
That's a fair response. Honestly I don't think I can give a good definition of mental illness, beyond the standard ones you'll see in textbooks or on Wikipedia. It's hard to define.
Why are they by definition mentally ill?
I'm not saying mass murder is a healthy reaction to the world, but as far as I'm aware we don't consider people who participated in the Holocaust (for example) to have been mentally ill. Most of them were average citizens living otherwise average lives, able to function without issues in society. People can do horrific things without having a diagnosable mental illness.
This became a hugely controversial issue in the case against the perpetrator of the July 22 attacks in Norway, which killed 77 people. The issue was whether the terrorist was so mentally ill that he was not legally accountable for his actions (which would force a conviction of involuntary confinement in a mental hospital) or acted sanely, if motivated by an unsavory ideology. The first report on his mental health concluded with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. This was widely criticized. Among other things, the court pointed out that what the first report called "delusions of telepathy" was justified by the defendant, who claimed he could figure out what other people were thinking from their statements and body language due to experience as a professional salesman. The court also pointed out that the long period of planning before his misdeeds were incompatible with the highly disorganized thinking found in schizophrenia. A second report, and the court, concluded that he was legally accountable and did not suffer from psychosis.
Sadly, it's possible for perfectly sane people to do perfectly insane things, from a moral standpoint.