Saw that this hadn’t been posted. Since then, the state’s AG has announced they will not enforce it, lawsuits were filed, a federal judge has ruled against it, there have been numerous open carry...
Exemplary
Saw that this hadn’t been posted.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday [Sep. 8th] issued an emergency [public health] order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days in response to a spate of gun violence.
The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but was compelled to act because of recent shootings, including the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.
Lujan Grisham said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina said he won’t enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he’s uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.
Since then, the state’s AG has announced they will not enforce it, lawsuits were filed, a federal judge has ruled against it, there have been numerous open carry protests (some context: the NM Constitution explicitly protects the right to open carry), and she today narrowed the bill to solely apply to city and county parks. Even gun control activist David Hogg has criticized the maneuver.
My thoughts, as a pro-gun liberal: This was a major miscalculation by the governor, and a bad decision overall. It doesn’t do anything to practically address gun violence, it causes people to lose trust in public health overall, and it’s precedent for potential future authoritarian actions on all sort of liberties (abortion particularly stands out).
What else does the medical community consider a public health issue? Car accidents, pollution, cults, medical misinformation, the list goes on. Using that justification in such a liberal sense...
What else does the medical community consider a public health issue? Car accidents, pollution, cults, medical misinformation, the list goes on. Using that justification in such a liberal sense establishes precedent for the erosion of any other human right, up to and including bodily autonomy. This isn't to argue that we can't take the medical field as a guide when looking to solve issues, but bringing up in discussion, "doctors even view gun violence as a public health issue!", is about all that should really be. It is not full justification.
Medicine is about triage, with human life at the absolute peak of the priorities. It's natural that they'll label certain things as health issues that we as a society tolerate. It's everyone else's job to bring their points of view to the table in order to a) lend credence, b) argue against, or c) divert attention when any individual or party of individuals presents theirs, and medicine is not the chief arbiter of the Public Good.
Your initial comment basically argues that, since gun violence is a public health issue, using an emergency public health order to establish controversial "legislation" is justified. I presented a...
Your initial comment basically argues that, since gun violence is a public health issue, using an emergency public health order to establish controversial "legislation" is justified. I presented a case for why that's not a strong argument.
My argument is that the medical perspective is not complete for any subject. Scientology is a dangerous cult that refuses to allow its members to access medicine. Should Governor Lujan-Grisham...
My argument is that the medical perspective is not complete for any subject. Scientology is a dangerous cult that refuses to allow its members to access medicine. Should Governor Lujan-Grisham outlaw them with a public health order based on that? Or, would it be infringing on their rights to association and freedom of speech and religion?
My argument is limited to the justification and process used here. The government is free to pass valid gun control laws, as long as they don't interfere with the free exercise of citizens' second amendment rights. The federal government is free to remove or overturn the second amendment as we know it. What is not okay is a governor using a specific tool that's broadly recognized as legislatively dangerous due to its arbitrary nature, but is seen as justifiable due to extreme coordination issues in times of natural disaster, epidemics, etc. to establish regulations on something that is only tangentially relevant to the rightful use of this tool.
I certainly agree that it is a public health concern. My main problem is that method used to achieve this (an executive order) is extra-parliamentary and unconstitutional. I don’t like executive...
I certainly agree that it is a public health concern. My main problem is that method used to achieve this (an executive order) is extra-parliamentary and unconstitutional. I don’t like executive fiat being used to sidestep fundamental civil liberties.
I get the idea of the optics surrounding this, and that could be a discussion that we can have about politicians maybe shouldn't do certain things to remain electable (especially Liberal...
My thoughts, as a pro-gun liberal: This was a major miscalculation by the governor, and a bad decision overall. It doesn’t do anything to practically address gun violence, it causes people to lose trust in public health overall, and it’s precedent for potential future authoritarian actions on all sort of liberties (abortion particularly stands out).
I get the idea of the optics surrounding this, and that could be a discussion that we can have about politicians maybe shouldn't do certain things to remain electable (especially Liberal Democrats). But, and this should be obvious, states have already banned abortions before this incident. So the idea that this would set any sort of precedent is perhaps not super well thought out. Since when do Republicans need an excuse to do any of the stuff they've ever done?
I'm in the state of NM and have voted for Grisham twice (technically four times including the primaries). Optics not being considered, I was actually rooting for her here. She's definitely the best governor we've had in a long time, and no matter how bad of a miscalculation this move was, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the horror show Martinez ran for eight years.
While not getting into merits or lack thereof for this particular action, I don’t think it’s quite the same to equate it to abortion bans in red states. The legislature enacted those, which is...
While not getting into merits or lack thereof for this particular action, I don’t think it’s quite the same to equate it to abortion bans in red states. The legislature enacted those, which is generally how laws and this type of thing are supposed to be enacted. The novel precedent this unleashes is that (for example) in states where abortion bans were attempted but failed in legislature, the red governor can take unilateral action and declare a public health emergency in which the solution is to ban abortions.
Also a local. My feeling is, she felt she needed to do something, because all this doing nothing (hand-wringing thoughts and prayers) that has become the common response across the US only makes...
Also a local. My feeling is, she felt she needed to do something, because all this doing nothing (hand-wringing thoughts and prayers) that has become the common response across the US only makes the situation worse. She isn't worried about re-election since she cant run next time anyway. I applaud her for at the least making the point that the status quo is not acceptable.
I’m no fan of America’s dysfunctional relationship with firearms, but characterizing this legally as a health issue seems like a rather tortured reading of the law. I would be concerned about the...
I’m no fan of America’s dysfunctional relationship with firearms, but characterizing this legally as a health issue seems like a rather tortured reading of the law. I would be concerned about the precedent, and what might get swallowed up under this expanded justification in the future.
There's no need for you to be concerned. Not enough people care about how many children need to die for gun control to take place in my country. In fact, Republicans and OP, a "liberal gun owner"...
There's no need for you to be concerned. Not enough people care about how many children need to die for gun control to take place in my country. In fact, Republicans and OP, a "liberal gun owner" it seems, actively justify the expansion of fire arms, despite the amount of dead kids that it causes.
No need for the quotes, I’m an American liberal in the tradition of Paul Simon and John Dingell. I also own four handguns, all inherited from family. I’d actually like some sort of federal...
No need for the quotes, I’m an American liberal in the tradition of Paul Simon and John Dingell. I also own four handguns, all inherited from family.
I’d actually like some sort of federal licensure of firearms, a la Czechia, in exchange for streamlining of legislation and preemption of state law on most subjects. Unfortunately, the GOP is opposed to all gun control, and Democrats seem content with piecemeal, 1990s-era solutions that just add to the tangled web of existing legislation.
Hey, also a gun owning liberal. Thanks for posting this. A lot of people use thus as a litmus test and call you crazy for being the way you are, but I want you to know there are lots of us out...
Hey, also a gun owning liberal. Thanks for posting this. A lot of people use thus as a litmus test and call you crazy for being the way you are, but I want you to know there are lots of us out there that exist.
Dingell was staunchly against gun control. I'm relieved to know you're for some sort of federal licensure despite your avoiding my questions. Your criticism of Governor Grisham is misplaced, as...
Dingell was staunchly against gun control.
I'm relieved to know you're for some sort of federal licensure despite your avoiding my questions. Your criticism of Governor Grisham is misplaced, as her action has caused to bring, at the minimum, a discussion to our social climate about the state of gun control in our country. That is crucial at this time and it might save a few lives lost unnecessarily to gun violence within the next 30 days.
What better could Governor Grisham have done at this time to curtail gun violence in the city of Albequerque, do you think?
I can't believe I have to say this, but not blatantly violate the bill of rights? Mandatory firearm safety training? De-escalation training? Root cause analysis for gun violence (a lot of the...
I can't believe I have to say this, but not blatantly violate the bill of rights?
Mandatory firearm safety training? De-escalation training? Root cause analysis for gun violence (a lot of the studies lump in suicide)?
Grisham is also the governor of the entire state of New Mexico not just Albequerque.
You're confusing liberal for progressive. That person's statements are absolutely consistent with historical liberalism. I think it's important to recognize that these are two different...
You're confusing liberal for progressive. That person's statements are absolutely consistent with historical liberalism.
I think it's important to recognize that these are two different ideologies, because while they align somewhat now, that's not always the case. From what I can tell. one of those cases is in times of civil war–which I suspect is what it would take to get rid of guns in this country.
Why do you doubt it? It's consistent, as I said. Also, when exactly did the word "liberal" lose its discrete definition and come to mean simply "leftist"? Was it back in the 80s/90s, when the...
Why do you doubt it? It's consistent, as I said.
Also, when exactly did the word "liberal" lose its discrete definition and come to mean simply "leftist"? Was it back in the 80s/90s, when the right-wing was gearing up the propaganda machine that's led the GOP to the sorry state it's in today? Perhaps it was about the time everybody decided they'd just stop talking to each other and start endlessly bayoneting strawmen instead.
Whenever it happened, I fucking hate it and refuse to play along. I'm generally a descriptivist in most things, but this is not the moment for descriptivism.
It's the same as when someone calls themselves Libertarian because they're afraid to admit they're Republican with a few leftist values, but will vote for people like Abbott anyhow. It's...
Why do you doubt it?
It's the same as when someone calls themselves Libertarian because they're afraid to admit they're Republican with a few leftist values, but will vote for people like Abbott anyhow. It's completely valid for OP to want to own guns, I get that and I support some gun possession myself, but covering it up because you don't want to identify with the most leftist of modern day liberals is an unnecessary labor in words. We're living now, not in the past.
As for the rest of that, I'd respond but it's more rhetorical and I don't want to waste our time, and you answered it much yourself.
Now is not the time for discriptivism. Today we're talking about dead kids and guns. Let's stay focused.
and Pick a lane. I'm raising this point both because it's an especial pet peeve of mine, and because it is relevant to the gun control debate. This conflation of the term "liberal" with leftist...
We're living now, not in the past.
and
Now is not the time for discriptivism [sic].
Pick a lane.
I'm raising this point both because it's an especial pet peeve of mine, and because it is relevant to the gun control debate. This conflation of the term "liberal" with leftist thought has all sorts of bad consequences, not the least of which is that when someone says "I'm a pro-gun liberal" and then states opinions that are totally in line with how liberal ideology has been defined for centuries, someone else is always going to pipe up with some No True Scotsman barb that they think justifies dismissing the first person's opinions. It's just another way for people to justify to themselves the default position that everyone who disagrees with them is arguing in bad faith.
You're right that that is ancillary to the topic at hand, however, so I'll state my opinion on the actual subject we're talking about, lest I rightly be accused of misdirection:
Until our society has robust and effective mechanics for holding law enforcement, legislatures, and Executive officers accountable to the will of the citizenry, it's absolute madness to remove the right of people to possess weapons of self defense. There's not much about the current state of our society that leads me to believe we're headed toward such accountability.
I sometimes see people speak contemptuously about the notion of the right to bear arms being a bulwark against authoritarianism, but I'm not seeing many other methods work very well right at the moment. So until something changes drastically for the better, I'm inclined to keep that option open, thank you.
My lane is to get OP to answer my questions. You don't need to defend them by writing paragraphs attempting to destruct my argument. No one is going to congratulate you for doing that. Well, maybe...
My lane is to get OP to answer my questions. You don't need to defend them by writing paragraphs attempting to destruct my argument. No one is going to congratulate you for doing that.
Well, maybe on reddit.
I implore you to stay on topic, which is one about dead kids and the guns that cause them to be dead, which you continue to, yes, misdirect our effort into.
You have my permission to have the last word, if you seek it.
If your argument is "an 11yo child died because of misuse of 'x,' therefore 'x' should be outlawed" be prepared to outlaw every fucking thing anywhere. Cars, kitchen utensils, seatbelts, tools,...
If your argument is "an 11yo child died because of misuse of 'x,' therefore 'x' should be outlawed" be prepared to outlaw every fucking thing anywhere.
Cars, kitchen utensils, seatbelts, tools, exercise equipment, lunch. All of these things have and will continue to kill children occasionally. It's sad, but there's a lot of people, and sometimes they die.
If your argument is "We need to make sure firearms are handled responsibly by those who have at least minimal qualifications" then maybe you shouldn't support a law that targets those who specifically have a license to carry them and makes no difference to those who were already carrying and using them illegally.
Illegal shit was already illegal. Expanding the law to target those who statistically are less likely to commit a gun crime than those who don't have a license isn't productive.
You know what? You got me there fam. That's a solid argument. Allow me to make a better argument: How many children need to die for you to support common sense gun regulations?
If your argument is "an 11yo child died because of misuse of 'x,' therefore 'x' should be outlawed" be prepared to outlaw every fucking thing anywhere.
You know what? You got me there fam. That's a solid argument. Allow me to make a better argument:
How many children need to die for you to support common sense gun regulations?
(Apologies for not answering this sooner. I wanted to think about my response before typing it.) As far as trust, gun owners would be a likely group to lose it. There’s already a lot of skepticism...
(Apologies for not answering this sooner. I wanted to think about my response before typing it.)
As far as trust, gun owners would be a likely group to lose it. There’s already a lot of skepticism in gun spaces regarding gun violence as a public health issue (that framing is often seen as a way to drum up support for gun control or enact restrictions easier). A flat-out carry ban (even temporary) through executive fiat is only going to reinforce that belief. I also suspect a lot of “normal folks” that got fatigued with COVID-related health measures after awhile would also view this as being overreach.
I don’t think there is necessarily a contradiction between a child’s right to life and the right to bear arms. Many parts of Northern and Central Europe have strong gun cultures (to include modern semi-auto rifles) and yet do not have the same issues with mass public shootings. Even in areas with high levels of gun violence (e.g., the Philippines, Central America, Brazil), you don’t see the same type of shootings. I agree that the strong proliferation of arms contributes to the violence seen in the United States. But the mass shootings are almost sui generis in comparison to other countries. I suspect there is another factor involved. Maybe the strong individualism, maybe an excess of narcissism. Some have argued that mass shootings have replaced the serial killings of the 1970s/80s (due to more surveillance and improved police methodology).
In regards to a quick way to control mass violence? Stop naming the perps. Conduct their trials without naming them, do not televise or record them, and stop focusing on the body count. Fine media outlets that go against this. Deny the shooters the infamy. When the media stopped reporting on suicides, it caused a reduction there. Doing the same for mass shooters should do the same, and help to eliminate the “high score” mentality that currently pervades.
Saw that this hadn’t been posted.
Since then, the state’s AG has announced they will not enforce it, lawsuits were filed, a federal judge has ruled against it, there have been numerous open carry protests (some context: the NM Constitution explicitly protects the right to open carry), and she today narrowed the bill to solely apply to city and county parks. Even gun control activist David Hogg has criticized the maneuver.
My thoughts, as a pro-gun liberal: This was a major miscalculation by the governor, and a bad decision overall. It doesn’t do anything to practically address gun violence, it causes people to lose trust in public health overall, and it’s precedent for potential future authoritarian actions on all sort of liberties (abortion particularly stands out).
What else does the medical community consider a public health issue? Car accidents, pollution, cults, medical misinformation, the list goes on. Using that justification in such a liberal sense establishes precedent for the erosion of any other human right, up to and including bodily autonomy. This isn't to argue that we can't take the medical field as a guide when looking to solve issues, but bringing up in discussion, "doctors even view gun violence as a public health issue!", is about all that should really be. It is not full justification.
Medicine is about triage, with human life at the absolute peak of the priorities. It's natural that they'll label certain things as health issues that we as a society tolerate. It's everyone else's job to bring their points of view to the table in order to a) lend credence, b) argue against, or c) divert attention when any individual or party of individuals presents theirs, and medicine is not the chief arbiter of the Public Good.
I have said none of these things. Please don't bring this bad faith nonsense to a subject with such high preexisting tensions.
Your initial comment basically argues that, since gun violence is a public health issue, using an emergency public health order to establish controversial "legislation" is justified. I presented a case for why that's not a strong argument.
My argument is that the medical perspective is not complete for any subject. Scientology is a dangerous cult that refuses to allow its members to access medicine. Should Governor Lujan-Grisham outlaw them with a public health order based on that? Or, would it be infringing on their rights to association and freedom of speech and religion?
My argument is limited to the justification and process used here. The government is free to pass valid gun control laws, as long as they don't interfere with the free exercise of citizens' second amendment rights. The federal government is free to remove or overturn the second amendment as we know it. What is not okay is a governor using a specific tool that's broadly recognized as legislatively dangerous due to its arbitrary nature, but is seen as justifiable due to extreme coordination issues in times of natural disaster, epidemics, etc. to establish regulations on something that is only tangentially relevant to the rightful use of this tool.
I have said what I meant. If you want to imagine conversation partners, you are free to.
I certainly agree that it is a public health concern. My main problem is that method used to achieve this (an executive order) is extra-parliamentary and unconstitutional. I don’t like executive fiat being used to sidestep fundamental civil liberties.
I get the idea of the optics surrounding this, and that could be a discussion that we can have about politicians maybe shouldn't do certain things to remain electable (especially Liberal Democrats). But, and this should be obvious, states have already banned abortions before this incident. So the idea that this would set any sort of precedent is perhaps not super well thought out. Since when do Republicans need an excuse to do any of the stuff they've ever done?
I'm in the state of NM and have voted for Grisham twice (technically four times including the primaries). Optics not being considered, I was actually rooting for her here. She's definitely the best governor we've had in a long time, and no matter how bad of a miscalculation this move was, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the horror show Martinez ran for eight years.
While not getting into merits or lack thereof for this particular action, I don’t think it’s quite the same to equate it to abortion bans in red states. The legislature enacted those, which is generally how laws and this type of thing are supposed to be enacted. The novel precedent this unleashes is that (for example) in states where abortion bans were attempted but failed in legislature, the red governor can take unilateral action and declare a public health emergency in which the solution is to ban abortions.
Also a local. My feeling is, she felt she needed to do something, because all this doing nothing (hand-wringing thoughts and prayers) that has become the common response across the US only makes the situation worse. She isn't worried about re-election since she cant run next time anyway. I applaud her for at the least making the point that the status quo is not acceptable.
For which people does it cause to lose trust in public health?
Is that 11 year old boy's life a price to pay for our right to bear arms?
I’m no fan of America’s dysfunctional relationship with firearms, but characterizing this legally as a health issue seems like a rather tortured reading of the law. I would be concerned about the precedent, and what might get swallowed up under this expanded justification in the future.
There's no need for you to be concerned. Not enough people care about how many children need to die for gun control to take place in my country. In fact, Republicans and OP, a "liberal gun owner" it seems, actively justify the expansion of fire arms, despite the amount of dead kids that it causes.
No need for the quotes, I’m an American liberal in the tradition of Paul Simon and John Dingell. I also own four handguns, all inherited from family.
I’d actually like some sort of federal licensure of firearms, a la Czechia, in exchange for streamlining of legislation and preemption of state law on most subjects. Unfortunately, the GOP is opposed to all gun control, and Democrats seem content with piecemeal, 1990s-era solutions that just add to the tangled web of existing legislation.
Hey, also a gun owning liberal. Thanks for posting this. A lot of people use thus as a litmus test and call you crazy for being the way you are, but I want you to know there are lots of us out there that exist.
Dingell was staunchly against gun control.
I'm relieved to know you're for some sort of federal licensure despite your avoiding my questions. Your criticism of Governor Grisham is misplaced, as her action has caused to bring, at the minimum, a discussion to our social climate about the state of gun control in our country. That is crucial at this time and it might save a few lives lost unnecessarily to gun violence within the next 30 days.
What better could Governor Grisham have done at this time to curtail gun violence in the city of Albequerque, do you think?
I can't believe I have to say this, but not blatantly violate the bill of rights?
Mandatory firearm safety training? De-escalation training? Root cause analysis for gun violence (a lot of the studies lump in suicide)?
Grisham is also the governor of the entire state of New Mexico not just Albequerque.
You're confusing liberal for progressive. That person's statements are absolutely consistent with historical liberalism.
I think it's important to recognize that these are two different ideologies, because while they align somewhat now, that's not always the case. From what I can tell. one of those cases is in times of civil war–which I suspect is what it would take to get rid of guns in this country.
I doubt OP identified themself as a pro-gun liberal in the historical sense.
Why do you doubt it? It's consistent, as I said.
Also, when exactly did the word "liberal" lose its discrete definition and come to mean simply "leftist"? Was it back in the 80s/90s, when the right-wing was gearing up the propaganda machine that's led the GOP to the sorry state it's in today? Perhaps it was about the time everybody decided they'd just stop talking to each other and start endlessly bayoneting strawmen instead.
Whenever it happened, I fucking hate it and refuse to play along. I'm generally a descriptivist in most things, but this is not the moment for descriptivism.
It's the same as when someone calls themselves Libertarian because they're afraid to admit they're Republican with a few leftist values, but will vote for people like Abbott anyhow. It's completely valid for OP to want to own guns, I get that and I support some gun possession myself, but covering it up because you don't want to identify with the most leftist of modern day liberals is an unnecessary labor in words. We're living now, not in the past.
As for the rest of that, I'd respond but it's more rhetorical and I don't want to waste our time, and you answered it much yourself.
Now is not the time for discriptivism. Today we're talking about dead kids and guns. Let's stay focused.
and
Pick a lane.
I'm raising this point both because it's an especial pet peeve of mine, and because it is relevant to the gun control debate. This conflation of the term "liberal" with leftist thought has all sorts of bad consequences, not the least of which is that when someone says "I'm a pro-gun liberal" and then states opinions that are totally in line with how liberal ideology has been defined for centuries, someone else is always going to pipe up with some No True Scotsman barb that they think justifies dismissing the first person's opinions. It's just another way for people to justify to themselves the default position that everyone who disagrees with them is arguing in bad faith.
You're right that that is ancillary to the topic at hand, however, so I'll state my opinion on the actual subject we're talking about, lest I rightly be accused of misdirection:
Until our society has robust and effective mechanics for holding law enforcement, legislatures, and Executive officers accountable to the will of the citizenry, it's absolute madness to remove the right of people to possess weapons of self defense. There's not much about the current state of our society that leads me to believe we're headed toward such accountability.
I sometimes see people speak contemptuously about the notion of the right to bear arms being a bulwark against authoritarianism, but I'm not seeing many other methods work very well right at the moment. So until something changes drastically for the better, I'm inclined to keep that option open, thank you.
My lane is to get OP to answer my questions. You don't need to defend them by writing paragraphs attempting to destruct my argument. No one is going to congratulate you for doing that.
Well, maybe on reddit.
I implore you to stay on topic, which is one about dead kids and the guns that cause them to be dead, which you continue to, yes, misdirect our effort into.
You have my permission to have the last word, if you seek it.
Action, action, action?
If your argument is "an 11yo child died because of misuse of 'x,' therefore 'x' should be outlawed" be prepared to outlaw every fucking thing anywhere.
Cars, kitchen utensils, seatbelts, tools, exercise equipment, lunch. All of these things have and will continue to kill children occasionally. It's sad, but there's a lot of people, and sometimes they die.
If your argument is "We need to make sure firearms are handled responsibly by those who have at least minimal qualifications" then maybe you shouldn't support a law that targets those who specifically have a license to carry them and makes no difference to those who were already carrying and using them illegally.
Illegal shit was already illegal. Expanding the law to target those who statistically are less likely to commit a gun crime than those who don't have a license isn't productive.
You know what? You got me there fam. That's a solid argument. Allow me to make a better argument:
How many children need to die for you to support common sense gun regulations?
I would surprised if anyone said it at all, much less a politician willing to provide the soundbite.
(Apologies for not answering this sooner. I wanted to think about my response before typing it.)
As far as trust, gun owners would be a likely group to lose it. There’s already a lot of skepticism in gun spaces regarding gun violence as a public health issue (that framing is often seen as a way to drum up support for gun control or enact restrictions easier). A flat-out carry ban (even temporary) through executive fiat is only going to reinforce that belief. I also suspect a lot of “normal folks” that got fatigued with COVID-related health measures after awhile would also view this as being overreach.
I don’t think there is necessarily a contradiction between a child’s right to life and the right to bear arms. Many parts of Northern and Central Europe have strong gun cultures (to include modern semi-auto rifles) and yet do not have the same issues with mass public shootings. Even in areas with high levels of gun violence (e.g., the Philippines, Central America, Brazil), you don’t see the same type of shootings. I agree that the strong proliferation of arms contributes to the violence seen in the United States. But the mass shootings are almost sui generis in comparison to other countries. I suspect there is another factor involved. Maybe the strong individualism, maybe an excess of narcissism. Some have argued that mass shootings have replaced the serial killings of the 1970s/80s (due to more surveillance and improved police methodology).
In regards to a quick way to control mass violence? Stop naming the perps. Conduct their trials without naming them, do not televise or record them, and stop focusing on the body count. Fine media outlets that go against this. Deny the shooters the infamy. When the media stopped reporting on suicides, it caused a reduction there. Doing the same for mass shooters should do the same, and help to eliminate the “high score” mentality that currently pervades.