Another shooting in the US…….

[Obscura]

@Obscura, Chicago does have strict gun laws but what doesn‘t get discussed a lot is in less than an hour from Chicago you can be in Indiana and buy any gun you want with no restrictions. You don’t need a permit, you don’t need a background check. It’s ridiculous. Many guns are bought in Indiana and used in Illinois. Would gun violence in Chicago go down if there wasn’t easy access to guns in Indiana? Probably

The question being then why isn't the cities and towns around Chicago having the similar number of gun homicides...? Why isn't the whole country? Because it's not true. You can NOT buy or sell a gun to an out of state person. They are getting them illegally or in other parts of Illinois.

From ATF:
"Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensee to a nonlicensee who resides in a state other than the state in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensee whose business is in the purchaser’s state of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the licensee in his or her state of residence.

In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the state where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over–the–counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with state law in the state where the licensee is located and in the state where the purchaser resides." And if you are not a FFL seller (private seller) you cannot sell to out of state person PERIOD.

Like I said, it is not JUST a gun control problem. And also like I said, I am FOR reasonable gun control laws, I do not agree with extreme views on either side. Neither make sense and neither fix the bigger picture issue that I've stated before.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I said still have horribly high, not had the most. Do not misconstrue my words.

Chicago, Illinois, New York City, and Salinas and L.A., California come to mind. The numbers are all total by state, which don't give a completely accurate picture. It's not ONLY about gun laws. Take Arizona, the vast majority of the state is safe despite lax gun laws. However, it has Phoenix, a cartel hotspot and kidnapping capital which drive the rate up.

Chicago has it's own gun laws. Rhode Island, Vermont, and to a lesser extent New Jersey, are also all pretty high income compared to the rest of the country. Which is always a contributing factor.

I don't think anyone is even disagreeing particularly. This is in many ways a complex multilayered problem. Effective immediate solutions are available at our disposal, to give us time to try to figure things out.
You can't micro treat a national problem. Consistency is key. The data is clear in that respect.
It absolutely isn't just a matter of gun regulation, it's cratered mental health, anemic social programs and rampant poverty through wage slavery that are inextricably linked. There is also a glaring religious component that must be addressed after the acute issues, as well.
States with the highest gun ownership rates have more death even taking major metropolises into account.
Most gun deaths are by suicide.
* strict regulation would do everything we need it to, if applied equally and enforced.
It has in the past.
There is no reason for weapons of war to be in civilian hands. There is no reason for unfettered access.
I happen to come from a military/Gov't/ DOD background. Many other relatives, men and women, serve this country in some capacity whether militarily, bureaucratically or in auxiliary fashion. It's tradition and a choice. We serve. One of my children will likely follow suit. We are a current 'DOD family' now.
We own firearms. I know how to use them. I understand their utility and capability; because of this, I do not personally buy into the notion that private weaponry can protect from overarching 'tyranny'. This also doesn't change the way I feel about gun control, personally. It actually strengthens my conviction for the need of it. Strict regulation with augmented social support saves lives.

Another factor: School shooters are almost always very young, white males.

Why?

What goes so wrong in the minds of these very young men that makes them want to do the unthinkable? I suspect exposure to the dark corners of the internet is a big part of it, and also isolation. If teachers/parents notice that a young man in their home or class is becoming withdrawn and isolated, I think they should make strong efforts to connect him to school life again. I think isolation is a huge risk factor.

Greatly simplified, but:
American white exceptionalism and all that entails. And access. Easy access to semi autos. For example citing recent tragedy- You can buy an AR-15 as an 18yr old before you can buy a handgun in TX. Insanity.

Why 18-year-olds can buy AR-15s in Texas but not handguns

This week’s massacre in Uvalde highlights disparities in how federal laws regulate rifles and handguns. The shooter bought two rifles days after his 18th birthday.

www.texastribune.org

Biden says mass shootings tripled post assault weapon ban

There was no mistaking President Joe Biden’s plea for some sort of concrete response to the slaying of 19 elementary sch

www.politifact.com

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

Our recent New York Times article provided important new empirical evidence that the federal assault weapons ban (AWB) – in place from 1994-2004 –

law.stanford.edu

The mass shooting in TX had dozens of 'good guys with guns' with added public caveat of protection as their job, though no longer prime directive in training, and it didn't do a damned thing. One unarmed mom jumping a fence saved more kids.
And once again, this is the only country this happens again and again with regularity and we don't tighten our restrictions in response. Those countries became safer, we have not.

 

[Calliecake]

@Obscura, What is your idea of reasonable gun control? Do you feel AR15 and AK47 should be legal in this country?

 

[aljdewey]

I've heard parents say that they don't discipline their kids because they want their limited time with them to be fun. SO selfish and lazy. How are kids supposed to know good behavior from bad, if they don't learn it at home? They are doing their children a terrible, terrible disservice.

My response to that: Lack of time is not an excuse to shirk parental responsibilities.

More than anything else, children need parents. On their path to adulthood, children need love, consistency, accountability for meeting expectations, and guidance. If it was an easy job, everyone would do it without hesitation.
The job requires self-sacrifice, and folks who aren't prepared to do it should refrain. I

'm blessed to have several friends who I think are incredible parents. They are just as busy as everyone else, and they are limited to the same 24 hours in a day that everyone else has. The difference? They understand their most important role is parenting, and that takes priority every time. If they have limited time, they do not subtract parenting from the mix - they subtract other things.

My mom made some pretty unpopular calls when I was a kid. When she did, her stance was "the only thing I care about is being your parent for the first 20 years. I'll have the rest of my life to be your friend after that, and if I do my first job well, we will actually want each other's friendship."

 

[missy]

We can reduce gun violence in the U.S.​

Katelyn Jetelina

“
I was going to wait until next week to start writing about firearm violence. During the day, I’m a violence epidemiologist so have some perspectives to share. But this week has been a lot. People need time to grieve, to react, and to process, so I was going to allow space for that. But I’m starting to see dangerous rhetoric bubble to the surface: We can’t change this; we won’t change this; and, there is no hope. I’m here to say that is false. We can reduce gun violence in the U.S. And we will. We do this by treating firearm violence like the public health issue it is.

Previous successes​

Sometimes changing behavior or culture seems impossible. But it can be changed through a public health approach.

During the 1960s, for example, it seemed impossible to change tobacco use. The tobacco industry had one of the strongest lobbies in history, smoking was part of our every day lives, and people were addicted. But it needed to change. We were getting more and more evidence that tobacco causes lung cancer, and we started unpacking the dangers of second-hand smoking. So we treated it like a public health issue. And we did this not by banning tobacco, but through a consistent and coordinated effort of approaching the public health problem from multiple angles. We launched massive education campaigns, we put warning labels on tobacco cartons, we passed policies (like non-smoking and smoking areas), we found ways to help people curb addiction, and much more. This led to a decline in tobacco use of approximately two-thirds in the more than 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report warned of the health consequences of smoking. In 2018, cigarette smoking among U.S. adults reached an all-time low of 13.7%.

Motor vehicle fatalities also seemed impossible to change. In 1913, 33 people died for every 10,000 vehicles on the road. But we knew we didn’t have to accept this. So we made public health changes. We didn’t ban cars, but we rather made cars safer (e.g., blinkers, technology like backup cameras and warnings), we made drivers safer (e.g., seatbelts and airbags), we made passengers saver (e.g., invented car seats), and we launched massive education campaigns. We made small, incremental changes that added up. In 2020, the death rate was 1.53 per 10,000 vehicles, a 95% improvement since 1913.

​

Most recently, COVID19 seemed impossible to conquer. It was a novel virus, it was out of control, and it was killing many in its wake. But we leveraged all disciplines of science and industry, we invested in innovations, we fought mis/disinformation through grassroots efforts, and much more. As a result, we saved 1 million lives with COVID19 vaccines in the United States. This was an unprecedented public health success. We will never reach zero COVID19 deaths, but we can continue to inch our way closer by improving our public health infrastructure, continuing education and communication, and developing better tools (like second generation vaccines).

All of these problems were treated as a public health issues, and we made unimaginable progress by combining science, education, policy, advocacy, and innovation.

Moving the firearm needle ​

It’s hard to see that we’ve made some progress with firearm violence, but we have. The idea that nothing will change because we've seen this before is just not true. After Parkland, a wave of advocacy by high school students resulted in 19 states (including FL) and DC passing extreme risk orders, which have saved lives. After Sandy Hook, Connecticut passed a permit law that has saved lives, and other states also took action, including Maryland, New, York, and Colorado. While proposals tend to fall short, they make progress and inch us forward to a safer world.

On a state level, we see the positive impact of more restrictive laws. A recent BMJ article found that states with more restrictive laws have reduced the rate of mass shootings. This was the case even after accounting for other state-level factors that could explain the relationship, like income, education, race, female head of household, poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates. There is also a growing divide emerging between restrictive and permissive states, as you can see in the figure below.

​

Rates of mass shootings over time in restrictive versus permissive states for a restrictiveness-permissiveness score of 50 (A) and 79 (B). Years 1998-2014 were included because of the lag of the permissiveness score. Source here.
But even if states don’t pass policies, this doesn’t mean we are out of luck. There are a number of public health interventions we can still implement:

• Investing in data surveillance. One of the lowest hanging fruits is to make our data systems better. Bad data makes bad policy. We need to have a comprehensive understanding of the patterns to make data-driven, evidence-based decisions for populations in need.
• Safe storage (making sure that your gun is locked up and not accessible to others) is one of the most important things that we can do to reduce risk of firearm suicide and homicide, especially among children. One study of firearm violence showed that 82% of children used a firearm belonging to a family member, usually a parent. But many parents don’t think this is an issue because they think their firearms are hidden well-enough away. In another study, among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of the children, questioned separately, said that they had. We can educate parents, and we can provide places to store in the community. We can move this needle. And gun owners can help. In fact, I am currently conducting a study with colleagues in which we are working with gun ranges and gun stores to help educate at point-of-sale. They want to help and are incredibly engaged and providing solutions we would have never thought of.
• Leakage is another example of a potential public health solution. Among mass shooters, 44-50% leak their plans through social media or by telling friends or family. Among school shootings, more than 78% of mass shooters leaked their plans. Leakage can be a critical moment of intervention to prevent gun violence. If we increase knowledge about leakages (what to look for, what’s harmless vs. harmful) and create opportunities to report threats of violence, we may be able to prevent some mass shootings. Some fantastic networks have already been established like Say Something, which was created after Sandy Hook.
• Funding. There are many, many more interventions that have the potential to reduce mass shootings, as well as other firearm injuries like suicides and accidental injuries. However, researchers and public health agencies need the support to rigorously explore innovative and effective solutions. After decades of no funding (read the frustrating history on my previous post), in 2020—for the first time in 25 years—our federal budget included $25 million for the CDC and NIH to research gun-related deaths and injuries. While this is a great step, it isn’t enough. A 2017 study estimated that we need $1.4 billion to curb the firearm epidemic as a whole (mass shootings as well as suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries). For context, the NIH gets $6.56 billion allocated for cancer research.

We also know there are a number of things that don’t work. For example, we know solutions based in reforming the mental health system will not achieve the intended results for mass shootings (I’ll go more into this next week). Other solutions may do more harm than good, like active shooter drills at schools. We need to be data-driven, evidence-based, and, most importantly, work with stakeholders in the community so when we do have potential solutions, they are implemented with high buy-in.

Bottom line​

We’ve been able to do unimaginable things and save millions of lives when we approach problems with a public health lens. We need to mourn this tragedy, but don’t lose hope. Change is possible, and we need to fight for it.

I’ll be back next week with more statistics and more on what the science shows. Take care of yourselves and your loved ones this weekend.

“

 

[Petalouda]

I’ve been so sick over this. I have no idea why ANYBODY should own an assault rifle - a weapon designed to efficiently kill in the shortest time possible. I am so sick of Texas politicians saying it’s everything else’s fault EXCEPT the fact that we allow people to obtain assault rifles. There are other factors at play for sure. But it’s much harder to police every person’s home, social media and mind to find evidence of masks shooting fantasies than to ban the sale of these rifles.

It’s not just an age issue. The Vegas shooter for example was 64 and had no criminal record. Was educated and a millionaire. Had NO social media presence. Left no manifesto or motive. He killed 60 people and injured hundreds other.

 

[Jambalaya]

It’s not just an age issue. The Vegas shooter for example was 64 and had no criminal record. Was educated and a millionaire. Had NO social media presence. Left no manifesto or motive. He killed 60 people and injured hundreds other.

Right, but in terms of schools, it seems to be mainly very young males.

 

[Obscura]

"

We can reduce gun violence in the U.S.​

Katelyn Jetelina

“
I was going to wait until next week to start writing about firearm violence. During the day, I’m a violence epidemiologist so have some perspectives to share. But this week has been a lot. People need time to grieve, to react, and to process, so I was going to allow space for that. But I’m starting to see dangerous rhetoric bubble to the surface: We can’t change this; we won’t change this; and, there is no hope. I’m here to say that is false. We can reduce gun violence in the U.S. And we will. We do this by treating firearm violence like the public health issue it is.

Previous successes​

Sometimes changing behavior or culture seems impossible. But it can be changed through a public health approach.

During the 1960s, for example, it seemed impossible to change tobacco use. The tobacco industry had one of the strongest lobbies in history, smoking was part of our every day lives, and people were addicted. But it needed to change. We were getting more and more evidence that tobacco causes lung cancer, and we started unpacking the dangers of second-hand smoking. So we treated it like a public health issue. And we did this not by banning tobacco, but through a consistent and coordinated effort of approaching the public health problem from multiple angles. We launched massive education campaigns, we put warning labels on tobacco cartons, we passed policies (like non-smoking and smoking areas), we found ways to help people curb addiction, and much more. This led to a decline in tobacco use of approximately two-thirds in the more than 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report warned of the health consequences of smoking. In 2018, cigarette smoking among U.S. adults reached an all-time low of 13.7%.

Motor vehicle fatalities also seemed impossible to change. In 1913, 33 people died for every 10,000 vehicles on the road. But we knew we didn’t have to accept this. So we made public health changes. We didn’t ban cars, but we rather made cars safer (e.g., blinkers, technology like backup cameras and warnings), we made drivers safer (e.g., seatbelts and airbags), we made passengers saver (e.g., invented car seats), and we launched massive education campaigns. We made small, incremental changes that added up. In 2020, the death rate was 1.53 per 10,000 vehicles, a 95% improvement since 1913.

​

Most recently, COVID19 seemed impossible to conquer. It was a novel virus, it was out of control, and it was killing many in its wake. But we leveraged all disciplines of science and industry, we invested in innovations, we fought mis/disinformation through grassroots efforts, and much more. As a result, we saved 1 million lives with COVID19 vaccines in the United States. This was an unprecedented public health success. We will never reach zero COVID19 deaths, but we can continue to inch our way closer by improving our public health infrastructure, continuing education and communication, and developing better tools (like second generation vaccines).

All of these problems were treated as a public health issues, and we made unimaginable progress by combining science, education, policy, advocacy, and innovation.

Moving the firearm needle ​

It’s hard to see that we’ve made some progress with firearm violence, but we have. The idea that nothing will change because we've seen this before is just not true. After Parkland, a wave of advocacy by high school students resulted in 19 states (including FL) and DC passing extreme risk orders, which have saved lives. After Sandy Hook, Connecticut passed a permit law that has saved lives, and other states also took action, including Maryland, New, York, and Colorado. While proposals tend to fall short, they make progress and inch us forward to a safer world.

On a state level, we see the positive impact of more restrictive laws. A recent BMJ article found that states with more restrictive laws have reduced the rate of mass shootings. This was the case even after accounting for other state-level factors that could explain the relationship, like income, education, race, female head of household, poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates. There is also a growing divide emerging between restrictive and permissive states, as you can see in the figure below.

​

Rates of mass shootings over time in restrictive versus permissive states for a restrictiveness-permissiveness score of 50 (A) and 79 (B). Years 1998-2014 were included because of the lag of the permissiveness score. Source here.
But even if states don’t pass policies, this doesn’t mean we are out of luck. There are a number of public health interventions we can still implement:

• Investing in data surveillance. One of the lowest hanging fruits is to make our data systems better. Bad data makes bad policy. We need to have a comprehensive understanding of the patterns to make data-driven, evidence-based decisions for populations in need.
• Safe storage (making sure that your gun is locked up and not accessible to others) is one of the most important things that we can do to reduce risk of firearm suicide and homicide, especially among children. One study of firearm violence showed that 82% of children used a firearm belonging to a family member, usually a parent. But many parents don’t think this is an issue because they think their firearms are hidden well-enough away. In another study, among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of the children, questioned separately, said that they had. We can educate parents, and we can provide places to store in the community. We can move this needle. And gun owners can help. In fact, I am currently conducting a study with colleagues in which we are working with gun ranges and gun stores to help educate at point-of-sale. They want to help and are incredibly engaged and providing solutions we would have never thought of.
• Leakage is another example of a potential public health solution. Among mass shooters, 44-50% leak their plans through social media or by telling friends or family. Among school shootings, more than 78% of mass shooters leaked their plans. Leakage can be a critical moment of intervention to prevent gun violence. If we increase knowledge about leakages (what to look for, what’s harmless vs. harmful) and create opportunities to report threats of violence, we may be able to prevent some mass shootings. Some fantastic networks have already been established like Say Something, which was created after Sandy Hook.
• Funding. There are many, many more interventions that have the potential to reduce mass shootings, as well as other firearm injuries like suicides and accidental injuries. However, researchers and public health agencies need the support to rigorously explore innovative and effective solutions. After decades of no funding (read the frustrating history on my previous post), in 2020—for the first time in 25 years—our federal budget included $25 million for the CDC and NIH to research gun-related deaths and injuries. While this is a great step, it isn’t enough. A 2017 study estimated that we need $1.4 billion to curb the firearm epidemic as a whole (mass shootings as well as suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries). For context, the NIH gets $6.56 billion allocated for cancer research.

We also know there are a number of things that don’t work. For example, we know solutions based in reforming the mental health system will not achieve the intended results for mass shootings (I’ll go more into this next week). Other solutions may do more harm than good, like active shooter drills at schools. We need to be data-driven, evidence-based, and, most importantly, work with stakeholders in the community so when we do have potential solutions, they are implemented with high buy-in.

Bottom line​

We’ve been able to do unimaginable things and save millions of lives when we approach problems with a public health lens. We need to mourn this tragedy, but don’t lose hope. Change is possible, and we need to fight for it.

I’ll be back next week with more statistics and more on what the science shows. Take care of yourselves and your loved ones this weekend.

“

Yeah, except we need to be careful with data surveillance. I mean look at what is happening in Texas with the abortion ban and people using apps to track and identify you. No thanks.

And I DO think fixing the mental health of the country would drive down the shootings. We didn't have this insanely high problem 30 years ago.

Facts and data can be skewed or interpreted to fit a narrative very easily, without falsifying any information.

Here is the overall homicides worldwide.

And here is an article saying that we are actually NOT by "far and wide" the highest gun death nation. Which, I'll be honest surprised me:

U.S. gun deaths among highest, but tops in just one measure

Is the United States so awash in guns that gun violence has become a public health crisis? Dr. Rochelle Walensky, direct

www.politifact.com

And yes, you can change the mind set and culture of a country slowly, in the case of tobacco and seat belts, etc. But people still smoke, people still don't wear seat belts, drink and drive... but sane, good people with or without guns don't kill other people for no reason. Period.

So yes, I do believe we need a gun law reform, hell we need a government reform, but first and foremost we need to address the mental health crisis in this country.

 

[Lookinagain]

There is no reason for weapons of war to be in civilian hands. There is no reason for unfettered access.

This. And the second amendment to the constitution didn't envision this. It has been has been stretched to the point of "unfettered". Not what the founding fathers envisioned.

 

[Obscura]

@Obscura, What is your idea of reasonable gun control? Do you feel AR15 and AK47 should be legal in this country?

I've already answered this partially in another post.

 

[Jambalaya]

And I DO think fixing the mental health of the country would drive down the shootings. We didn't have this insanely high problem 30 years ago.

IMO social media has a LOT to answer for. It has terrible effects on those whose minds are somewhat vulnerable.

 

[Obscura]

IMO social media has a LOT to answer for. It has terrible effects on those whose minds are somewhat vulnerable.

What makes me furious is that the social media conglomerates can have all kinds of algorithms to find and ban someone for saying one political belief or the other, but can't identify potential violence?!

One of the articles on the shooting mentioned that Meta (Facebook, you know the one that collects all data, including facial recognition on everyone, including non-users) "declined to answer questions about reports it might have received on Ramos’ accounts." Hmm, but you can create A.I. machines, algorithms that not only flag disagreeable posts, but tell you that it may be against policy even before it posts but finding potential threats is "like shifting through quicksand"?

I call bull. More likely the issue is that it would COST them money to develop without making them money once it's implemented.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

We're number #2, a sad distinction when all gun deaths are taken into account. Semantics aren't high discernment to the dead.
More importantly, we are vastly ahead in gun death/injury for developed countries- which would be a fair adjusted quality metric of comparison.
Apples to apples and all that.
From said Politifact:

• The US does come out on top when only high-income developed nations with 10 million or more people are considered
• In terms of raw numbers, the most recent data shows the US ranks second to Brazil.

Social media is but a symptom, not the cause of this ill we willingly suffer from.
Social media is pur-d bullshit. They can distinguish, track, collate, identify and predict with relative accuracy, but they're not required to because we allow private capitalist interests to trump social/safety considerations(Corporations are people etc.). We legislate the parameters for vested interest instead of common interest.
Money, it all comes back to money. Always.
Thirty years ago we had an assault weapon ban in place.
We had the problem before the ban, we had the problem after the ban.
We didn't have the same severity of problem during the ban.

I agree with surveillance concerns, with the understanding that unfortunately they are already track/monitoring us through our cells and have the legal right to do so, and can access your information right now with nebulous justification. Thank Bush's ramrodded Patriot Act.
If anyone is unfamiliar, or has forgotten quite how invasive it is, I suggest you peruse the details at your earliest convenience. It'll curl your hair for you.

 

[Obscura]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect."

I disagree that social media is a symptom. From what I've seen in children it is a major contributing factor. And a lot of mental health experts agree.

Aside from the societal problems I've and others have pointed out, all of them coalesce into the problems we have now. Including the mass shooting pandemic we have. If it was a one facet issue, it would already be fixed. And no, it wouldn't be magically fixed if only Billy Bob would give up his gun.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Again, apples to apples.
I'm going to have to go with Stanford Law on this one

The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

Our recent New York Times article provided important new empirical evidence that the federal assault weapons ban (AWB) – in place from 1994-2004 –

law.stanford.edu

Semi autos were banned specifically because they were primarily used for mass shootings. Mass shooting decreased with the outlier of Columbine which used shotguns/9mm handgun.
From Wiki:

Continued lax regulation was what contributed to other forms of gun violence. Which is our primary long term problem. Gun violence exploded because of unfettered and unregulated access to other firearms.
Imagine what we could do with strict regulation encompassing long-rifle and handguns. Tax all sales, ownership and ammo.
Then all gun violence would go down. Just like mass shootings did with the assault weapons ban. It's a perfectly logical response.

Teens' Social Media Use Does Not Raise Risk for Depression: Study

Contrary to popular wisdom, daily social media use is not a strong or consistent risk factor for depressive symptoms among adolescents, according to a new study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health researchers.

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

Overall time on social media is not related to teen anxiety and depression

New research found that the amount of time spent on social media is not directly increasing anxiety or depression in teenagers.

www.sciencedaily.com

Mental illness is eternal. I disagree in that I find Social Media to be an ever present exacerbating symptom as opposed to cause. It's doesn't cause mental illness though I agree it's associations amplify it if already predisposed/present. Therein lies the difference.
I don't think anyone is looking at this issue as a single facet entity or has stated such here.
What we do know for our own country is clear. Exposure to more guns resulted in more accidental death for our children.

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aan8179

Policy Evaluation

1. States with more gun control laws have lower levels of firearm homicide and firearm suicide Using state data from 2007-2010, we found that states with more key firearm laws had fewer firearm hom…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

What had little effect is changes to concealed carry laws.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/epirev_38_1_140.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7D

From the abstract: italics and bolding added for pertinent information.
~ Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. death; firearms; homicide; legislation; suicide; weapons; wounds and injuries

It wouldn't be solved, which is unrealistically absolutist, but every other advanced country of comparison with ample and rigorous regulation has been compiling evidence over decades that it in fact can be mitigated by prying multiple guns out of the Billy Bob's unregulated fingers.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

The United States is witnessing another year of record gun violence, raising domestic and international scrutiny of its comparatively loose gun laws and placing pressure on lawmakers to enact meaning…

www.cfr.org

We can and should learn and then implement what works.

 

[Obscura]

Again, apples to apples.
I'm going to have to go with Stanford Law on this one

The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

Our recent New York Times article provided important new empirical evidence that the federal assault weapons ban (AWB) – in place from 1994-2004 –

law.stanford.edu

Semi autos were banned specifically because they were primarily used for mass shootings. Mass shooting decreased with the outlier of Columbine which used shotguns/9mm handgun.
From Wiki:

Continued lax regulation was what contributed to other forms of gun violence. Which is our primary long term problem. Gun violence exploded because of unfettered and unregulated access to other firearms.
Imagine what we could do with strict regulation encompassing long-rifle and handguns. Tax all sales, ownership and ammo.
Then all gun violence would go down. Just like mass shootings did with the assault weapons ban. It's a perfectly logical response.

Teens' Social Media Use Does Not Raise Risk for Depression: Study

Contrary to popular wisdom, daily social media use is not a strong or consistent risk factor for depressive symptoms among adolescents, according to a new study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health researchers.

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

Overall time on social media is not related to teen anxiety and depression

New research found that the amount of time spent on social media is not directly increasing anxiety or depression in teenagers.

www.sciencedaily.com

Mental illness is eternal. I disagree in that I find Social Media to be an ever present exacerbating symptom as opposed to cause. It's doesn't cause mental illness though I agree it's associations amplify it if already predisposed/present. Therein lies the difference.
I don't think anyone is looking at this issue as a single facet entity or has stated such here.
What we do know for our own country is clear. Exposure to more guns resulted in more accidental death for our children.

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aan8179

Policy Evaluation

1. States with more gun control laws have lower levels of firearm homicide and firearm suicide Using state data from 2007-2010, we found that states with more key firearm laws had fewer firearm hom…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

What had little effect is changes to concealed carry laws.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/epirev_38_1_140.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7D

From the abstract: italics and bolding added for pertinent information.
~ Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. death; firearms; homicide; legislation; suicide; weapons; wounds and injuries

It wouldn't be solved, which is unrealistically absolutist, but every other advanced country of comparison with ample and rigorous regulation has been compiling evidence over decades that it in fact can be mitigated by prying multiple guns out of the Billy Bob's unregulated fingers.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

The United States is witnessing another year of record gun violence, raising domestic and international scrutiny of its comparatively loose gun laws and placing pressure on lawmakers to enact meaning…

www.cfr.org

We can and should learn and then implement what works.

That graph only shows total deaths by all mass shootings per year, which look still pretty on trend overall, unfortunately. Possibly a small decrease, like the Wiki page I quoted stated.

If you want to compare apples to apples, then comparing the U.S. to other countries doesn't work either. Other countries have less individualistic views, more cohesion, and has and have always had way less gun ownership to start with.

Saying statistically gun ownership has a higher chance of gun injury or death is what I was talking about skewing data narrative. Of course it is. Anything is higher than zero. It does not mean that a person will be more likely to commit a crime than before he had one. It doesn't make a person more suicidal after he bought one. And no, purchasing a gun specifically to commit a crime is not the the same as more likely to after ownership.

You will never get the other half of the country to agree with a near total gun ban. Again, look at smoking, drunk driving, seatbelts, abortion even. In a free country and even not free countries, you have people that have differing opinions. Alienating one side rarely makes the other more agreeable. Just look around at anything that's happening now.

What will work, and what people should be working towards is more efficient and in some instances, yes, stricter gun control. And addressing the mental health issue in this country. Yes, they has always been mentally ill people, but it's become a pandemic. Particularly in developed countries and especially in the U.S. It's definitely not the quality of life...

Extreme polarization and their ideas actually hinder and slow the legislative process and therefore long and meaningful change.

 

[missy]

"Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect."

States with greater gun control have lower levels of gun violence.

Snip...

State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series

Objective To determine whether restrictiveness-permissiveness of state gun laws or gun ownership are associated with mass shootings in the US. Design Cross sectional time series. Setting and population US gun owners from 1998-2015. Exposure An annual rating between 0 (completely restrictive)...

www.bmj.com

"A 10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a significant 35.1% (12.7% to 62.7%, P=0.001) higher rate of mass shootings.

What is already known on this topic​

• More permissive state gun laws and higher levels of gun ownership are associated with higher levels of gun homicide and gun suicide in the US

What this study adds​

• States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership have higher rates of mass shootings
• There is a growing divergence in recent years as rates of mass shootings in restrictive states have decreased and those in permissive states have increased

"

The entire field of gun violence research has long been neglected and hardly funded.

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and his colleagues, analyzed more than 30 years of data on shootings in the U.S. that involved four or more victims. They found two policies that had significant protective effects in lowering rates of fatal mass shootings.

One.
State bans on buying large-capacity magazines or ammunition-feeding devices for semiautomatic weapons also reduced deaths from mass shootings.

The states which had bans did much better in terms of having fewer mass shootings, and the mass shootings that occurred were much less lethal in terms of the number of people dying," says David Hemenway who is the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Two.
Another way that has proven effect in reducing gun violence is to make it a requirement to go through a licensing process and enforce it properly. Background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and reinstitution of the assault weapons ban immediately. Reduce easy access to firearms.

Hold the gun industry accountable. Five percent of gun dealers sell 90% of guns used in crimes. Unlike other industries, gun companies have special legal protections against liability leaving them immune from lawsuits.

Gun violence is a leading cause of death in the country. How does anyone here find that acceptable?

We need to work together and have stricter laws regarding guns. A total ban would backfire. It just wouldn't work here though I get the sentiment. I understand why people would want that. But there's a powerful quote that generally rings true in most situations. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. No matter how strongly one feels about what is happening in the USA with guns and homicides and mass shootings banning all guns isn't a solution. But creating and enforcing stricter gun control is key.

We have so few studies over the past 3 decades and we need to do more. But we have a good place to start. Ban assault weapons. Those that fire many rounds at once doing the most harm in a short period of time. And make all buyers of guns go through a strict process to evaluate those that are at higher risk.

Gun violence is a critical and preventable public health problem.
Our weak gun safety laws are killing nearly 40,000 Americans ( and injuring nearly 85,000) every year.
Something must change.
NOW.

Gun Violence Prevention Experts Respond to Mass Shootings

Gun Violence Prevention Experts Respond to Mass Shootings

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

 

[icy_jade]

In a way, reading this thread gives me a better idea of why something that seems so straightforward (think New Zealand/Ardern) can be mired in a never ending stream of reasons (excuses). Why US cannot be compared to other countries who have enacted laws against widespread gun ownership, why it isn’t just guns, it’s everyone’s right to own guns (aka actual weapons that are used in wars) etc etc etc.

As if other countries don’t have mentally ill people right? Or we don’t have social media? Or we don’t have bullying in schools? Cohesion? Seriously have you seen how multi-racial some countries are?

It’s just… sad (after typing and deleting a few other phrases). What a terrible waste of human lives. So sad for all the families and victims of gun violence (and presumably there will be many more).

 

[yssie]

In a way, reading this thread gives me a better idea of why something that seems so straightforward (think New Zealand/Ardern) can be mired in a never ending stream of reasons (excuses). Why US cannot be compared to other countries who have enacted laws against widespread gun ownership, why it isn’t just guns, it’s everyone’s right to own guns (aka actual weapons that are used in wars) etc etc etc.

As if other countries don’t have mentally ill people right? Or we don’t have social media? Or we don’t have bullying in schools? Cohesion? Seriously have you seen how multi-racial some countries are?

It’s just… sad (after typing and deleting a few other phrases). What a terrible waste of human lives. So sad for all the families and victims of gun violence (and presumably there will be many more).

This is so well said. The longer we persist in our belief that we’re a snowflake for whom the whims of so many other countries are eternally incomparable - the more senseless deaths we’ll divvy up our thoughts and prayers between. And that’s all there is to it.

 

[Petalouda]

Deleted

 

[Maria D]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7102447232510692654

 

[Calliecake]

Gun control has become a public health issue. Something needs to be done. There has to be change.


So happy to see you here @Maria D!!! You have been missed!

 

[swingtime]

In a way, reading this thread gives me a better idea of why something that seems so straightforward (think New Zealand/Ardern) can be mired in a never ending stream of reasons (excuses). Why US cannot be compared to other countries who have enacted laws against widespread gun ownership, why it isn’t just guns, it’s everyone’s right to own guns (aka actual weapons that are used in wars) etc etc etc.

As if other countries don’t have mentally ill people right? Or we don’t have social media? Or we don’t have bullying in schools? Cohesion? Seriously have you seen how multi-racial some countries are?

It’s just… sad (after typing and deleting a few other phrases). What a terrible waste of human lives. So sad for all the families and victims of gun violence (and presumably there will be many more).

Many Americans do understand that the U.S. does not have higher rates of mental illness than other nations. Gun manufacturers and their puppets have trotted out this distraction after every massacre. If people are talking about mental illness, social media, video games, they're not focusing on common sense gun reform.

Of course someone who would slaughter precious children in their school is not in his right mind. But the U.S. is not an outlier when it comes to mental illness or social media. We are an outlier when it comes to easy access to firearms, especially weapons designed to kill enemies on the battlefield.

 

[Matata]

Many Americans do understand that the U.S. does not have higher rates of mental illness than other nations.

If you google comparisons between US and other developed countries, you'll see researched articles showing we are higher. Some of the research delves into differences in culture, medical protocols for reporting, terminology, etc., which can account for the higher rate, but overall, the US definitely has significant issues across the population spectrum.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I personally would argue to the Supreme Court that what the forefathers wrote in the second amendment pertained to long guns and small caliber handguns. There is no mention of any new guns, and so we ought to be confined to what was in existence when the amendment was written. We could include muskets if they want. Nothing else. I am a strict constitutionalist. They never envisioned the expansion of this so-called right.

Our country is out of control and I think fear has become the dominant characteristic that controls much of our lives now. Keep in mind the Police were afraid to go in the classroom. Afraid they would be shot. I believe that sentiment is what is played out in our Police Forces around the country. They are afraid, so they shoot.

In Sorrow,

Annette

 

[Obscura]

States with greater gun control have lower levels of gun violence.

Snip...

State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series

Objective To determine whether restrictiveness-permissiveness of state gun laws or gun ownership are associated with mass shootings in the US. Design Cross sectional time series. Setting and population US gun owners from 1998-2015. Exposure An annual rating between 0 (completely restrictive)...

www.bmj.com

"A 10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a significant 35.1% (12.7% to 62.7%, P=0.001) higher rate of mass shootings.

What is already known on this topic​

• More permissive state gun laws and higher levels of gun ownership are associated with higher levels of gun homicide and gun suicide in the US

What this study adds​

• States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership have higher rates of mass shootings
• There is a growing divergence in recent years as rates of mass shootings in restrictive states have decreased and those in permissive states have increased

"

The entire field of gun violence research has long been neglected and hardly funded.

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and his colleagues, analyzed more than 30 years of data on shootings in the U.S. that involved four or more victims. They found two policies that had significant protective effects in lowering rates of fatal mass shootings.

One.
State bans on buying large-capacity magazines or ammunition-feeding devices for semiautomatic weapons also reduced deaths from mass shootings.

The states which had bans did much better in terms of having fewer mass shootings, and the mass shootings that occurred were much less lethal in terms of the number of people dying," says David Hemenway who is the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Two.
Another way that has proven effect in reducing gun violence is to make it a requirement to go through a licensing process and enforce it properly. Background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and reinstitution of the assault weapons ban immediately. Reduce easy access to firearms.

Hold the gun industry accountable. Five percent of gun dealers sell 90% of guns used in crimes. Unlike other industries, gun companies have special legal protections against liability leaving them immune from lawsuits.

Gun violence is a leading cause of death in the country. How does anyone here find that acceptable?

We need to work together and have stricter laws regarding guns. A total ban would backfire. It just wouldn't work here though I get the sentiment. I understand why people would want that. But there's a powerful quote that generally rings true in most situations. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. No matter how strongly one feels about what is happening in the USA with guns and homicides and mass shootings banning all guns isn't a solution. But creating and enforcing stricter gun control is key.

We have so few studies over the past 3 decades and we need to do more. But we have a good place to start. Ban assault weapons. Those that fire many rounds at once doing the most harm in a short period of time. And make all buyers of guns go through a strict process to evaluate those that are at higher risk.

Gun violence is a critical and preventable public health problem.
Our weak gun safety laws are killing nearly 40,000 Americans ( and injuring nearly 85,000) every year.
Something must change.
NOW.

Gun Violence Prevention Experts Respond to Mass Shootings

Gun Violence Prevention Experts Respond to Mass Shootings

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

Show me where I said they didn't.

All I have mentioned was trying to come up with a reasonable and effective middle ground between hardcore, NRA-loving gun enthusiasts and all-guns bad crowd, how nothing either side says is 100% accurate and that there are shades of grey.

I also mentioned that the other side (and some states) would take serious issue with an overly strict to all out ban and cause even more derision and even less rallying for the common good.

But some people are lashing out like I said that every person should own 20 guns, including military grade assault rifles.

Wrong.

I am saying that it would be near impossible to recall all the guns that are already out there, especially the mindset of the gun enthusiasts that think it is an inalienable right to own them. That mass shootings are not *simply* a direct effect of gun availability, which it is obviously a direct factor in, but more importantly a convenient tool and symptom of a bigger issue.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and mine is that there are very few things that are exclusively black and white, and people need to stop thinking that everything is if they actually want to change the world, or at least *their* country.

Such a dispicable crime stirs emotions high, but hysteria and extremism never did anyone any good, and in fact many times hinders...

 

[Obscura]

I have lost several friends both red and blue because I won't "tow the line" and blindly agree with their party's rhetoric, and despite this next part sounding a bit preachy, I'll say it anyway: I will continue to stand in favor of logic and reason over emotions and sensationalism. No one ever gets 100% of what they want, especially in a democracy and that to demand so will at best stall a resolution or in worse case exacerbate an issue due to hard feelings.

It also kind of saddens me that everytime something terrible happens everyone is so quick to bring up politics and reform this or that, lawsuits, etc. instead of just mourning for a week, to reach out and help the victims instead of pointing a finger at "the other" and blaming. The only person that should receive hate right now is that POS thing that decided to commit murder. All the other cr*p can come later.

Just my two cents.

 

[Demelza]

Many Americans do understand that the U.S. does not have higher rates of mental illness than other nations. Gun manufacturers and their puppets have trotted out this distraction after every massacre. If people are talking about mental illness, social media, video games, they're not focusing on common sense gun reform.

Of course someone who would slaughter precious children in their school is not in his right mind. But the U.S. is not an outlier when it comes to mental illness or social media. We are an outlier when it comes to easy access to firearms, especially weapons designed to kill enemies on the battlefield.

I agree wholeheartedly. All this talk about modern parental failings, social media, video games -- it's all a red herring. The US is not unique in any way other than that we allow people insanely easy access to deadly automatic assault rifles. The evidence is clear that gun reform laws work. We can blame parents and the internet till the cows come home, but that's just playing into the hands of right wing extremists who want us to look anywhere but the guns.

 

[missy]

Show me where I said they didn't.

All I have mentioned was trying to come up with a reasonable and effective middle ground between hardcore, NRA-loving gun enthusiasts and all-guns bad crowd, how nothing either side says is 100% accurate and that there are shades of grey.

I also mentioned that the other side (and some states) would take serious issue with an overly strict to all out ban and cause even more derision and even less rallying for the common good.

But some people are lashing out like I said that every person should own 20 guns, including military grade assault rifles.

Wrong.

I am saying that it would be near impossible to recall all the guns that are already out there, especially the mindset of the gun enthusiasts that think it is an inalienable right to own them. That mass shootings are not *simply* a direct effect of gun availability, which it is obviously a direct factor in, but more importantly a convenient tool and symptom of a bigger issue.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and mine is that there are very few things that are exclusively black and white, and people need to stop thinking that everything is if they actually want to change the world, or at least *their* country.

Such a dispicable crime stirs emotions high, but hysteria and extremism never did anyone any good, and in fact many times hinders...

I did show you @Obscura. I quoted you in post #137 and responded with facts. Banning assault rifles is a start. Banning assault weapons will make a difference.

 

[Obscura]

I did show you @Obscura. I quoted you in post #137 and responded with facts. Banning assault rifles is a start. Banning assault weapons will make a difference.

"Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect." <--- quoted from Wiki

This is NOT saying that places with strict gun control doesn't have lower rates. It shows that it is not the magic cure-all some people think it is.

There were still mass shootings without assault guns. Yes, the graph showed a decrease in some of the years, and likely the number per incident was much lower. But it is not nearly the magic cure all that people think it is, and it would be extremely hard to enact, especially in some states.

By the way, I never said I was against an assault weapons ban...