Active Now

Chief Ten Beers
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » How many is a "mass"? More than 3? How many mass massacre slaughters have there been in the USA since mass shootings were recorded?

How many is a "mass"? More than 3? How many mass massacre slaughters have there been in the USA since mass shootings were recorded?

We have a violent culture in America.

Is violence anything one can outgrow or subdue? Or is it an inborn trait part of the DNA of the country and never going away?

Posted - September 7, 2019

Responses


  • 19942
    This chart was part of a article on mass shootings pointing out the common denominator of assault rifles being used in mass shootings, but it also shows how many mass shooting there have been since Columbine in 91982.
     
    Data: U.S. Mass Shootings, 1982-2019, from Mother Jones. Chart: Chris Canipe/Axios
      September 7, 2019 12:09 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you your reply and the informative graphic L. :) Setting aside what it represents it's a very pretty map/chart. If it represented Unicorn sightings I'd buy one and frame it and hang it on the wall. But it doesn't. I wonder if the die-hard gun people care? SIGH. One thing we know for sure. With the chump being a white nationalist racist himself and supporter of others so inclined the mass slaughters will accelerate in number of dead and frequency. The future under chump. It is what it is! :( This post was edited by RosieG at September 8, 2019 11:17 AM MDT
      September 8, 2019 2:31 AM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    Yes, it is a pretty chart.  A little difficult to read at first, but scary when you actually "get" it.  Diehard gun people will not change their minds.  I don't advocate taking all guns away, just the semi-automatic ones that can kill 27 people in 32 seconds.  I see no need for any civilian to own such weapons.  Maybe they get a kick out of shooting them at a gun range and if that's the case, they should be required to keep those guns locked up at the range when not in use.  Hunters don't use AK-47s or AR-15s on a hunt - They use rifles.  These mass murders are coming more frequently and there really needs to be something done to stop them.
      September 8, 2019 11:22 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    Someone on another site told me recently there have been more than 250 such incidents in the USA this year alone - but he did not define "mass" or say if they are all gratuitous slaughter of innocent victims, or if he included the drugs-gang warfare he'd told me also entails a very large number of shootings.

    Such massacres of random, innocent victims seem an almost uniquely American phenomenon. Discounting "terrorist" (politically-motivated) attacks, they are very rare indeed in almost all other developed countries put together. By "terrorist" I mean overtly nationalist or other political, religious or racial extremist motives.

    Since most of the gratuitous, lone gun-men have shot themselves or been shot dead at the scene, so not caught alive and tried in Court, we can never really know the real motives, but only guess. Most seem some sort of personal grudge-settling. Dismissing the shooter as "mentally ill" even before the police have had time to investigate his background is cheap and easy for a politician, but not very helpful unless the murderer is later proven to have been suffering from a serious mental illness of unusual type and severity likely to have made him commit the crime. So he was in a tiny minority of the mentally ill anyway, and if so, was he also a minority of such murderers?

    "Real" individual terrorists usually leave evidence revealing their motives, even if they have not actually stated their intentions before or during the attack. Terrorist organisations often wait a while then admit the crime, though it's not always easy to know if the claim - sometimes via a trusted, secret and anonymous channel between the group and journalists - is genuine or exploitative, by a third-party.  

    '

    As to what can be done about it.... Changing an entire society's values and outlook is never easy, but that is what would be necessary to rid a democratic nation of its beloved private arsenals and Second Amendment mantra. It won't disarm the dedicated criminals, but it would make life harder for them and reduce the risks.

    A friend who visited the US recently, told me something that illustrates that point. He was shown his hosts' guns on their small-holding, where he could try some in safety, at proper targets. He was amazed to learn the 20 or so varied weapons were not an enthusiast's special collection but considered normal, and equally amazed that the local supermarket would not let him buy alcohol but readily sold him the ammunition to replace what he'd used! (No alcohol because the cashier refused to recognise his UK driving-licence - which carries the holder's date of birth - or his clearly middle-aged facial appearance as proving him over-21...)   


    I'd read somewhere (or from you?) that a lot of NRA members would welcome or at least not object to, tighter gun laws; but if so perhaps they are either a minority of members or unable to rein in the "die-hard gun people" running what its name suggests is an amateur enthusiasts' club.
      September 8, 2019 3:44 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    It might have been from me Durdle since I read that a long time ago. But what the people want and what the movers and shakers will give us are two different things.  Gubment of for and by the people is a joke here. All pols are our employees but you would never know it. One point I'd like to make though. I think anyone who murders anyone is INSANE. Now whatever the clinical definition is of that I do not know nor do I care. If you are a "HIT MAN" you're insane for wanting and doing such a job. If you are in battle and need to shoot to stay alive you aren't murdering you are trying to stay alive or help to keep others alive. But there are often reports of people in the military MURDERING the locals. They are insane. Period. End of story. Anyone who gets kicks out of murdering living beings is insane. I think those who drive drunk and kill are murderers because it could have been avoided. Not premeditated with regard to the victim. But premeditated in terms of drinking and then getting behind the wheel and driving. No excuse for driving drunk. Anyway I appreciate your lengthy analysis. I've given up trying to understand the obsession and fixation some gun people have with their guns. Not all of them but some of them are total wackadoodles in my opinion. SIGH. I know those wackadoodles think I'm one too so I guess that makes us even!

    I have often wondered what the world would have been like or at least the USA if the founding father's had simply left out the part to arm bears altogether. I think I shall ask. Be glad you live where you do. Well that's something I already know you are. Who wouldn't be grateful not to be subjected to a madman? :)
      September 8, 2019 11:32 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    I understand what you mean by a murderer being "insane", and that may well be so in a clinical sense for many; but a lot of unlawful single killings are by someone known to the victim and who suddenly loses control for some reason. that does not excuse the crime but the reason may form a legal defence.

    The gratuitous massacres are another matter. If the killer is insane it's not a madness defined by such things as extremely low IQ, because such crimes often require a fair degree of intelligence and cold planning. Rather, it's some sort of personality disorder.

    The Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen what happened a couple of centuries later, but I think they would have been horrified to think that arms "right", which had particular reasons in its own time and in the days of inaccurate, short-range, single-shot guns, could go so out of control.

    As well as laws against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, UK law also has a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving", which need not involve intoxication.   
      September 8, 2019 1:31 PM MDT
    0