- A collapse of American industry
- People being financially wiped out
- The opiod epidemic
- A general culture of greed and personal enrichment at all costs
- The ever increasing transfer of wealth to the top
- Closure of public mental health institutions
- relentless fearmongering media coverage guaranteeing that shitty people are constantly being made famous for their shitty behavior
Almost no mass shootings were carried out by someone with a serious mental illness. Almost all of them made a conscious decision to do what they did and made a plan to do it. They learned to do what they did from internet forums, news reports of other shootings, abhorrent “influencers,” and the like, and they didn’t do what they did impulsively or based on a psychotic though process. Psych hospitals and deinstitutionalization have nothing at all to do with mass shootings
On the other hand, I would posit that anyone who would perform a mass shooting is, by definition, mentally unwell, and the loss of mental health resources can only make things worse.
When you say “mentally unwell” though, how do you even define that? Psych hospitals are there to treat psychiatric conditions, eg schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, catatonia, borderline personality disorder, etc. Psych hospitals are not pre-crime units where you send someone who is going to commit a shooting.
By saying the mass shooting problem could be fixed by having more psych hospital beds or bringing back institutionalization means you think either of these would have stopped someone. There is an easy test here…how many mass shooters were sent to a psych hospital before they killed people, were treated for homicidal thoughts, and we’re released due to deinstitutionalization? For how many mass shooters were their homicidal thoughts or plans known, but they didn’t get help at all due to a lack of psych hospitals?
It really easy to dismiss people who commit crimes as automatically mentally ill, but the reality is almost none of them meet criteria for a mental illness. Instead they murdered people because they chose to, and they meet every definition of competent to stand trial after they do it.
This sort of narrative perpetuates the popular thinking that people with a mental illness are scary and dangerous when they actually commit violent crimes at a lower rate than the general population
Why do they have to go to hospitals? Wouldn’t more affordable mental healthcare and better access to good metal health professionals also help? No one in this thread said lock them up.
Oh 100%, but I’m responding to someone who cited “the closure of public mental health institutions” as a reason for increased mass shootings, which I vehemently disagree with
I mean, there’s other kinds of public mental health institutions than full inpatient.
Why not have, say, a location with publicly-reimbursed psychiatrists and psychologists, where a person goes for an appointment?
This is the weirdest blend of far right with a tiny sprinkle of far left I’ve ever seen.
Only a snowflake would see political affiliation in that list of deteriorating American problems! Don’t worry, I won’t let those mean facts hurt you…
Australian here. We had one really bad mass shooting and then our government (who was also one of the most conservative governments in the last 50 years) banned guns. Haven’t had one since. Guns just aren’t a thing here and we kind of think you’re a weird country for being so obsessed with guns. I also personally think it’s weird that guns are like the symbol of your freedom, yet you don’t have universal healthcare. Universal healthcare offers so much more freedom than guns do.
In saying that a lot of countries have guns and don’t have the same problem with mass shootings. What the US has is a cultural problem in terms of your relationship with guns and violence. Unfortunately, doing a mass shooting is now a normalised way to deal with your problems. Not all of you, obviously. But enough of you that it’s gotten completely out of control. In Australia I don’t think it was just the banning of guns that has reduced mass shootings. We have a culture in Australia of ‘don’t be a dickhead’. I think when we had our mass shooting we all collectively just said yeah nah mass shootings are next level dickhead behaviour.
We do have guns though, they are protected behind proper background checks and licences. And we dont fetishish them the same way many Yanks do. Definitely far fewer semi-auto and full auto guns though.
If you keep your eyes open, there are a number of gun shops around, often in quite unexpected locations. There is one near my local kebab shop, and its very subtle, so many people dont even notice it.
The Au and NZ experience with guns and pop culture vs the US is vastly different.
NZ is up there with gun ownership (in the top 20 per capita), but we have a very different culture around them, they are a hunting tool and not a misogynistic tool here. There was a bit of backlash with our last tightening of our laws - but to be frank, I got my licence after the law change with little difficulty, and who needs a semi auto AR style rifle other that those that can apply for for the appropriate licence?
Australian here, I’m literally less than ten metres away from 2 rifles and a shotgun. Used for pest control, which is mostly eaten cos rabbit and goat is delicious. Haven’t been bold enough to eat a fox yet. But yeah, they’re there. Have been visited by the cops a couple of times over the years to make sure they’re appropriately stored. Hell, you can even get a handgun here. The kicker is, you have to be a member of a gun club, regularly compete in competitions through said gun club, and the gun has to be stored at said gun club (although it can be transported from gun club to another venue for competition). So, yeah, they’re out there, but they’re heavily controlled. And we actually had an Olympic shotgun shooter get in shit a while back cos his gun was improperly stored in his car between competition and home. Nobody wants what happened in Port Arthur to happen ever again. Kids fucking died. That’s fucked. How America didn’t do something after Sandy Hook absolutely blows my mind…
I hear you, I have 5 rifles about the same distance, locked in a safe. The bolts and ammo are both in seperate lock boxes and not stored with the firearms; the keys to all are not store with any normal keys.
I think Australia has about 15-20 firearms pr 100 people and New Zealand about 25-30 (depending on where you get the stats from), compare that to the US where it’s above 150.
The whole culture around firearms is screwed there - you have senators posing for Christmas card photos with the whole family posing with a small arsenal of military firearms, or a guy guys caught on camera (clearly carrying side arms) saying “I feel threatened”, in a power pose/alpha-male stance, while advancing on some other guy in a mall.
From here, on the outside, the whole US feels quite fucked; and it’s not just gun violence…
The weird one for me is archery equipment. No licence, no checks, no storage requirement. And sure, you cant go on much of a spree, it still seems a bit odd that anyone can buy one. Crossbows are restricted though.
and the gun has to be stored at said gun club (although it can be transported from gun club to another venue for competition).
You don’t have to store it at the club. It can be stored in your own premises. https://www.police.qld.gov.au/weapon-licensing/safe-storage-weapons-and-ammunition
Amazingly, there’s more than one state in Australia, and they all have variances… As it is, I’m too tired to look into it and I was told this 10yrs ago, and I know requirements have change in this time so I acquiesce.
All good mate. Not calling you out or anything it is a complex topic and Qld is where I am so that is what I follow.
I’m not an expert in this stuff but my whole life I have been told to avoid eating mammals that primarily eat meat. Eating a fox just seems wrong, especially when there are so many good to eat rabbits.
Carnivores generally taste like shit. As it is, foxes are omnivores, leaning more towards vegetarianism. I’m still gonna give it a miss though.
Curious here. Just moved to a large acreage and have some 5 bears and about 10 wolfs that pose a risk to my dogs mainly. I grew up with guns so comfortable around them but had not really used one in twenty years. Now the laws require them locked up at all times but I literally need access in seconds. Have a few times have had to scare of the bears but it is the wolves that are my biggest concerns.
I can’t really lock them up or more to the point is that they would have near zero value locked up. I can’t imagine most farmers lock them up. What is the general idea around this?
Edit. Coyotes not wolfs.
Guns aren’t the only things that deter wolves and bears. Sure, they do a great job at it, but they aren’t the only tool you can employ.
Well I am deploying other options but not working that well. Just more curious what the ranch type guy that is using a rifle weekly if not daily does. Seperate lock up are not practical when you need them rapidly and at random times. I personally am for heavy gun regulation. Hand guns seem completely unneeded except for certain jobs and having more than say three rifles does not seem necessary. But in a farm or ranch situation, having them easily accessible is pretty important.
Amazingly, our famers do just fine here in Australia without easy access to guns…
American here. This is sadly very true and I find it unbelievably distressing. For me, after Sandy Hook happened (the mass shooting of over 20 elementary school aged children) and nothing changed, it became clear nothing would ever change. And I feel completely helpless about it. I used to be highly opposed to having a gun in my home but it’s gotten so bad that I’m starting to consider getting one for our safety…which pisses me the fuck off because then I feel like I’m forced to be part of the problem. I went to a big trick or treating Halloween event last weekend in a major part of town with lots of kids and adults, and in the back of my head I definitely had a little fear that this would be the kind of thing that would get shot up these days. It’s so far out of control, it’s so disgusting.
I actually don’t blame you because I would feel the same way if I lived in America. I hate guns, but would feel the need to have a gun if I lived there. It seems like such a cycle of mutually assured destruction that just keeps escalating out of control.
Yeah indeed.
But if you require a gun to feel safe in your own country / home, you live in a shithole.
I don’t think they’re denying they live in a shithole. It’s just that there’s no easy way out.
I feel sorry that your home (town) feels so unsafe, I don’t know how you (as a people/country) get somewhere back to ‘normal’
My reaction was, instead of feeling hopeless, I’ve started to call for abolishing the Second Amendment. I’m done trying to compromise with people that care more about guns than children.
Being paranoid has that effect.
Except that when a revolution becomes necessary we will all be fucked. Citizen’s most important duty is ensuring the State stays true to democracy
You’re never going to fight in a revolution, and if you did you’d lose because you’re not a good fighter.
This mindset is the primary reason we live in this world
I’d be the guy you’re fighting a revolution against, so that’s great to hear.
I don’t want to tear my government asunder. I want to fix the few broken cogs in the machine.
Which country do you live in?
I’m aware that we live in different countries. My point is there’s a lot of me, in every country.
I don’t think you want another Reign of Terror followed by an Emperor, either.
This is exactly what leftists want (and right-wingers, but this is Lemmy).
Revolutions are fought with torches, pitchforks and guillotines.
Guns are far from necessary.
They had guns in 1789. That was the main reason they took the Bastille. Everything changed after that day
I’m french, we do not laugh about these things
So, do you have a hunting or an sporting shoot license for your guns? France laws are the same as the rest of the EU, guns are very controlled, people in Europe don’t talk about guns as a means of revolution against the government. Unless you meant you’re french in the way 'Muricas say they’re Italian or Irish, i.e. they have a great grandfather that once passed through that country.
deleted by creator
It’s not something we discuss often, and none of us have guns. But we all feel extremely weak against the government which we all hate, and that openly violates the core principles enonciated when we created the republic. People are getting angry, but it’s something that’s still very new
Media coverage becoming a compounding factor.
There weren’t many school shootings, and suddenly Columbine happened.
The thing is - Columbine wasn’t really a school shooting.
It was a failed bombing. The shooting was to get everyone into the cafeteria where they’d set up barrel bombs which luckily didn’t go off. In fact, the largest casualty attack in a US school remains a bombing from 1927.
As a school shooting, Columbine was also quite atypical, with two perpetrators.
But as soon as you now had what was really a failed bombing being covered by the news as a school shooting, suddenly thereafter were a ton of school shootings (that fit the normal archetype of a mass shooting with a lone perpetrator).
And each of those got a ton of coverage and the numbers of mass shootings went up yet again.
If you suddenly prohibited covering mass shootings in media (impossible because of the 1st amendment, but hypothetically), I am certain you’d see mass shootings drop by double digit numbers.
The fact that Columbine was so atypical of what events followed in its planning but was so close to what followed in how it was covered in the news tells a pretty damning story of the role of mass media in this phenomenon.
Also see:
Towers, S., Gomez-Lievano, A. Khan, M., et al. (2015). Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings. PLOS One. 10(7): e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
Lankford, A and Tomek, S. (2017). Mass Killings in the United States from 2006 to 2013: Social Contagion or Random Clusters. The American Association of Suicidology. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12366
Thanks for citations!
Finally a good response. Thanks for posting
As massive consumers of American news media that includes the extensive covering of mass shootings, I wonder what is keeping Canadians from a rise in shootings that is equally meteoric.
Coverage - since so much media comes from America - would seem to be the same, but the results are different.
Far from gun-avoidant, Canada boasts the longest rifle hit on a target, both for moving and stationary.
Cold weather, maybe?
Have you considered any of the underlying factors to such and how Canada might differ?
Access to guns. How many guns per person are in Canada vs in the US?
It’s probably a combination of this and better access to mental health and social services.
It’s almost entirely that.
When you have nearly no-one who wishes to commit such atrocities as a violent suicide, it doesn’t matter what tools are available for the job.
And tbf Canadians don’t exactly have a reputation as being violent individuals. I believe the stereorype is “Sorry eh.”
Canada has fewer guns per person than the US, but still many more than most countries. I think there are a couple of other differences though. The types of guns are very different. Handguns are extremely restricted, and ownership is rare. Many (most?) semi auto rifles are either prohibited or restricted, and there are mag limits (5 rounds) for all centrefire rifles. This doesn’t exactly prevent people from committing shootings, but a lot fewer people have those types of guns because they’re kind of a pain in the ass get, store, and use. Safe storage is legally required, and much more encouraged by the gun-owning community.
The other factor might be what guns are used for in Canada. Concealed carry is practically non-existent, open carry is severely restricted, and while self-defence with a firearm is technically legal, ownership for that purpose pretty much isn’t.
A weird fetish for guns and a completely unregulated gun lobby.
In Switzerland every male between 18 and 40 that hasn’t actively decided against it, has an assault riffle under their bed (for some that’s meant literally…). Althoughwe don’t let them have ammunition as well.
Anyway, you can buy guns here and people do. It’s just not that we think we need them to defend ourselves against the government (which judging by the power of the us military is totally ridiculous anyway). We also don’t allow you to carry it around, let alone loaded ones.
America is a ridiculous cesspool of stupidity, missed educational opportunities and weird, culty patriotism that guns are somehow a part of. The internet made it easier tk spread this and so conservatives have been more successful in spreading their crap around.
My two pennies: We had a generation of people raised by baby boomers, people notorious for their inability to manage emotions, or empathize with different or morally ambiguous people. It’s intergenerational trauma from such an upbringing, manifesting as mental illness and marked by delusions of grandeur, paranoia, victim mentality, and stunted emotional and social development. That, and obviously the proliferation of weapons has made mass murder accessible, and in the minds of some people as described above, acceptable.
Possibly also lead poisoning.
That, and obviously the proliferation of weapons has made mass murder accessible, and in the minds of some people as described above.
Are you under the impression such things were ever not accessible?
At what point did we start regularly testing and proving out water? When did we start ensuring school bake sale food must be store-bought? You seem incredibly short-sighted.
What kind of idiot point are you attempting and failing to make?
At what point did we start regularly testing and proving out water?
Flint, MI would like a word
The US military hasn’t ever won an asymmetrical guerrilla war, so it’s not as absurd as you think. In that Instance, millions of people would likely die, but it’s still more likely that guerrillas survive for decades than it is the US wins.
The US has won against guerrillas before. They won in the Philippines and had mostly won in Iraq before the Iraqi government pissed off their Sunni minority and ISIS spilled over from Syria. The US also crushed the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive and most of the war after that was fought by regular North Vietnamese Army units not VC guerrillas.
Most insurgencies fail Max Boot wrote a book called Invisible Armies where he analyzed insurgencies throughout the 20th century and determined that only about a quarter of them succeeded and more than half failed outright. Not only that, many of the successful ones took place in the context of colonization and the Cold Warz where they had weak imperial opponents, super power backers, or both.
Appreciate the book, I’ll give it a read, thank you!!
We the people so badly need to organize in the face of the threat of our own government. 🤦🤦🤦
It’s also unlikely the US Military, being citizens of the United States themselves, would have a high degree of adherence to such orders to bomb and destroy their fellow man.
That anyone thinks such is realistic is indicative of the depth of delusion.
And this fact would be true regardless if their populations had guns or not, which means once again, the guns dont factor in all that much at success of resistance of government
I mean the US has a history of bombing city blocks from helicopters, commiting unethical human experimentation, both on individual people and by releasing poisonous agents into the air around their own cities and generally not being particular human rights focused with their own citizens.
Believing that the US army is above turning on their “fellow man” seems a bit optimistic to me.
The naivety there isn’t so much that soldiers would be incapable of fighting the US citizenry in a large scale war, but more that the framing of the question is false to begin with. It’s way easier for soldiers to commit small scale acts of terror than large scale genocides, and it’s always easier to commit acts of terror on minorities or the “other” rather than on the gen pop. If we were to see any domestic american guerilla warfare (I find this kind of unlikely compared to the rising amount of lone wolf, stochastic incidents), then it’s likely that even the regular population would get fed a ton of bullshit about the opposition being subhuman, or something to that effect. Larger scale versions of how, every time a black guy gets shot by the police, everyone trots out every encounter he’s ever had with the police within like 12 hours of the incident. Character assassination, but at a group level, instead of on the individual level.
In the context of the Ukraine war i’ve read something akin to “once someone close to you, a fellow friend and comrade is killed, it is less about the original how and why, but just about revenge.”
Using cult of personality, the in-group mentality that is strongly advanced in the military, dehumanising of the enemy and other tactics have shown very effective time and time again in human history. There is many countries in history and today, where the military is turned against its own population and i fail to see any moral highground the US could claim to protect against that. The US society is too hungry, too injust, too tribalist and too violent, for there to be effective safeguards. Heck we all saw what happened January 6
I think it’s also more likely that the cops would be the main problem
I’m not sure what you’re referring to as a “fetish” or an “unregulated” lobby. If you were referring to nonsense like the NRA and their fundraising efforts, you’d be obligated to highlight Everytown etc. and their blue-aligned fundraising. You can’t point out a wedge issue and one side without recognizing the other side and its equivalent benefit.
If one has a clean criminal history, is a legal adult, and - in most states - has undergone some additional scrutiny or proof of proficiency, then sure - they can buy a firearm.
Given how Afghanistan turned out, I’m not sure how you think the concept of resisting the armed forces of a government as a distributed and well-armed populace is somehow unthinkable.
It’s fair to say we’ve a cesspool of stupidity - but only due to our politicians continued neglect of actual underlying issues in favor of partisan wedge-driving and profiteering of the ad revenue of sensationalized violence.
It’s also worth noting (though Lemmy is a horrible venue for discourse on the topic) that the prevalence of firearm ownership in the US is itself a function (likely an intended one, by the framers) of 2A.
So many of the measures that could, immediately or eventually, be used either directly or as a legal springboard, to move toward gun restrictions or confiscations see immediate and stiff resistance from the GOP, gun lobby, and most importantly big chunks of the population who are fun owners, who are basically given a personal stake and being incentivized to do so.
So many of the gun control measures being proposed would be dead on arrival due to the dual truths that guns are already widespread in the country and that many such laws would make criminals out of law abiding citizens. This makes it hard or impossible for them to gain any traction whatsoever.
While I agree that the “I need my guns for when the government turns on its people next week” crowd is delusional, I also feel that it’s a chicken/egg situation: part of the reason why that’s an unreasonable threat is because guns are so ubiquitous. The government doesn’t even attempt to go down that rabbit hole partially because it’s such an impossible feat.
I also think that while yes, that doomsday scenario isn’t happening anytime soon, that it certainly could happen, after many decades of gradual change and gradual decline. And while personal gun ownership may not do much good against the government now, in the event that the course of the future took us down that dark route, personal firearms could very well do a private citizen a lot of good then in resisting any opponent, government or otherwise. But of course they wouldn’t be able to get their guns back in that scenario if they allowed them to be taken away beforehand…and prevalence of ownership and political resistance is the best and easiest insurance against all of that.
the prevalence of firearm ownership in the US is itself a function (likely an intended one, by the framers) of 2A.
No, it was 100% intentional. All able bodied men below a certain age were legally obligated to muster with their local militia, and they were likewise legally obligated to provide their own firearm. The gov’t had already granted itself the right to raise and equip an army, so the idea that 2A applies to the gov’t being allowed to arm itself is patently ridiculous. No, the idea was that individuals would own firearms, and would undertake some form of training (or regulation) in their use, and that would make them fit for militia duty.
From that perspective, it’s clear that the founders intended the people to have access to and own weapons fit for military service.
I agree that it’s unlikely that the people should need arms to resist the gov’t, buuuuuuuuuuut it’s happened, and it’s happened in recent memory. The Bundy clan had an armed standoff with the gov’t in the 2010s over their illegal grazing on BLM land, and the gov’t ended up being the ones to blink first. (Also, the Bundy’s won in court over that; the gov’t did some pretty egregiously illegal things, and te judge tossed the whole case out with prejudice.) You can also go back to standoffs and insurrections by Native Americans in the 70s, standoffs that the Native Americans ultimately won. Moreover, we have a strong current of fascism running through our current politics; IMO, the idea of willingly giving up arms when the fascism supporters control the House, and have overrun the judiciary is madness.
Genuinely asking: what’s the point of everyone having a rifle if no one has ammo?
It’s part of your army kit. As we have a mandatory military service. But, soldiers have now the option to leave it at their military Base.
Which was introduced to lower the risk of suicide. No idea the impact of this policy though.
One important point is that, swiss people aren’t strongly divided or proudly displaying their, political affiliations. I think their are fights, protest and riot. But never it would come in the mind of anyone to bring a gun to such events.
Mass shooting are very rare and even though OP says people buy guns. I dont know anyone who has one. Beside for hunting.
We also have a pretty good social security and different safety nets. So this help.
All great information, but none of it really answers the original question.
Not meaning that as an insult, but I was also wondering what point it serves to have the weapon at home but to not be allowed to have ammunition for said weapon.
It being part of the “army kit” certainly makes sense, but that only reinforces the validity of the question; if the rifle is part of the kit, surely the ammo is too. And if the ammo is part of the kit but has to stay on base, then it seems nonsensical to have the weapon stored in a different location…for the same stated reason.
Well, they’re both wrong. If you have a permit to own a particular type of weapon, you can buy the ammunition. Military rifles are a weird category of their own. Up until fairly recently, you were given a sealed, 50-round box of ammo for your service rifle, so that you could respond quickly if the militia was called up. That’s been discontinued. But you can still quite legally buy ammunition for your service rifle as long as you have permits for that type of firearm otherwise. (This is based on what I can find and read regarding gun regulation in Switzerland, although some of this may have changed since the EU imposed new restrictions on member states.)
There is some variance in application of gun laws, as many of the permits are ‘may issue’ rather than ‘shall issue’.
I could be wrong. I would suggest consulting with someone that specializes in Swiss firearms law, as some writeups are giving contradictory answers.
Regardless: Swiss gun ownership is estimated to be among the highest in the world, with the US being highest by far. Despite their very high rates of gun ownership, they also have a very, very low homicide rate in general, and their rate of gun crime is microscopic.
Assuming the guns are target trained, it is much more easy to store a pile of ammunition somewhere and tell everyone to come and get some in an emergency, than having to transfer the rifles whenever someone decides to move. The alternative of course is no personal ownership of the rifles, but aside from the familiarity and training it also adds a symbolic sense of responsibility and association. The scene in jarhead comes to my mind where they are told to make this “there is many like this, but this one is mine” chant over their marksman rifles.
Right on. Part of the weird fetish is that perceived need to defend themselves from the government.
It’s as stupid as it is antiquated and was never a thing among patriots and decent Americans, only among people who were literally rebels: slavers and separatists, the exact people the Second Amendment was written to protect against.
The words “security of the state” are the express, stated purpose of the Second Amendment, right there in the text, and rebellion was expressly cited at the Convention by the framers.
“decent” seems to be doing some heavy lifting here. A linguistic analysis of writings of the Framers cross-referenced against era culture and stats highlights the depth of your misunderstanding.
right there in the text
Ah - I see we’re not only cherry-picking, but we’re depending on a preamble e.g. a preparatory or introductory statement as somehow limiting of scope or indicative of audience to which a right was granted.
Delusional. Learn to read.
Shrinking middle class and people in an endless hopeless pointless life of stress and struggle. Over half the USA can’t read at a 6th grade level. Ignorance and stupidity are the primary leverage force used as a political power base. It is a negative feedback loop. Billionaires are a measure of effective democracy in the USA. Their wealth comes from the lack of laws and how they exploit loopholes. They in turn fund politicians that use misinformation and stupidity to maintain the laws at an inadequate level. No one intelligent would vote for these politician and therefore they thrive on a campaign of misinformation and strive to enact policies that keep the population malleable to misinformation. All one has to do is look for where the dumbest, poorest people are located and the lines are clearly seen. These areas are undereducated with poor opportunities because of their leaders who only work for the billionaire oligarchy at the expense of those the directly represent and everyone else they drag down with them. There are no honest billionaires on this planet.
I agree completely but just so you know, it’s a positive feedback loop even if the outcome is negative.
A positive feedback loop is one where the input creates an output that then increases the input further, which in turn further increases the output.
A negative feedback loop is one where the input creates an output that then lessens the input, which in turn decreases the output.
Shrinking middle class begets ignorance. Political forces capitalize on ignorance to misinform and manipulate the masses to elect people and enact policies that are not in their best interest. Doing so further erodes the middle class and decreases education, begetting further ignorance, misinformation, and political extremism. Positive feedback loop.
(Sorry if this was pedantic but it reminded me of a very specific learning moment I had with an old science teacher of mine about this exact distinction)
Shrinking middle class begets ignorance
We literally have the most educated populace in our history.
This isn’t about ignorance.
I’d argue that’s it’s a negative feedback loop because the outputs are less good things: like a well sized middle class and a learned population.
It’s not about good things or bad things
Negative feedback loop: X is added to the system, which causes less X to be produced. Over time, the rate at which new X is appearing will go down.
- This is the more common one in biology. As something starts to build up in your body, your body makes it so you don’t produce it as quickly (so you don’t ‘overdose’ on the chemicals you are making)
Positive feedback loop: X is added to the system, which causes more X to be produced. Over time, the rate at which new X is appearing will go up.
- This is more rare because it pushes to an extreme. Example might be birth, where pressure on the uterus causes the release of oxytocin, which causes contractions, which causes more pressure, even more oxytocin, etc. till birth is completed
So in this case it’s a positive feedback loop regardless, because something is being pushed to the extreme.
Ooh, now do positive vs. negative reinforcement!
No
Ok fine:
Reinforcement encourages a behavior, but the method depends
- positive = add something good (ex. When they do something good, you give them a cookie)
- negative = remove something bad (ex. When they do something good, you reduce the number of hours they have to work)
The wording can flip the meaning, so don’t get too hung up on it
- ex. Give a cookie (positive), could also be reducing hunger
- ex. Reducing work hours (negative), could also be giving more vacation time
yeah, there’s nothing to argue here. These are scientific definitions of the two terms. A positive feedback loop can be negative in terms of consequences, but it doesn’t change the fact that the loop is defined as a positive feedback loop.
The words “positive” or “negative” in terms of the loop definition do not refer to “good” or “bad”, but rather the mathematical definitions of “additive/multiplicative” or “subtractive/divisive”. A positive feedback loop is an additive or multiplicative function whereby inputs increase outputs which increase inputs which increase outputs.
A classic example is a snowball rolling down a hill that grows in size and gains speed. Whether or not the snowball grows big enough and rolls fast enough to annihilate the school at the bottom of the hill, it doesn’t change the fact that by definition the feedback loop that is generating a larger and larger and faster and faster snowball is defined as positive.
An example of a negative feedback loop could be you getting sick. The input being viral or bacterial particles enter your body, the output is your body temperature increases, which kills the pathogens thereby decreasing the input. The decrease in pathogens then signals to your body that the infection is receding, and you body temperature returns to normal (decreased output). You healing from a sickness is a positive (good) thing, but the feedback loop that did it, is a negative one.
When I visited the USA, I was shocked at the number of clearly not sane people that were wandering the streets, shouting at things only they could see in their minds, etc.
Those are just the visibly mentally ill people, a vast number of others go under the radar.
In my country I’ve seen people like this maybe twice in my entire lifetime, in the USA I saw a dozen over a 6 month period. It was WILD. It’s something you should expect to almost never see in your lifetime, if you’re seeing it with any regularity? - There’s something very wrong.
These people need to be in mental healthcare, be it a mental hospital for those in most serious condition, or varying levels of care and assistance further down.
But… They don’t have a functioning healthcare system in the USA, let alone mental healthcare. All they have really are private companies acting like vultures picking at the dying masses pulling cash and misery out of them.
They’re the richest failed state I’ve ever seen. The wide dissonance between their existence as a functioning first world nation and their existence as a state with a deeply crumbling failed interior that’s only further falling apart year after year is kinda wild.
I really hope they can have a bit of cultural and societal revolution and right the ship, there are so many wonderful people there and so much to fight for.
But I think for all their supposed cultural love of fighting for their rights and freedoms, they’re just too oppressed by the rich and the powerful to organise and fight for a better nation :-(
See, the problem is, they’re not used to thinking that the state should look after it’s people and their well being. The polititians hide this behind “free will” and so they leave indivudals to do whatever they like. This is all good, but everyone needs help once in a while… we’ve all had our ups and downs, but people there are used to dealing with any downfall by themselves. Sure, this strengthens some individuals, but others… they fall down a rabbit hole 🤷.
So, they see nothing wrong with the way the state is being run and that’s why they don’t aso for changes by the state. Plus, a large portion of the US is not well educated, which of course dumbs down critical thinking.
Not a US citizen, just my 2 cents on your comment.
“Cultural love of rights and freedoms”
Which includes being mentally ill in the streets. Despite what you are saying, it’s not because of a for-profit system, it’s because SCOTUS has literally ruled it to be illegal to involuntarily commit people who are not an imminent danger to themselves or others (a for-profit system actually benefits from involuntary commitment). This means that any mentally ill people can simply refuse treatment and roam the streets and that’s exactly what they do.
Cult of fame coupled with crippling hopelessness caused by late stage capitalism.
And the 80s? ruling that guns were meant to be for self defense; up til then the 2nd amendment was not read that way
laTe sTAgE cAPItalIsM
I really hate that this is used as though it means anything at all to most people. It’s not an argument by itself.
Late Stage Capitalism: Poverty is worse than anytime after slavery, wealthy people have never been wealthier, police brutality is at the highest since slavery, workers rights are trending back towards the second Industrial Revolution, politics recognizes corporations as people (thus robbing those who cannot compete with billions upon billions of dollars), civil rights are receding, basic necessities are becoming scarce, the environment itself is being poisoned for profit, etc.
Fox News was founded October 7th 1996, just over 27 calendar yesrs ago. Remember when all the racists were emboldened by Trump being elected, Imagine the slow and steady change after giving them their own justification media machine that spreads FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) for profit of everyone who pays them including weapons manufactureres.
Meanwhile, before mass shootings, murder was a lot more common and society was more prone to violence.
Violence has been in a downwards spiral, regardless what is pushed to public forum.
Not saying you’re wrong, but a source to go with that would be great.
Not the same person but here you go
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States has a few sources and an easy to consume table. Per its table, rates since 1960 peaked in the 80s at 10.2/100k population; Columbine was in 1999, when the rate was 5.7 per 100k, and until at least 2018, the rate has never exceeded that.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate has slightly different data and shows that the murder rates increased past that rate during COVID. However in 2022 the rates dropped - source and were expected to continue dropping at that rate or even faster. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-murder-rate-decline-crime-statistics/674290/ confirms that theory - rates for the 90 reporting cities were down 12% as of May of this year.
I see the data you’ve linked, but find it fascinating what the parent comment is implying.
OP is asking: “guns have been around for so long, why are mass shootings more common only recently?”
Parent comment’s answer is “total murder rates used to be higher before, and the rate is now less than what it used to be before”
Even looking at your homocide data, what does that mean? Why have mass shootings increased?
And the further question that brings to my mind is: are people putting these 2 pieces of unrelated data together, to draw the conclusions that support their own bias? Great that overall murder rates are down compared to the 70s and 80s…but that doesn’t mean the country doesn’t have a gun problem, or that mass shootings aren’t unnecessary and avoidable deaths and a sign of some underlying unhealthiness in a community.
Mass shootings weren’t even defined before. We didn’t talk about them because they weren’t tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn’t settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.
Can we factor in things counted as massacres rather than mass shootings?
I’d like to point how polite I think your wording is. That’s probably the least offensive way to ask for a citation.
I’m not in the US but just a few weeks back I was listening to a podcast where, in my country, although violence against women still occurs (their were focusing on murder) while this year there had already been around 16 cases, thirty years back that would be the number for a single quarter. And from that point on, it was a general talk about violence in society.
Hyper-sensationalism of the violence and its impact gave those seeking revenge and suicide a convenient two-in-one option.
Modern societies crush people. It breaks them. There are huge contradictions too: the idea of working to succeed when it is actually not working. The idea of freedom vs the wage slavery. The idea of being in a powerful and advanced country but still poor as fuck.
And then you have this culture of guns and violence. They go togethet: you get guns because you believe it can fix problems. Because you believe that killing people can fix problems.
Add 2 and 2 together: you have these life crushing problems, and guns as problem solver. Society provoque the problem. Kill them. Kill them all. Maybe they’ll understand after that and change something.
Far right and conspiracy theory give a theoric foundation for people to focus their rage or despair too.
And this is exactly how the system is designed to work. The purpose of the US gun madness is to keep the population scared. Scared people are more likely to agree to having their rights taken away in the name of “safety”. Having constant mass shootings just helps keep up the atmosphere of fear that authoritarians thrive on.
Hey Alex Jones, didn’t you lose a lawsuit over this shit?
Modern societies crush people. It breaks them.
The world has been pretty shit for the entirety of history. Working conditions are better than they ever have been. People make more than they ever have. Crime is dropping year-over-year.
Arguing that this is occuring because everything is getting worse is just completely and utterly wrong. Quality of life is increasing greatly for the average person.
All these words and not one about having way better guns than before.
Unadulterated hate and fear propaganda pumped into everyone’s heads every day and night
Columbine.
The media went absolutely batshit. Who were they? Why did they do it? Interview absolutely everyone! The public must know. And they tuned in in their droves to find out.
Incel types took note. If you’ve failed at life and want five minutes of fame, grab a gun and head back to school.
We haven’t had AR15s for 200 years. The real answer though is more likely cultural, because there are plenty of countries with permissive gun laws who have much lower rates of gun homicide than the US.
While we haven’t had AR15s for that long, full autos were legal for private ownership prior to 1986
And ARs go back to the 50s-60s IIRC
Misdirection of values. We tell children there’s a path, go to school, get a job, find a spouse, get married, get a house and have kids, but life isn’t that simple. As life introduces chaos into the path, people fall off and some have a hard time getting back on. We’ve spent so much time on developing social media and marketing platforms that idolize those that make it through the path that no one looks out for those that fall off, making them feel isolated and unheard. Niche social media and mass marketing for weapons has made it easy for lone wolves to seek revenge on the system that let them down.
I think we can generally say the above is true across all political spectrums. The below might be rejected, but it’s my view.
The right has made increasingly extreme statements to pull in these vulnerable people in order to make them feel heard, but it’s just for show and votes. We’ve seen how politicians like Trump are really just using them for his own gains and as the NRA funnels more money into the “system”, it really takes huge government action to curb this cycle.
