Clearly it’s a mental illness created by the various media emphasizing the worst with little corresponding portrayal of the actual reality . Add to that is a politically insane neglectful culture
AR-15s are used in fewer homicides than hammers are.
They include 18-19 year old gang members in the child deaths by guns stats.
If some gang shoots at another gang within a few hundred feet of a school at night or on a weekend, groups like Everytown for Gun Control count it as a school mass shooting.
Why do civilians need modern sporting rifles like the AR-15?
Because the federal government and Democrat-run state governments took the mask off during Covid and showed us that they absolutely believe they have the right to control the population based on unscientific nonsense.
During the Biden admin we’ve seen the DoJ, led by wunderkind Merrick Garland, push hard to prosecute and convict over 1,000 people, all bit a few of whom were non-violent, while it turns out the FBI had 26 informants at that riot. Including ones who entered the capitol, who were not charged.
Meanwhile, despite riots across the country that damaged billions in property and caused almost 30 deaths and numerous injuries to officers, along with a 70 night siege of the federal courthouse in Portland, there were fewer than 200 federal convictions.
I shall keep my rifles and other firearms because the government and many of my fellow citizens aren’t trustworthy enough for me to place my life in their hands should they create an excuse to take umbrage with me.
Go take aim at gun crime in the Black community because that’s where over half the gun homicides happen.
Regarding your story about an unarmed aggressor being shot in a road rage incident, that’s his own fucking fault. Unarmed doesn’t mean he’s not a threat. People die or experience serious brain damage from getting knocked out and having their head slap pavement.
I don’t know how to box, so if someone gets aggressive with me and I don’t have an escape, they’re gonna get ventilated regardless of the status of their personal armament.
It's people like you who are our problem. Why is it that I can show all the statistics of what it's like in other countries compared to the U.S. and you don't ask the question, Why? Because there are too many angry, violent people like yourself in the U.S. That is part of the problem. Many of the mass shootings are committed by mentally ill people who are able to get guns because of the permissive attitude we have here in the U.S. And it's people like you who allow this. Do I think all gun owners should have their guns taken away? No, I never said that, but stringent laws that ensure that people who do own guns are responsible and have no criminal record of violence like in other countries where there is far less gun violence are needed to protect us. The guy in the road rage incident was killed by someone who is experiencing mental illness and yet he is allowed to carry a gun. There were other options for him but instead he chose murder and got away with it.
Sure, you’re going to stop a swat team or military contingent with tanks with your gun? Tell me now who is mentally ill? In fact, what you are saying is absolutely crazy.
Your inability to access and absorb basic knowledge of the differences in behavior of governments with an unarmed populace vs an armed populace is your intellectual failing.
Why do you think the police are polite at protests where people are open-carrying rifles? Hint: it’s not because they are friends with the protesters.
Given the ample publicly available info on how populations overseas have reacted to U.S. soldiers, do you truly think resistance would be people like me fighting a standup battle in the open?
Educate yourself and stop buying into the propaganda of the ruling class that the main problem is firearms rather than the societal despair they’ve created.
Brazil has more strict gun control than we do yet they have more firearms deaths than we do even though they have 134 million less people than we do.
As for our country and firearms deaths.... Of course we have more deaths than most countries that allow firearms. Why? Because we're the third highest population country in the world. We're actually 18% of the world population. It's statistically inevitable that our numbers would be the highest since China and India have stricter gun ownership rights.
But let's look at the actual numbers.
In 2023 there were 46,728 gun deaths in the USA and the population was 334.9 million.
So if we do the math, 46,728÷334,900,000 = 0.00014
So since we're going for percentage, we move the decimal right two and we get .01% that's one HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT of the population killed by firearms.
Now let's take suicide out of that. That leaves us with 18,874 deaths out of 334.9 million people.
So 18,874÷334,900,000 = 0.0000564
So .005 percent.... Five THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT of our population are killed by firearms. This number includes "righteous shots" where criminals were stopped by guns.
So to break it down.... You actually have a higher chance of getting run over by a car than you do getting shot, and there are way more guns (500 million) in the country than cars (283 million) by almost double.
So how do we stop gun violence?
More gun laws that take them out of the hands of the good guy? There are already over twenty THOUSAND gun laws in effect in the US as of 2024.
If a civilian shoots somebody you blame the gun.
If a cop shoots somebody you blame the cop.
So we can start by holding the rest of America to the same accountability that we hold cops to.
Maybe if we focused on the real problem in America rather than the tool that's used, we'd actually make the country a better place.
Speaking of the tool....
The CDC previously reported that firearms are more likely to save lives in self-defense incidents than be used to take one in a violent crime. The report was based on a study by Gary Kleck, a professor emeritus at the University of Florida, and found that:
Between 60,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses happen every year in the United States.
Some studies have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used.
However, the CDC later removed the report after pressure from gun control activists. The CDC's acting principal deputy director, Dr. Deb Houry, argued that the study only inspected a small subset of people who have used guns defensively. The CDC reportedly did not consult the study's author, Gary Kleck, prior to removing his study.
Interestingly enough, what IS still available online are the stats on pharmaceuticals and opiates.
Per Capita the US consumes 40% more pharmaceuticals than the second ranked country (Germany).
While the US makes up 4.4% of the world's population, it consumes over 80% of the world's opioids.
If you still think it's a gun problem, you're not actually paying attention.
Why not compare the stats with other countries that have strict gun control? And how many of those defensive uses were defending against other gun users? Was that considered in the study? Seems to me to be important when you're advocating for gun ownership. If others don't have guns, then there's less need of a gun to defend yourself. While I do agree, our culture is different and far more violent than European nations or Japan, for instance, common sense gun control measures work in those nations and I believe they will at least reduce school shootings. It is absurd, considering the increasing number of school and mass shootings in the U.S. as the number of guns owned by the public increases. Here's an article worth looking at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts
And this is three years old (actually many of the stats are much older) and doesn't reflect the recent huge uptick in school and mass shootings.
You're so worried about America's stats vs other countries.
Who honestly gives a shit what other countries' stats are.
Fix the mental health issues instead of blaming the tools used by mentally ill evil people.
Yes I'm a pro gun advocate. I see nothing good in stripping the entire population of their constitutional rights because of the actions of evil people that make up less than a percent of the population.
You food stats in your article to make it look even worse while completely ignoring other questions that YOU YOURSELF ask in your article, because answering the questions would counter your anti gun agenda.
You're the epitome of irresponsible wannabe journalists. Have the day you deserve.
Because it's a valid comparison -- don't you understand that? If it works for others, it can work for us. We don't live in an isolated vacuum; we are all part of the human race. Yes, cultural differences can have an effect, and our culture has an obsession with guns. There is no doubt about that. Just listen to our national anthem. Just consider the endless wars. I seriously think that people who advocate for more guns are mentally ill because they are unable to see the inevitable consequence of possessing so many guns in the U.S. It's sick. It's like your comparison with drug accessibility. The more we have, the harder to control.
I suggest checking out Scott Carney's interview of Dr Ragy Girgis regarding actual research with an evidence base looking at what makes mass murder happen. Special note: it's not mental illness, which features in only a tiny percentage.
Also found this on another site: "The perpetrators are more likely to be angry, vengeful individuals who seek retribution for a perceived harm done by some person, group, or institution. Moreover, mass public shooting incidents are generally premeditated and often planned well in advance of their commission."
That may not be a clinical description of mental illness, but wouldn't you say that anger and vengeance are a symptom of someone who is not in psychological balance? I think most people would consider such a person mentally ill. My common sense tells me anyone who murders someone is mentally ill. They may not qualify for insanity under the law because they carry it out in a pre-meditated manner. That doesn't mean they're not mentally ill. I think to say they are or are not mentally ill is a matter of semantics. The fact that we refuse to pass stronger legislation to control guns to decrease these shootings is in fact insane, or a sign of societal mental illness.
Listening to Girgis now and he's saying that mass murderers are not necessarily psychotic but normal people. Does that mean they are not suffering from some mental disturbance or angst? Of course they are or they wouldn't be murdering someone. So, to me, he's missing something here and not identifying the problem. Is it inequity in society or unfairness towards that person that they can't deal with in a civilized way -- is that sane behavior? I think not. I have listened further to this guy and I'm not impressed. He's not very articulate and then he starts talking about the Bible ??? The Nazis weren't psychopaths? Ok, they just liked mass murder.
I understand your common sense point that somebody with an ax to grind, then acting out the rage, is not experiencing emotional health. Not well-being.
We need to remember that terms like 'mental illness' carry specific meanings… There must be a psychiatric diagnosis, not just someone getting into a rage. Someone with a limited ability to respond to an incessant emotional wind up.
I agree that Dr Girgis is not very articulate… And I think that's because he is somewhat anxious being on camera.
Screwing his eyes up and frowning into the camera… The guy has had no media training.
Introvert researchers are not advertising men! but that only strengthens my view of his evidence.
Surely you're looking *at the evidence*, not how he presents himself?
I need an answer to this question before presenting anything else. We can't be discussing these points intelligently based just on charisma.
Or are you saying that you have a fixed conviction about the sole solution to the mass shooting issue, therefore he can't be right?
No, his poor public speaking skills only added to my disagreement.
Here’s the thing. If someone actually murders another in cold blood, especially mass murder with an assault rifle, tearing apart the bodies of children like what happened in Uvalde — you think that person was sane? I can’t imagine any sane person who could even endure carrying that out. Who cares whether or not it was premeditated. And this gives support to the gun advocates who say it’s not the gun by saying these people are not insane because this is a major reason for strict gun control to get it out of the hands of mentally ill people. When you start saying this is not due to mental illness, then there’s another reason not to enforce gun control. It’s the access to guns, and there is so much access because there are so many guns. it makes it easier for mentally ill people to get them. Let’s not start saying people who murder others are sane, because it isn’t proven clinically. Like I said, just because it’s not premeditated doesn’t mean it’s sane. Dr Girgis is over analyzing this issue and it gives support to the Pro-gun people.
Frank, I sent you a long explanation for me reaction to Dr. Girgis. But for some reason it doesn’t look like it was posted.
I’ll try again and this time save it before posting.
No, Dr. Girgis didn’t not put me off because of his poor speaking skills. It was his idea that mental illness is not the primary cause of mass shootings.
First of all, in a court of law, a person must be adjudged clinically insane to plead insanity. But, and this is the big BUTT, if it’s premeditated, then they can’t plead insanity, as being discussed in the Luigi case.
But I ask you, do you think if someone goes into a school with an assault rifle and a preconceived plan to shoot a shitload of children, tearing their bodies apart (as described by a doctor who saw their remains in the emergency room in Uvalde), can endure such a thing and be sane?
What concerns me is that the Pro-Gun NRA people will use such superficial thinking of Dr. Girgis to their advantage. We can still have lots of guns because we don’t need to limit guns to mentally ill people because that’s not why people murder others — see what I mean? Even though they also say it’s not the guns but mental illness. But then they can turn it around the other way too.
They won’t even pass a law against assault rifles, and that’s a whole different argument, but equally insane that civilians can possess them.
It drives me crazy that people can’t use their common sense to understand that the easier it is to access guns and the more guns there are, the more they will be used to kill people.
Is that so hard to understand? Or am I the one who is crazy?
(2) the romanticisation that makes it comfortable to feel that firing one, maybe towards a person, is on the menu of acceptable ways to express feelings....
... are much more important than diagnosable illnesses in mass shootings.
Yet, like you, I pause on the thought..."if the mass shooter is basically going through a drawn-out suicidal event, he cannot be in his right mind. So how do non-crazy people get into such states?"
And then I think of my mother, taking up a cudgel to strike me in the fury of her frustration. Or a thorny branch of a rosebush, or garden hose with a metal end.
When asked about this in later years, she denied ever doing these things. I couldn't tell whether she never made the memory trace, or whether she had a denial system protecting her from feeling how she behaved.
They would call this a crime of passion in court.
So, she loved me, and also would let her self go into a fit of violence at times. Insane? It's a conundrum, especially for the victim.
I think an explanation is that we swim in a practised, normalised manner through a soup of 'potentially crazy' that goes quite wide, an oceanscape of mental possibilities. Creative, yes, but needs curation and stewardship (I cannot believe how shockingly understated that sounds.)
Those who can keep to a normalised manner with great consistency regarding as "normal". Maybe even superior.
But we do not call the white trash father thrashing his child crazy, but ignorant.
Is the American people ignorant, to a tragic extent?
So, Frank, tell me what it is, because every time I read a report about someone who commits a mass shooting, they are definitely mentally disabled. I'll take a look at it, but common sense tells me someone has to be deranged, misled, or confused about their circumstance to senselessly kill a group of people -- no? I guess you could say that what's happening in Gaza is mass murder. That's motivated by pure hatred and evil.
All about the $$$ — it’s become capitalism on steroids. What led to the Great Depression is happening all over again. When will we ever learn?
Europeans especially won’t travel here because it is not safe.
Clearly it’s a mental illness created by the various media emphasizing the worst with little corresponding portrayal of the actual reality . Add to that is a politically insane neglectful culture
AR-15s are used in fewer homicides than hammers are.
They include 18-19 year old gang members in the child deaths by guns stats.
If some gang shoots at another gang within a few hundred feet of a school at night or on a weekend, groups like Everytown for Gun Control count it as a school mass shooting.
Why do civilians need modern sporting rifles like the AR-15?
Because the federal government and Democrat-run state governments took the mask off during Covid and showed us that they absolutely believe they have the right to control the population based on unscientific nonsense.
During the Biden admin we’ve seen the DoJ, led by wunderkind Merrick Garland, push hard to prosecute and convict over 1,000 people, all bit a few of whom were non-violent, while it turns out the FBI had 26 informants at that riot. Including ones who entered the capitol, who were not charged.
Meanwhile, despite riots across the country that damaged billions in property and caused almost 30 deaths and numerous injuries to officers, along with a 70 night siege of the federal courthouse in Portland, there were fewer than 200 federal convictions.
I shall keep my rifles and other firearms because the government and many of my fellow citizens aren’t trustworthy enough for me to place my life in their hands should they create an excuse to take umbrage with me.
Go take aim at gun crime in the Black community because that’s where over half the gun homicides happen.
Regarding your story about an unarmed aggressor being shot in a road rage incident, that’s his own fucking fault. Unarmed doesn’t mean he’s not a threat. People die or experience serious brain damage from getting knocked out and having their head slap pavement.
I don’t know how to box, so if someone gets aggressive with me and I don’t have an escape, they’re gonna get ventilated regardless of the status of their personal armament.
Run up get done up.
It's people like you who are our problem. Why is it that I can show all the statistics of what it's like in other countries compared to the U.S. and you don't ask the question, Why? Because there are too many angry, violent people like yourself in the U.S. That is part of the problem. Many of the mass shootings are committed by mentally ill people who are able to get guns because of the permissive attitude we have here in the U.S. And it's people like you who allow this. Do I think all gun owners should have their guns taken away? No, I never said that, but stringent laws that ensure that people who do own guns are responsible and have no criminal record of violence like in other countries where there is far less gun violence are needed to protect us. The guy in the road rage incident was killed by someone who is experiencing mental illness and yet he is allowed to carry a gun. There were other options for him but instead he chose murder and got away with it.
I’m not a violent person. I am a gun owner.
Those other countries have a populace that’s at the mercy of the government. What part of that are you not understanding?
The U.S. government is not trustworthy. It’s already full of mediocre authoritarian bureaucrats who love flexing their power on the commoners.
Taking my guns away won’t stop the mental health crisis. So what problem would it solve, other than making you feel an imaginary sense of safety?
I am not committing gun violence but you’re blaming me.
How about I blame crazy people like you for the mental health crisis?
Sure, you’re going to stop a swat team or military contingent with tanks with your gun? Tell me now who is mentally ill? In fact, what you are saying is absolutely crazy.
Your inability to access and absorb basic knowledge of the differences in behavior of governments with an unarmed populace vs an armed populace is your intellectual failing.
Why do you think the police are polite at protests where people are open-carrying rifles? Hint: it’s not because they are friends with the protesters.
Given the ample publicly available info on how populations overseas have reacted to U.S. soldiers, do you truly think resistance would be people like me fighting a standup battle in the open?
Educate yourself and stop buying into the propaganda of the ruling class that the main problem is firearms rather than the societal despair they’ve created.
Ok. Let's talk about it...
Brazil has more strict gun control than we do yet they have more firearms deaths than we do even though they have 134 million less people than we do.
As for our country and firearms deaths.... Of course we have more deaths than most countries that allow firearms. Why? Because we're the third highest population country in the world. We're actually 18% of the world population. It's statistically inevitable that our numbers would be the highest since China and India have stricter gun ownership rights.
But let's look at the actual numbers.
In 2023 there were 46,728 gun deaths in the USA and the population was 334.9 million.
So if we do the math, 46,728÷334,900,000 = 0.00014
So since we're going for percentage, we move the decimal right two and we get .01% that's one HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT of the population killed by firearms.
Now let's take suicide out of that. That leaves us with 18,874 deaths out of 334.9 million people.
So 18,874÷334,900,000 = 0.0000564
So .005 percent.... Five THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT of our population are killed by firearms. This number includes "righteous shots" where criminals were stopped by guns.
So to break it down.... You actually have a higher chance of getting run over by a car than you do getting shot, and there are way more guns (500 million) in the country than cars (283 million) by almost double.
So how do we stop gun violence?
More gun laws that take them out of the hands of the good guy? There are already over twenty THOUSAND gun laws in effect in the US as of 2024.
If a civilian shoots somebody you blame the gun.
If a cop shoots somebody you blame the cop.
So we can start by holding the rest of America to the same accountability that we hold cops to.
Maybe if we focused on the real problem in America rather than the tool that's used, we'd actually make the country a better place.
Speaking of the tool....
The CDC previously reported that firearms are more likely to save lives in self-defense incidents than be used to take one in a violent crime. The report was based on a study by Gary Kleck, a professor emeritus at the University of Florida, and found that:
Between 60,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses happen every year in the United States.
Some studies have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used.
However, the CDC later removed the report after pressure from gun control activists. The CDC's acting principal deputy director, Dr. Deb Houry, argued that the study only inspected a small subset of people who have used guns defensively. The CDC reportedly did not consult the study's author, Gary Kleck, prior to removing his study.
Interestingly enough, what IS still available online are the stats on pharmaceuticals and opiates.
Per Capita the US consumes 40% more pharmaceuticals than the second ranked country (Germany).
While the US makes up 4.4% of the world's population, it consumes over 80% of the world's opioids.
If you still think it's a gun problem, you're not actually paying attention.
Why not compare the stats with other countries that have strict gun control? And how many of those defensive uses were defending against other gun users? Was that considered in the study? Seems to me to be important when you're advocating for gun ownership. If others don't have guns, then there's less need of a gun to defend yourself. While I do agree, our culture is different and far more violent than European nations or Japan, for instance, common sense gun control measures work in those nations and I believe they will at least reduce school shootings. It is absurd, considering the increasing number of school and mass shootings in the U.S. as the number of guns owned by the public increases. Here's an article worth looking at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts
And this is three years old (actually many of the stats are much older) and doesn't reflect the recent huge uptick in school and mass shootings.
You're so worried about America's stats vs other countries.
Who honestly gives a shit what other countries' stats are.
Fix the mental health issues instead of blaming the tools used by mentally ill evil people.
Yes I'm a pro gun advocate. I see nothing good in stripping the entire population of their constitutional rights because of the actions of evil people that make up less than a percent of the population.
You food stats in your article to make it look even worse while completely ignoring other questions that YOU YOURSELF ask in your article, because answering the questions would counter your anti gun agenda.
You're the epitome of irresponsible wannabe journalists. Have the day you deserve.
Because it's a valid comparison -- don't you understand that? If it works for others, it can work for us. We don't live in an isolated vacuum; we are all part of the human race. Yes, cultural differences can have an effect, and our culture has an obsession with guns. There is no doubt about that. Just listen to our national anthem. Just consider the endless wars. I seriously think that people who advocate for more guns are mentally ill because they are unable to see the inevitable consequence of possessing so many guns in the U.S. It's sick. It's like your comparison with drug accessibility. The more we have, the harder to control.
Like I said.... Epitome of irresponsible wannabe journalists.
I suggest checking out Scott Carney's interview of Dr Ragy Girgis regarding actual research with an evidence base looking at what makes mass murder happen. Special note: it's not mental illness, which features in only a tiny percentage.
Ok, I found Dr. Girgis -- he's a psychiatrist.
Also found this on another site: "The perpetrators are more likely to be angry, vengeful individuals who seek retribution for a perceived harm done by some person, group, or institution. Moreover, mass public shooting incidents are generally premeditated and often planned well in advance of their commission."
That may not be a clinical description of mental illness, but wouldn't you say that anger and vengeance are a symptom of someone who is not in psychological balance? I think most people would consider such a person mentally ill. My common sense tells me anyone who murders someone is mentally ill. They may not qualify for insanity under the law because they carry it out in a pre-meditated manner. That doesn't mean they're not mentally ill. I think to say they are or are not mentally ill is a matter of semantics. The fact that we refuse to pass stronger legislation to control guns to decrease these shootings is in fact insane, or a sign of societal mental illness.
Listening to Girgis now and he's saying that mass murderers are not necessarily psychotic but normal people. Does that mean they are not suffering from some mental disturbance or angst? Of course they are or they wouldn't be murdering someone. So, to me, he's missing something here and not identifying the problem. Is it inequity in society or unfairness towards that person that they can't deal with in a civilized way -- is that sane behavior? I think not. I have listened further to this guy and I'm not impressed. He's not very articulate and then he starts talking about the Bible ??? The Nazis weren't psychopaths? Ok, they just liked mass murder.
Hi Tom, Thanks for your considerable response.
I understand your common sense point that somebody with an ax to grind, then acting out the rage, is not experiencing emotional health. Not well-being.
We need to remember that terms like 'mental illness' carry specific meanings… There must be a psychiatric diagnosis, not just someone getting into a rage. Someone with a limited ability to respond to an incessant emotional wind up.
I agree that Dr Girgis is not very articulate… And I think that's because he is somewhat anxious being on camera.
Screwing his eyes up and frowning into the camera… The guy has had no media training.
Introvert researchers are not advertising men! but that only strengthens my view of his evidence.
Surely you're looking *at the evidence*, not how he presents himself?
I need an answer to this question before presenting anything else. We can't be discussing these points intelligently based just on charisma.
Or are you saying that you have a fixed conviction about the sole solution to the mass shooting issue, therefore he can't be right?
No, his poor public speaking skills only added to my disagreement.
Here’s the thing. If someone actually murders another in cold blood, especially mass murder with an assault rifle, tearing apart the bodies of children like what happened in Uvalde — you think that person was sane? I can’t imagine any sane person who could even endure carrying that out. Who cares whether or not it was premeditated. And this gives support to the gun advocates who say it’s not the gun by saying these people are not insane because this is a major reason for strict gun control to get it out of the hands of mentally ill people. When you start saying this is not due to mental illness, then there’s another reason not to enforce gun control. It’s the access to guns, and there is so much access because there are so many guns. it makes it easier for mentally ill people to get them. Let’s not start saying people who murder others are sane, because it isn’t proven clinically. Like I said, just because it’s not premeditated doesn’t mean it’s sane. Dr Girgis is over analyzing this issue and it gives support to the Pro-gun people.
Frank, I sent you a long explanation for me reaction to Dr. Girgis. But for some reason it doesn’t look like it was posted.
I’ll try again and this time save it before posting.
No, Dr. Girgis didn’t not put me off because of his poor speaking skills. It was his idea that mental illness is not the primary cause of mass shootings.
First of all, in a court of law, a person must be adjudged clinically insane to plead insanity. But, and this is the big BUTT, if it’s premeditated, then they can’t plead insanity, as being discussed in the Luigi case.
But I ask you, do you think if someone goes into a school with an assault rifle and a preconceived plan to shoot a shitload of children, tearing their bodies apart (as described by a doctor who saw their remains in the emergency room in Uvalde), can endure such a thing and be sane?
What concerns me is that the Pro-Gun NRA people will use such superficial thinking of Dr. Girgis to their advantage. We can still have lots of guns because we don’t need to limit guns to mentally ill people because that’s not why people murder others — see what I mean? Even though they also say it’s not the guns but mental illness. But then they can turn it around the other way too.
They won’t even pass a law against assault rifles, and that’s a whole different argument, but equally insane that civilians can possess them.
It drives me crazy that people can’t use their common sense to understand that the easier it is to access guns and the more guns there are, the more they will be used to kill people.
Is that so hard to understand? Or am I the one who is crazy?
I can feel the distress of this issue.
And I think Girgis made it clear that
(1) access to guns and
(2) the romanticisation that makes it comfortable to feel that firing one, maybe towards a person, is on the menu of acceptable ways to express feelings....
... are much more important than diagnosable illnesses in mass shootings.
Yet, like you, I pause on the thought..."if the mass shooter is basically going through a drawn-out suicidal event, he cannot be in his right mind. So how do non-crazy people get into such states?"
And then I think of my mother, taking up a cudgel to strike me in the fury of her frustration. Or a thorny branch of a rosebush, or garden hose with a metal end.
When asked about this in later years, she denied ever doing these things. I couldn't tell whether she never made the memory trace, or whether she had a denial system protecting her from feeling how she behaved.
They would call this a crime of passion in court.
So, she loved me, and also would let her self go into a fit of violence at times. Insane? It's a conundrum, especially for the victim.
I think an explanation is that we swim in a practised, normalised manner through a soup of 'potentially crazy' that goes quite wide, an oceanscape of mental possibilities. Creative, yes, but needs curation and stewardship (I cannot believe how shockingly understated that sounds.)
Those who can keep to a normalised manner with great consistency regarding as "normal". Maybe even superior.
But we do not call the white trash father thrashing his child crazy, but ignorant.
Is the American people ignorant, to a tragic extent?
So, Frank, tell me what it is, because every time I read a report about someone who commits a mass shooting, they are definitely mentally disabled. I'll take a look at it, but common sense tells me someone has to be deranged, misled, or confused about their circumstance to senselessly kill a group of people -- no? I guess you could say that what's happening in Gaza is mass murder. That's motivated by pure hatred and evil.