Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?

[Plasmodium]

The USA is unique in the world in many ways, one of which is mass shootings.  Why?

Edited June 22, 2023 by Plasmodium

[BobDole]

Need to rank them as far as contributing factors. I'd say almost all are in some fashion contributors.

[WrestlingRasta]

Personally think it's more of a contribution from all as opposed to being a primary.  Except for religion, I don't think religion in schools is a factor, just my opinion.

[Offthemat]

What “military grade weaponry” is easy to access?

[BobDole]

Parenting- I think one of the biggest things that isn't discussed much is the fact that many families have both parents working to make a living. Kids are at aftercare and such until 5pm and have 3-4 hours a day with their parents. If their parents aren't still together then it is likely even worse.

Religion in schools- No

Video games- Some make a bigger deal about it than it really is. It's a small affect, but not much.

Social media/Internet- Definitely a heavy influence, many on here have said people can find their groups online easier than in the past. Think about this, 20 years ago if I felt the earth was flat it was difficult to easily find others that felt this way without feeling ostracized. Now I can find thousands on Reddit or anywhere else.

Mental illness and substance abuse- This could likely be caused by things such as the internet and parenting deficiencies. Many mental illness programs have been cut drastically over the past couple decades.

Guns and gun culture- Yes

[jross]

Bob nails this with his influence comments.  Active parenting cuts down on influential factors like emotional control, video games, social media, mental illness, and substance abuse.

The easiest way to influence change is to manipulate the environment.  If you remove the guns, the mass shootings stop.  Similarly, if you replace the plates in your house with smaller plates, your household will lose weight.  No education or incentive is required for the intended change to occur.

[Offthemat]

Gun culture?  They used to teach marksmanship and safety in schools.  In scouting.  The NRA is still the largest firearm safety instruction group of all.  Guess how many mass shooters were members of the NRA.  

[BobDole]

14 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Gun culture?  They used to teach marksmanship and safety in schools.  In scouting.  The NRA is still the largest firearm safety instruction group of all.  Guess how many mass shooters were members of the NRA.  

Marksmanship and gun safety courses are good, in all honesty those should be required before you purchase a gun.

Gun owners don't have to be members of the NRA to benefit from their intense lobbying for less strict gun laws.

[Bigbrog]

As I have said in a previous thread; however, it looks like the posts were deleted for some reason, I definitely think it is parenting.  l do struggle with the comparison of our parenting to other countries as it is hard to do based on culture and societal norms being very different in each.  But for the US, parenting as swung way over into more of the enablement of a kid, lack of accountability, and guarding them from ever having to cope with difficult situations...just to name a few.  

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, BobDole said:

Marksmanship and gun safety courses are good, in all honesty those should be required before you purchase a gun.

Gun owners don't have to be members of the NRA to benefit from their intense lobbying for less strict gun laws.

Let me see, we started out with “shall not be infringed” and we’ve gotten less strict?

[WrestlingRasta]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Let me see, we started out with “shall not be infringed” and we’ve gotten less strict?

Why do people always leave “well regulated” out of that statement? 

[BobDole]

10 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Let me see, we started out with “shall not be infringed” and we’ve gotten less strict?

By your statement am I correct in assuming you would like no regulation at all? Just want to be clear on this.

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, BobDole said:

By your statement am I correct in assuming you would like no regulation at all? Just want to be clear on this.

Why do so many people on "your side" go here when it comes to discussing guns?   Where has anyone ever on here said anything about how they would like "no regulation at all"??  SMH

[BobDole]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Why do so many people on "your side" go here when it comes to discussing guns?   Where has anyone ever on here said anything about how they would like "no regulation at all"??  SMH

I'm trying to understand what he meant by his statement. I said that the NRA wants to have "less strict" gun laws and he stated that gun ownership shall not be infringed. Does that mean no regulation, some regulation, or lots of regulation? There is quite a bit to unpack from the statement saying "shall not be infringed."

[Bigbrog]

Just now, BobDole said:

I'm trying to understand what he meant by his statement. I said that the NRA wants to have "less strict" gun laws and he stated that gun ownership shall not be infringed. Does that mean no regulation, some regulation, or lots of regulation? There is quite a bit to unpack from the statement saying "shall not be infringed."

Well...what he is commenting on is not that HE wants no regulation, rather you saying because of the NRA there is less regulation, when in fact, historically we are drastically in the complete opposite direction of "gun ownership shall not be infringed" as indicated in the 2nd.  I am not saying I am a HUGE supporter of the NRA as I don't like some of the stuff they do, but to me they are an important part to balance out the two extremes...i.e., those who want to ban ALL guns and those that want absolutely NO regulation on guns and gun ownership.

[BobDole]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Well...what he is commenting on is not that HE wants no regulation, rather you saying because of the NRA there is less regulation, when in fact, historically we are drastically in the complete opposite direction of "gun ownership shall not be infringed" as indicated in the 2nd.  I am not saying I am a HUGE supporter of the NRA as I don't like some of the stuff they do, but to me they are an important part to balance out the two extremes...i.e., those who want to ban ALL guns and those that want absolutely NO regulation on guns and gun ownership.

Technically we are not following the constitution because gun ownership has been infringed with background checks, some weapon bans etc. If we want to stick to the constitution then we need to hand out guns and candy at Halloween.

The NRA constantly lobbies against almost any regulation or control of guns. Since the 1970's they have morphed from hunting, education, and marksmanship to a very strong lobbyist group that wants little to no control on gun ownership.

Unfortunately like the other side they are mostly extremists in that they don't see any middle ground as they feel anything that infringes is bad. Both are bad and if we had sensible politicians that weren't bought by either side we would have sensible regulations on ownership of guns much like we do cars that for some odd reason weren't in our beloved constitution.

[WrestlingRasta]

26 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Technically we are not following the constitution because gun ownership has been infringed with background checks, some weapon bans etc. If we want to stick to the constitution then we need to hand out guns and candy at Halloween.

 

Why do people keep leaving out “well regulated”

[Offthemat]

57 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: when in fact, historically we are drastically in the complete opposite direction of "gun ownership shall not be infringed" as indicated in the 2nd. 

This is correct.  So many laws have been passed.  So many laws have not been enforced.  Over and over again the only people hindered by them are the law abiding.  You can’t even legally buy your kids or grandkids a gift anymore.  That helps a lot, I’m sure.  

 

31 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Why do people keep leaving out “well regulated”

Because it doesn’t say: “well regulated shall not be infringed.”

[Plasmodium]

For reference, 2nd amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

IMO, a precise clarification of 'Arms' is desperately needed.

[mspart]

 

Here you go Plasi.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

22 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is correct.  So many laws have been passed.  So many laws have not been enforced.  Over and over again the only people hindered by them are the law abiding.  You can’t even legally buy your kids or grandkids a gift anymore.  That helps a lot, I’m sure.  

 

Because it doesn’t say: “well regulated shall not be infringed.”

Not in that direct order, no. But using just a portion of the statement that you think helps your cause, instead of using the whole statement for what it is….kinda part of the problem, no? 
 

On that note, shall not be infringed is the last portion of that statement. Meaning: a well regulated militia shall not be infringed; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Going further, it’s says nothing about guns. It says arms. It also does not say “the right to bear any weapon developed in the future of all mankind”

(This is the where the well regulated part comes in) 

[Offthemat]

25 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Sounds like something the NRA could get behind.  

[mspart]

Here are some thoughts on arms:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

mspart

Edited June 22, 2023 by mspart

[BobDole]

53 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is correct.  So many laws have been passed.  So many laws have not been enforced.  Over and over again the only people hindered by them are the law abiding.  You can’t even legally buy your kids or grandkids a gift anymore.  That helps a lot, I’m sure.  

 

Because it doesn’t say: “well regulated shall not be infringed.”

All laws infringe on the rights the law abiding citizens don't they? 

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Not in that direct order, no. But using just a portion of the statement that you think helps your cause, instead of using the whole statement for what it is….kinda part of the problem, no? 
 

On that note, shall not be infringed is the last portion of that statement. Meaning: a well regulated militia shall not be infringed; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Going further, it’s says nothing about guns. It says arms. It also does not say “the right to bear any weapon developed in the future of all mankind”

(This is the where the well regulated part comes in) 

Let me get this straight, you believe that after having passed around the original Constitution draft to the colonies, which contains all the wherewithal about national defense and the Commander in Chief and all, the delegates returned with their list of improvements/additions to the Constitution that had been proposed, and one of them was for the nation to be sure and give itself permission to arm and defend itself?