The perpetrators of mass shootings usually die, or plan to do so. I don’t think they are worried about their legacy as much as their present rage or desire to hurt others. I can name more than 4 school shootings using assault rifles, so some of the data presented is simply wrong. Parkland, Santa Fe, Sandy Hook, Columbine. Off the top of my heaf.
The Santa Fe shooter did not use an assault rifle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/santa-fe-shooting-suspect-guns-shotgun-revolver-2018-5
@roycroftmom - I am not sure why you are quibbling with me. I provided the data source I was using. By the way, Santa Fe involved a shotgun, not a rifle.
Hmmm…I was hoping we could discuss the sociology of our gun culture as an aggregate of variables that makes gun violence the seemingly intractable problem it has become. Arguing the 2nd Amendment is tangential to the discussion I was hoping we could engage in, and continued talk centering around it will probably result in this thread being locked. I’m more than a bit discouraged. We differ a lot on how to approach solving this problem. Some of us apparently don’t think there’s anything to be done. All of us get pretty emotional on the topic of guns, but I just want to understand the social psychology that accounts for gun violence itself. No one is willing to speculate on why more and more people go on shooting rampages? I suspect there’s something we are no longer teaching our children about their role within society, or about themselves as individuals. Are we so polarized as not to recognize the value and humanity in others, even though we may not agree with them? What’s broken? I’m not even asking how we can fix it. It’s like when cancer is present, and we know it’s there, but we refuse to diagnose it.
In the 1920’s, when you could buy guns from the Sears Roebuck catalog and have them mailed to your house, there were 3 mass shootings. Two were massacres of workers during labor strike clashes. The other was the Valentines Day Massacre gangland execution in Chicago.
In the 1930’s there were 2 mass shootings.
In the 1940’s there were 3 mass shootings, including two young African American married couples that were lynched and shot by a mob of white people.
In the 1950’s there was a single mass shooting at the U.S. Capitol, in the House of Representatives.
In the 1960’s there were 6 mass shootings, including the first school shooting, the University of Texas clock tower shooting.
In the 1970’s there were 14 mass shootings.
On June 1st, 1980 CNN and the 24-hour news cycle were born.
In the 1980’s there were 21 mass shootings.
In 1991 CNN was the only news channel capable of broadcasting from within Baghdad when the Gulf War erupted. Their reporting was carried live by television stations and networks around the world. Over 1 billion viewers were introduced to CNN in those early hours of the war. It was a seminal moment for the network.
In the 1990’s there were 29 mass shootings. There were 13 school shootings, almost double the number recorded in all other decades combined. On April 20th, 1999, the Columbine High School shooting changed everything when 2 students killed a dozen classmates, and a teacher, while wounding 2 dozen others. It was covered 24/7 for weeks, if not more.
In the 2000’s there were 36 mass shootings. On April 16th, 2007 the Virginia Tech shooting became the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
As the current decade winds down the U.S. stands at 115 mass shootings since Jan. 1st, 2010.
There were no “assault rifles” used at Columbine.
GKUnion, so do you think the 24 news cycle serves as a driver in the growing number and frequency of mass shootings? If news coverage of them changed, do you think we might witness a decrease in them? Do mass killers want the feeling of power and recognition round-the-clock news coverage provides? Makes one wonder.
@GKUnion What’s the point of your post #144 and your mention (and bolding) of CNN? Are you trying to say CNN is responsible for the increase in mass shootings? If so, that is gonzo. 
As noted in post 144, there does seem to be a notable pickup in mass shooting events starting in the 1980s/90s. This rise - greater than population growth - is in stark contrast to overall gun homicide rates, which have fallen dramatically and steadily since the early 1990s until a few years ago.
Anti-depressants (SSRIs) were introduced starting in the mid-1980s, and their use increased exponentially in subsequent decades. The public should demand the the full medical and psychological records of every mass shooter, HIPAA be damned. Change the law if need be.
This is the type of fear based gun ownership I was referencing earlier. No person needs to carry a gun to stay safe in Nashville, Memphis, or any other city. The majority of urban areas (all?) have neighborhoods to avoid. Visitors to urban areas should be street smart and avoid bad areas but to think you must tote a gun around to stay safe is not rational and is fear based. Among those I know who are gun owners and fight against any attempts at common sense gun legislation, I hear these fear based concerns a lot.
@poetsheart a good friend and I have been talking about this for months. There’s no escaping that most of the shooters are young white males. Our feeling is that they feel both entitled to a certain status and hopeless for their futures, which leads to anger and acting out. Some have been admitted incels and have found an online community where they can air their grievances and fears, including the notion of being replaced. I read the “manifesto” of the El Paso shooter and found it kind of fascinating. It’s not just about immigrants. He mentions automation (again fear of losing, this time jobs), corporate greed and environmental degradation (fear of losing the planet).
IMO, these shooters no longer feel in power and fear a perceived loss in prestige. So, that’s the WHY I think some of these guys are acting out, but they couldn’t have caused the damage without assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. Those are the two things I would like to limit. I certainly would support expanded background checks and red-flag laws, but I focus more of my efforts on eliminating access to highly lethal weapons.
For those of you newish to cc, you should know that my ds2 was at the Route 91 concert so this is highly personal to me. And as a Texan steeped in a hunting and trap- and skeet-shooting culture, I am not someone who is unfamiliar with guns or anti-2A. I only feel ashamed that it took our family’s experience to move me to join Moms Demand Action and become vocal on the issue. If anyone would like to talk to me about MDA and its work, feel free to PM me.
Lastly, I wanted to say how every time I’ve come on cc I’ve expected this thread to be closed, but it remains open! Way to go, guys! 
I’d argue that those people don’t follow rules in your area BECAUSE your gun laws are lax. There’s likely very little teeth to them. As far as not possessing a gun while intoxicated, what about all those gun owners who carry everywhere? I’m sure they have those guns when they are throwing back beers or other alcoholic drinks whether at a bar or at home. I doubt most are locking their guns in a gun safe when they decide to throw one back. You can add them in with your felons and druggies.
What about people who live there? Are they not entitled to protect themselves?
Here is a woman who was out teaching her teenager to drive just this week. Not sure if a gun would have helped her, of course, but I sure wouldn’t have wanted to be the one to tell her she shouldn’t carry:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/05/us/road-rage-mom-son-driving-trnd/
Terrible story.
Sure it’s a terrible story. Yet, it would not have been stopped even if the victims carried guns - or others in the vicinity. Perhaps it would have been stopped by stricter gun laws. Wisconsin is fairly week in this area.
@doschicos No, my point is that CNN ushered in the 24-hour news cycle and cemented it within our culture with their fortuitous positioning in Baghdad.
The over-saturation of news coverage after a mass shooting generates fame for the perpetrators and encourages copycats.
Can someone point me to a location where criminals follow the law?
I live in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. A local organization has begun posting weekly updates of arrests of felons with multiple illegal firearm charges in their past that continue to walk the streets until they offend again.
There’s already plenty of evidence showing a connection between states with tougher gun laws and less gun related deaths/accidents, etc. This has been mentioned by several posters previously.
Some of that evidence is demonstrably flawed.
This is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest SSRIs might play a role in mass shootings. Is there any clinical evidence for this? I’ve taken SSRIs at various times for decades, and credit them with actually saving my life when clinical depression had me contemplating suicide. I’ve read up them quite a bit, and have never seen homicidal ideation as a possible side affect. They do apparently carry a risk of “suicidal thoughts or actions in teens and young adults,” so close monitoring is advised. How many mass shooters were later found to have been diagnosed with depression and then prescribed an SSRI to treat it? I completely disagree with the notion that the public is entitled to the full medical records of ANY individual. Full stop. Isn’t there supposed to be a Constitutional right to privacy?
If autopsy results of mass shooters pointed to evidence these drugs are in some way linked to subsequent massacres, I think it would be useful information in general, and something medical professionals should take into advisement when treating depression. But millions upon millions of people world-wide, both teens and adults, have taken these drugs for depression. There’s little doubt they’ve saved millions of lives.
The Rand Corp is known for performing excellent unbiased research and their study disagrees.