[Dismas]

Stop media from reporting/sensationalizing incidents. Invest in mental healthcare. Install metal detectors/proper security at schools, just like other public places (courthouses, banks).

[splindoffi]

As always, I refer to how it looks in Poland, because I have no right to comment on the US.

In Poland we have a lot of blackpowder firearms (e.g. colt navy), because they do not require any permit, if you are 18yo you just go to the store and buy them.
For other firearms, you need a special permit, which is not that hard to get.
There are about 1 million guns for every 40 million people.
Most gun deaths occur in the woods, as older hunters mistake their friends for wild boars, others are suicides at the shooting range, shootings are very rare.
Poland is about 87% Christian Catholic, and the US is about 65% Catholic split between Protestants and Catholics.

Whether we are Muslim, Christian or Buddhist we must agree that our religions teach us morality.

Therefore, I believe that the cause of shootings is a lack of morality, not the fault of guns.

Thank you so much to both for sharing your opinions. They mean a lot to me and always give me something to think about.

First off, thanks for giving some knowledge about Poland (a place I really want to visit soon). I had no idea it was pretty easy to get a weapon there.

I'm an atheist, and I agree with you that religion can teach morality. However, I also think that secular morality plays a major role. It's something that develops, even unconsciously, as we grow up..., whether it's within our families or in our social circles.

When someone does extreme actions like the ones we're talking about, whether they're religious or not, they lose control of their moral conscience; and even before that, they let go of their inhibitions brakes, which I believe are the foundation of all human actions.

I agree with you that morality can develop over time without the help of religion through interaction with other people.
That's why most active shooters are very young and suffer from a lack of social interaction, because they have not been able to develop morality.
(And they had to suffer a lot in their lives)

If you ever visit Poland, you will be warmly welcomed. Maybe one day we can shoot together.

Btw.  I too am an atheist, admittedly also a Buddhist but my way of thinking is as secular as possible.

We share the same view on this, then. I don't have concrete data on hand, but I often come across news about young people committing similar crimes.
You're right, we can only imagine the suffering and distress they carry with themselves before and after such events—and they are by no means justifiable.

Thank you very much. I've never shot a gun, but I would like to try it.
If you allow me, may I write to you in pm? I had plans for Poland that unluckily had to throw away, but I would like to visit it as soon as I can. Maybe you could give me some advice :)

Such a great variety of responses and thoughts on this thread, from morality to the purpose of the prison time.

Is prison a punishment or a means to rehabilitate? I often find myself believing it's somewhere in the middle, possibly meaning it's not effective at either.

People's sense of morals may not allow them to feel comfortable with killing people, but we have to remember: In America they do still have the death penalty.

Very interesting thoughts! It's good to get the wide variety of cultural/national perspectives too.

For me as well, the solution lies in the middle. It definitely shouldn't be a place where one can live "peacefully" after committing certain crimes, but it shouldn't be a hellish environment where one suffers every day in negativity either.
It should, theoretically, help individuals reintegrate into society; I have observed that this goal is sometimes achieved, but often it is not.

I believe that the living conditions within the prison play a crucial role. I'm not sure if something similar exists in your countries, but I would still like to give you some information about Article 41-bis prison regime.

Stop media from reporting/sensationalizing incidents. Invest in mental healthcare. Install metal detectors/proper security at schools, just like other public places (courthouses, banks).

I agree with you in investing in such field. Detection systems could also help a lot.
Regarding media, reporting such things is pretty fair to me, but about sensationalizing... a few days ago we talked about something similar in another thread—engagement is pretty much the only thing that drives them.
Pretty sad, though.

[Crying Wolf]

Thank you so much to both for sharing your opinions. They mean a lot to me and always give me something to think about.

First off, thanks for giving some knowledge about Poland (a place I really want to visit soon). I had no idea it was pretty easy to get a weapon there.

I'm an atheist, and I agree with you that religion can teach morality. However, I also think that secular morality plays a major role. It's something that develops, even unconsciously, as we grow up..., whether it's within our families or in our social circles.

When someone does extreme actions like the ones we're talking about, whether they're religious or not, they lose control of their moral conscience; and even before that, they let go of their inhibitions brakes, which I believe are the foundation of all human actions.

I agree with you that morality can develop over time without the help of religion through interaction with other people.
That's why most active shooters are very young and suffer from a lack of social interaction, because they have not been able to develop morality.
(And they had to suffer a lot in their lives)

If you ever visit Poland, you will be warmly welcomed. Maybe one day we can shoot together.

Btw.  I too am an atheist, admittedly also a Buddhist but my way of thinking is as secular as possible.

We share the same view on this, then. I don't have concrete data on hand, but I often come across news about young people committing similar crimes.
You're right, we can only imagine the suffering and distress they carry with themselves before and after such events—and they are by no means justifiable.

Thank you very much. I've never shot a gun, but I would like to try it.
If you allow me, may I write to you in pm? I had plans for Poland that unluckily had to throw away, but I would like to visit it as soon as I can. Maybe you could give me some advice

Sure, write as you wish. I'll be glad if I can help you somehow

[fontavals]

By first acknowledging that its a problem bc atm people living in denial. Secondly like with every dangerous thing whether its controlled substances, medicine, knives, or movies, we all need to be responsible.

You cant allow every jack or Mary to just be able to pop into a shop and be able to buy a freaking machine gun!

[Boudica]

By first acknowledging that its a problem bc atm people living in denial. Secondly like with every dangerous thing whether its controlled substances, medicine, knives, or movies, we all need to be responsible.

You cant allow every jack or Mary to just be able to pop into a shop and be able to buy a freaking machine gun!

Fair points. So what happens when you heavily restrict or ban the purchases of guns, or particular types of guns? For example, there is a significant number available which are privately owned. If a 16 year old, irresponsible idiot decides he needs one, but isn't allowed to, he'll likely be able to get it off someone he knows discretely. In which case, there's zero traceability of this weapon changing hands, and no way for authorities to know that transaction has happened. If he is already willing to break a law to get hold of the weapon (keep in mind, if you ban them today, there'll still be millions of them around), he may also be willing to break other laws, such as murder.

This isn't to say I agree or disagree with your points, but to bring more variables to the table. There's a lot of context for guns and mass shootings, making decision making very complicated when you have to account for all possibilities. There isn't always a simple solution which is why I think this particular discussion is really interesting. I'd love to see what ideas people have that I may not have thought of.

[fontavals]

By first acknowledging that its a problem bc atm people living in denial. Secondly like with every dangerous thing whether its controlled substances, medicine, knives, or movies, we all need to be responsible.

You cant allow every jack or Mary to just be able to pop into a shop and be able to buy a freaking machine gun!

Fair points. So what happens when you heavily restrict or ban the purchases of guns, or particular types of guns? For example, there is a significant number available which are privately owned. If a 16 year old, irresponsible idiot decides he needs one, but isn't allowed to, he'll likely be able to get it off someone he knows discretely. In which case, there's zero traceability of this weapon changing hands, and no way for authorities to know that transaction has happened. If he is already willing to break a law to get hold of the weapon (keep in mind, if you ban them today, there'll still be millions of them around), he may also be willing to break other laws, such as murder.

This isn't to say I agree or disagree with your points, but to bring more variables to the table. There's a lot of context for guns and mass shootings, making decision making very complicated when you have to account for all possibilities. There isn't always a simple solution which is why I think this particular discussion is really interesting. I'd love to see what ideas people have that I may not have thought of.

Yes, some people will still be able to generally speaking make it harder to get one. All we have to do is look at countries that applied this and look at the statistics. Its clear as day! Look at Australia, Canada!

[Boudica]

By first acknowledging that its a problem bc atm people living in denial. Secondly like with every dangerous thing whether its controlled substances, medicine, knives, or movies, we all need to be responsible.

You cant allow every jack or Mary to just be able to pop into a shop and be able to buy a freaking machine gun!

Fair points. So what happens when you heavily restrict or ban the purchases of guns, or particular types of guns? For example, there is a significant number available which are privately owned. If a 16 year old, irresponsible idiot decides he needs one, but isn't allowed to, he'll likely be able to get it off someone he knows discretely. In which case, there's zero traceability of this weapon changing hands, and no way for authorities to know that transaction has happened. If he is already willing to break a law to get hold of the weapon (keep in mind, if you ban them today, there'll still be millions of them around), he may also be willing to break other laws, such as murder.

This isn't to say I agree or disagree with your points, but to bring more variables to the table. There's a lot of context for guns and mass shootings, making decision making very complicated when you have to account for all possibilities. There isn't always a simple solution which is why I think this particular discussion is really interesting. I'd love to see what ideas people have that I may not have thought of.

Yes, some people will still be able to generally speaking make it harder to get one. All we have to do is look at countries that applied this and look at the statistics. Its clear as day! Look at Australia, Canada!

Interesting point. Perhaps we need to look at what's made it so successful in those countries, and what the challenges would be trying to do the same in the US. Keep in mind, gun ownership equates to freedom from oppressive government in the US for many people, whereas I'm not sure it's the same for Canada and Australia. So I wonder if the challenge is specifically a cultural one.

Another thing to consider is that Australia's gun ownership has always been significantly lower than the averages in the US. E,g, apparently in the 90s it was about 7 firearms per 100 people. That's now down to about 4.
On the other hand, the US apparently has 120 firearms per 100 people. One could argue the challenge is 17 times more difficult in the US.

Even if you were to stop selling guns right now for all of America, there are so many millions of them in the country, it would probably take over 100+ years to see a real decline of them (aka as those weapons break down over time). Whilst we can look at measures to reduce what is sold now, the bigger challenge is what to do about what's already out there. And do you have any right to do anything as it's private property?

[lisitsya]

This is an excellent discussion so far. There are so many different concerns at play here that I can't possibly give my thoughts on everything interesting, such as the purpose of punishment, so I'll leave them aside for now.

In the spirit of the comparative/international perspective, which I think is very valuable, I have a few more thoughts that build on what's been said so far. I'm going to focus on the US problem, as it's such an outlier in the developed world (which isn't to say it doesn't ever happen elsewhere, see Serbia recently for example).

Any complex social phenomenon, including this one, is obviously multi-causal. But as has been said already, international comparisons show how it's unlikely to be a single, simple explanation:

1. It's very unlikely to be religiosity. The US is on the more religious end of the spectrum for developed liberal democracies, but peer nations with both higher and religiosity don't have the problem.
   
2. It can't just be the liberality of gun laws in isolation. Czechia, for example, had fairly loose gun laws, and Switzerland's are looser than the US.
   
3. It seems unlikely that it's just a culture of gun ownership. Here there's a subtle difference of measurement that I think is important: guns per capita vs. percentage of households with at least one gun. The former is indeed off the charts in the US, but I think that's because there are some people who own enormous numbers of guns. I can't post links yet, but if I recall correctly, the distribution of gun ownership in the US is wildly skewed - a huge chunk of the guns that are out there are concentrated among a relatively small group of people. This is why I think percentage of households with guns is a better measure: after all, you could just as well commit a mass shooting with one or two guns as with a collection of >20. And when you look at this number, the US is still at the top, but it's not that much higher than, e.g., Switzerland and some of the Nordics (Switzerland I find particularly telling because one can't blame the types of firearms allowed either. See the above).
   

So what are some of the possible contributing factors? Several of the following have already been mentioned, but some that come to mind right now include:

1. The US turning into a low-trust society. This can feed violence.
   
2. In line with the above, the US is quite a violent society anyway. If you combine that with the widespread availability of firearms, it's no surprise that firearms become one of the primary means to commit violence.
   
3. I agree about media sensationalism. I think this encourages copycats or, if not direct copycats, gives people a cultural "script" of what to do.
   

It's a very difficult problem certainly, that doesn't admit easy answers like "take the guns away" or "just lock them up."

[Dismas]

So what happens when you heavily restrict or ban the purchases of guns, or particular types of guns?

Reminds me of when phyrrus9 3D printed firearms, or made shotguns out of lead pipes. Someone that is determined enough, will always find a way.

So what are some of the possible contributing factors? Several of the following have already been mentioned, but some that come to mind right now include:

1. The US turning into a low-trust society. This can feed violence.
   
2. In line with the above, the US is quite a violent society anyway. If you combine that with the widespread availability of firearms, it's no surprise that firearms become one of the primary means to commit violence.
   
3. I agree about media sensationalism. I think this encourages copycats or, if not direct copycats, gives people a cultural "script" of what to do.
   

It's a very difficult problem certainly, that doesn't admit easy answers like "take the guns away" or "just lock them up."

Low trust and violence are easily symptoms caused by mental illness. Combined with media reporting on kill counts/manifestos, and it's no surprise we're caught in a loop. On imageboards the number of deceased are regularly referred to as a "high score" and kids that are isolated/bullied aren't getting the help they need.

Guns could be removed from the equation, and the media would still be fueling the mentally ill. WHO estimates "there has been a 13% rise in mental health conditions and substance use disorders in the last decade" and "suicide [is] the second leading cause of death among 15-29-year-olds".

[lisitsya]

Low trust and violence are easily symptoms caused by mental illness. Combined with media reporting on kill counts/manifestos, and it's no surprise we're caught in a loop. On imageboards the number of deceased are regularly referred to as a "high score" and kids that are isolated/bullied aren't getting the help they need.

Fully agreed. Not to mention, I think it's exacerbated by taking a largely reactive approach to mental health: someone presents clinical symptoms for some identifiable DSM (or DSM-esque) "disorder" and then intervention happens. As opposed to considering psychological well-being foundational, and that it can really torment people in ways that aren't "disorders" per se, but rather interact negatively with social context. Like with "deaths of despair" for another example in line with yours.