Blaming society

After the recent Santa Barbra shooting's I started noticing a tendency of people blaming society despite violent crimes in first world countries steadily declining since 1995. So why blame society, all of the evidence points to this being a safer more sane world to live in then it has ever been, in the last five years crimes involving weapons have dropped 34% and homicide is down 28% (as of April 2013), and even in third world countries things such as infant mortality rate, diseases and hunger are down.

People are more and more looking to blame ideas rather then issues such as how our society stigmatizes mental illness, I mean its fairly obvious that Eliot Rodgers has something far worse wrong with him then felling slighted by society, before he murdered the two women he stabbed his roommates who apparently were preparing to move out due to him being a difficult roommate, I'm wondering how is that societies fault. I'm more worried that blaming society is going to lead (or already has) to someone doing something horrible and instead of getting help when those feelings and fears begin simply rationalizing that it is society.

In times of tragedy, people seek solice in trying to rationalize it. As you say, one of the unfortunate ways they do that is by blaming not the person, but what they assume caused the person to act. Just as we see video games blamed almost every time a shooting occurs.

On the other hand, many people use events like this one, and the rabid media coverage that it gets, as a platform for pushing those rationalizations as hard as they can.

I honestly believe that they are at least trying to make things better, but, as you also imply, playing the blame game in the wake of horror just results in a week of arguing with zero results.

The need to blame something else when something horrible happens is human nature. In other words...it's your fault.

I don't think anyone is absolving the shooter, his reasoning however shines a light on a very real problem that goes beyond "Dude's crazy"

It's because people aren't comfortable with the idea a senseless act of violence occurred for no reason. They feel like they have to find the source of the problem so they can prevent such things in the future. That's why we have 24 hour news networks analyzing every aspect of a shooting, stabbing or (insert national tragedy). They go through the motions of trying to find a scapegoat, pulling in their own political agendas along the way and then everything goes back to normal for a while until it happens again.

Absolutely. When someone decides to take another person's life it is almost never so simple as "they're crazy". If that were true than more of these mass shooters would be women.

Actually read an excellent article about misogyny, entitlement and "nerd culture" over on the Daily Beast.

And to the point of the reduction of violent crime over the last ten years or so, it's still important to note that the murder rate in the U.S. is still significantly higher than any other "developed" nations.

this

We look at society because it's pointless to blame the individual in a case like this, especially if they're already dead. I mean, we can blame him, but it won't achieve anything. There will always be individuals who are, for whatever reason, inclined towards doing something like this and that will never change, so all that's left that we can do something about is how society manages that threat. It's actually quite coldly pragmatic how quickly we dismiss the perpetrator (and the victims too if we're honest) when something like this happens - the instinct is always to think about preventing 'The Next Time' rather than dwelling on the incident that already happened.

Are we, as a society, managing this threat (or infant mortality, or diseases, or hunger for that matter) better than we have done in the past? Probably. Should we strive to become better at managing it in the future? Yes, always, no matter how close to perfect we get. It's far better that we look at things improving and say "Still not good enough" and so strive to improve them further, rather than say "I'm happy with this level of improvement" and then watch them stop improving. It's probably healthy that we are never satisfied with the state of society, even if it is true that it's unrecognisably better / safer / cleaner than it would have been during pretty much any time in history.

I can't say whether or not there is a stigma surrounding mental illness since I don't live in America. However, with the perspective of an outsider and having researched (school) shootings I think you guys have more of a gun control problem than a mental illness one. I will go out and say the even bigger problem may be a society problem. There are crazy nutjobs everywhere, it's true. But it's ultimately a play of multiple events that leads to tragedies like these.

I could write a thesis on America's society and how disconnected people are from each other, but that's maybe more appropiate for a blog post some other day. On one hand, you have the NRA saying they'll defend their rights on arms with their lives, while their only argument on solving shootings is by putting more guns into circulation. The infamous good guy with a gun. On the other hand, it's supposedly a mental illness one. I can assure you, decisions like these can happen in a spur of the moment without any prior mental illnesses. A perfectly good man or woman can go kill another human being if they caught their significant other cheating in the act. A magical sweep on mental illnesses nationwide is not enough on its own.

Gun control should be sharpened, gun ownershup should in my very honest opinion even be banned completely. Another point is violent media, violent morals etc. If today's society was not as fixated on getting laid as soon as possible, I predict much less of rapes, shooting sprees, love crimes etc. would happen.

Ultimately, it is a society problem since as a society you have been unable to prevent these shootings time and time again.

@trafalgarlaw: You claim ignorance about our mental health system, but you feel confident in the research you've done into school shootings to say guns are the problem... I'm not trying to call you out, i'm just trying to give you some perspective. For starters, under former president Ronald Regan, many of the larger mental institutions were shut down. The actual causes of this are debatable. Some argue it was a means of balancing the budget, while others point to the development of more effective antipsychotic/antidepressant drugs which in turn caused a diminished need for long term residency facilities. Regardless, I think we can all agree that the country as a whole lacks the means of adequately addressing the mental health of the country, for those that need it.

As part of my education i've seen what has replaced these large facilities. You have understaffed, underfunded crisis centers that only address those who are in critical condition. A visit to alter medications or dosages can take hours. Should a person be so critical that they need to be put into a residential facility, the period between that determination and placement can be six months or longer, at least in the state i'm living in. Most of the antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs have a pretty rough list of side effects making regimen adherence a tricky thing while managing symptoms. I've personally known people suffering from PTSD to not take their prescribed antidepressants and other drugs because they felt lethargic, out of it, or couldn't even get or maintain an erection.

I find it incredibly callous that you can so easily dismiss the suffering of those afflicted with mental illness. If you'd watched the video you'd have noticed there was clearly something wrong with the shooter, within 5 minutes of watching it I was impressed by how he looked, he displayed negative symptoms of schizophrenia in a manner i hadn't even seen in educational videos (Not that i'm saying he is schizophrenic, or that schizophrenic patients are dangerous).I mean, this guy may have been suffering from neurotransmitter imbalances, personality disorders, a messed up childhood, etc or all of the above. I don't know, and neither do you. At the end of the day I think your blanket statement that guns are the source of the problem doesn't do anything to help those that need it.

Personally I've never felt the need to own a gun, I took a riflery class in college years ago and always felt scared shitless around them (i triple checked to make sure the safety was on before laying it down), but I don't begrudge anyone the right to responsibly own one.----(I agree that background checks are a must, private sales should be abolished, not too keen on gun show selling, not too fond of the restriction being lifted that you can carry in bars in some states (as long as you're not drinking, but good luck enforcing that))

The boston marathon guys didn't need guns to inflict death and mayhem, only pressure cookers. The 9/11 terrorists only needed box cutters. If a person wants to hurt someone else they will find a way, it's sad but true. This guy could have driven through a crowd of people at 70 mph on the green/quad at campus. You can turn anything into a weapon. Where do you draw the line and say, we as a society are fucking up, we need to adequately screen and identify these people before they turn violent? When they start using bricks, fists, teeth? I mean look at england and their ban http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

@mikethekilla: This what?

People don't like to think about the fact that sometimes bad shit just happens, even though, like you said, we're living in much safer times. So they need something to blame.

It's the same reason there's conspiracy theories for 9/11, the JFK assassination, and Benghazi. People just can't come to grips with the fact that they don't know why something happened.

@drbobbint: In Washington state, there are currently only two psychiatric hospitals, and in my county, they're currently holding a mentally ill child at the hospital indefinitely (Reagan closed the facility located in my county in the 80's), because all the institutions only hold so many patients, and they're all full. It's frankly pretty pathetic that something like this is happening in the 21st century.

That's just not right. A regular floor nurse isn't equipped to meet the needs of a mentally ill patient (sorry, but true, let alone a mentally ill child(there are entire courses about childhood psych/growth and development)). This situation also screws over other patients as it ties up a bed on the floor census indefinitely, and in my state, if a patient is deemed that mentally ill they may require a sitter thereby costing the hospital even more (assuming they have a qualified person, rather than a volunteer or student)

@drbobbint Hey I would have typed a reply earlier if the notification system wasn't down but:

How do you get the idea I'm downplaying mental illness? I exactly know that there is a problem in diagnosis, hospitalizing, treating and following-up patients with a mental illness in America. I also know every side effect of anti-psychotics, it's for the most part unavoidable and adherence can be low, I understand that. What does that have got to do with anything though? I don't quite understand your point in shifting the blame to the medication. It's the same everywhere on the world, mostly the same medication is used.

Guns are made to kill living beings. I'm aware that rifles are used to hunt animals. What I do not quite understand is why someone should have access to handguns, shotguns, semi- or fully automatic machine guns and so on. Those are not weapons made to hunt animals, you have ranged rifles for those. What I do not understand also is the enthusiasm for guns. At least in Europe, right after the Sandy Hook shooting, we had lengthy documentaries about how easy it actually was to buy a gun at Wal-Mart. Just buy your eggs, lettuce and a semi-automatic rifle...? You still need a license that (supposedly) has been through a background check. But that's the thing, if I was sane when a background check occurred without any record of me being violent or suffering from a dangerous mental illness at the time, what's the guarantee I will stay sane?

I deliberately said it's a play of multiple events, not just having access to a gun. There are multiple fronts you can try to prevent shootings. In my opinion, the gun ownership is where you'll see the the biggest results. I agree with you, in that identifying dangerous individuals with mental illness in an early stage is important. My point however, is that not every shooting is done by some lunatic. Any sane person can be driven by revenge, into shooting others, just to make a statement. How can you judge anything by a video? You need to see the shooter in person, read body language, facial expression and so on before you can asses mental state.

I say, you can't entrust guns to regular citizens. Another Sandy Hook will happen and no one will bat an eye at the instruments of murder, but shift the blame onto the government that should provide mental institutions and facilities that take years to build.

@jsnyder82: I agree with what your saying but even this week Toni Braxton blames her son's autism caused by God punishing her for having a secret abortion. That's really the most craziest excuse I heard ever for not even trying to understanding autism.

People expect everything to have answers and point their fingers at easy targets.

It's not about how much violence has declined in this day and age- it's about perceived threats. Whether the world has become more or less violent doesn't matter because the media will always make it seem worse. It's in their interest to do so.

This whole thing with the recent killings has been making me look back at NBK a lot. The reason I embed the video, though, is more for the way the media is portrayed in this classic scene as that is what hypes up perceived threats. It was the case then and is much more the case now.

People need to stop being sheep and start thinking for themselves. Sometimes there are no answers- I don't think there always needs to be.

Don't blame society.

Blame society!

(I fully agree btw, but that's hilarious.)

Well, yeah, some people are just morons. Ain't nothing you can do about that.

@trafalgarlaw: If a person wants to hurt another person they will find a means of accomplishing said goal. Sad but true.

@trafalgarlaw: If a person wants to hurt another person they will find a means of accomplishing said goal. Sad but true.

@drbobbint: @trafalgarlaw: Don't be so harsh on Trafalgar, he's not entirely right or wrong. Gun culture is a serious part of the problem, but by no means the cause of the problem. Just a means of expressing it.

This whole debate is kind of pointless without looking at the whole picture, as a lot of the reasons these things have such a prevalence in the US can be traced back to the culture that formed at it's founding. You have a history of forging a new path, breaking away from the norm and some down right crazy bastards going to kill buffalo and fight bears in the wilderness because somebody said they couldn't pray to this or that version of the same god. It makes for a country and ideals founded on some strange stuff, now some of that is human nature but not all of it. So you take that history and put it into a maturing nation, no longer leading the charge in every aspect it can get a foothold in, and you get a major identity crisis, you get stubborn people afraid of change, you get crazy people latching on to this disconnection. Add in Guns, lack of accountability, moral ambiguity, declining education standards, social inequality and constant sources of fear.

Basically what i'm saying is there's a lot of work to do.

Hm, I don't see it as people trying to blame society necessarily. I guess... I see it this way. Let's say you put a ball in the center of a room. Then, as you let go of the ball, it begins to roll south. No one is going to argue over why the ball rolled (it rolled because it was a round object on a floor that was not completely flat). However, people will use the evidence from this event to determine which direction the floor is tilting.

That's kind of how I see this situation. Yes, there will always be people who are unstable, or who are more prone to outbursts of violence and anger. People will always do fucked up things, but if we examine the "what" and "why" of their actions, maybe we can spot problems in our society that caused the ball to roll in the direction that it did.

So, in this specific case, people are trying to glean what information they can out of this tragedy instead of shifting blame. They're asking who did he murder? Why did he murder them? What groups was he associated with and how did he interpret their data in a way that justified his actions? If we go with the base assumption that he would have exploded eventually and caused some horrible crime no matter what society he was in, why in our society did he target the people that he did? He is the metaphorical ball in the center of the room-- he was going to roll in some direction no matter what, is there something in our society that caused him to roll in the direction that he did?

This probably came out sounding very silly, but that's how I've viewed the media scrutiny that is surrounding this case. Sorry if my weird intro metaphor is utterly unhelpful.

That's a real cop-out statement. Availability of guns empower those that are too weak to either punch or stab someone.

@trafalgarlaw: Pipe bombs. Cars. Pressure cookers. Ammonium nitrate. Various means are available, will you ban them all? airplanes. meat cleavers in the case of the soldier in the uk. Don't need to be that physically imposing for those.

She actually said that in a memoir where she talked about her child's autism. She said that she initially blamed it on her abortion because of her extremely religious upbringing but came around later in life. She doesn't believe that anymore and is trying to understand her son's autism.

Due to her very religious upbringing -- in the memoir the singer says that studying the Bible took precedence over homework when growing up -- Braxton began to feel a strong sense of guilt over the abortion. "In my heart, I believed I had taken a life -- an action that I thought God might one day punish me for … My initial rage was quickly followed by another strong emotion: guilt," she wrote. Braxton's guilt was so heavy that she began to believe that God's punished her for the procedure by giving her son, Diezel Ky Braxton-Lewis, now 11-years-old, autism. "I believed God's payback was to give my son autism," she wrote.

However, the R&B music icon told Us Weekly that she now feels differently about her past. "When my youngest son was diagnosed with autism I feared that I was being punished for my earlier actions. I have since realized that my son is special and learns in a different way.”

Huffington Post

@trafalgarlaw: I think what a lot people are arguing against you're "gun" argument is that guns are not the problem. You can murder someone without a gun- very easily and with little to no actual research (although with research you could do even more harm without a gun). You can very easily make a bomb with very ordinary household items, just as an example, and you wouldn't even have to be told how to do it if you set your mind to figuring it out. You really only need a low grade level of scientific knowledge to come up with something.

It's ultimately my problem with your theory as well. While I agree with your intent I don't think you've found the root. It seems to be a simple solution to many people (not just those outside the US), but I don't feel removing one weapon type actually solves as much as some people do.

I also feel that a lot of gun violence data is inaccurate because while guns are not as accessible in other parts of the world, the parts of the world where it is heavily prevalent it is a lot of black market dealings, illegal activities and what not. There are parts of the world still basically in the wild west. I find it hard to believe those places are safer than the US- especially in terms of gun violence. I purely speak from my own past experience, though.

Your thesis also seems to lack perspective as I get the impression that what you know about it is purely academic (meaning you've researched, not experienced).

Pipe bombs are illegal and ammonium nitrate has recently undergone more restrictive regulation in America. You can't drive a car without a license and you are frequently tested on that and the purpose of the car is transportation not to kill. The pressure cooker had to be modified which has inherent risks as well as the need for some degree of technical expertise whilst guns can kill someone almost as soon as it's in someone's hands. To fly an airplane you have to get schooled once a year, at least my father does for his job. I'm for the 2nd amendment and all but I think there needs to be a stricter rule set for gun ownership.

@sethphotopoulos: So what, people looking to hurt and kill others aren't going to give up if the law gets in their way. Did the 9/11 terrorists legally fly that plane into the trade center? Where there is a will there is a way. Address the cause, prevent the results. Address the means, observe results achieved via different means.

I'm not saying that stuff won't happen. Of course it will. It just becomes harder for individuals to do that stuff. Take 9/11 for example. I guarantee you it is way more difficult to pull that shit off again in the U.S. because laws have gotten stricter. You're looking at this in a black and white manner. It should be this not this seems to be what you're saying. Why not do everything that you can? Address that cause but make it harder to use the means which has been shown to be the easiest.

I'm gonna guess few to none of the people on this board have had actual experience with mass shootings... So it's pretty much all academic.

Also Australia has had a pretty major Gun restriction on automatic and pump action weapons put in place for the last 15 years or so and it's been successful in almost every way.

@sethphotopoulos: I want to show you something: this link is for the wiki page for Ammonium Nitrate. I just want to bring to your attention how easy it is to find out how to produce ammonium nitrate on your own. It's right there on the wiki page. That page is the first thing that comes up if you google ammonium nitrate (even if you spell it wrong).

Something being illegal, also, does not make it complicated to make or otherwise procure. For instance- a molotov cocktail is highly illegal. I was about to say how to do this simply without raising alarms but that feels unwise- so I am refraining. Lets just say with a little common sense you could easily make molotov cocktails and use them maliciously.

There is only one test in your life to get a drivers license [edit: sorry, technically there is two. First you have to take the test to get a learners permit. Then the test to actually get a license], at least in the US. After that you fill out a form every 7 years and get another one by mail. You are only tested again if you get caught drunk driving, or (excessive) speeding. Intentional (or even in some cases unintentional- such as from drunk driving) vehicular homicide would probably come with a death sentence or life in prison (not counting possibilities of parole) so that doesn't count.

It is easy to modify a pressure cooker to make it into a bomb. I have no special engineering skills and I know how to do so. I do have military training but not advanced knowledge with IEDs. It's just basic science.

To fly a plane professionally you need a license. To hijack a plane all you need is a knife- and probably a few terrorist friends/mercs with knives. You should also learn to spot the air marshal (which is usually simple and there is often only one on any given plane- just think about that for a second).

Anyway, I have to back up drbobbint on this. Something being illegal does not make it un-procurable. Something requiring certification does not prevent hijacking. Licensing is not a deterrent for malicious intent.

@zfubarz: Sorry I didn't mean experience with mass shootings. I meant experience with Americans and guns. Which, btw, very few actually carry guns. If all you know of us is the internet, TV, and the news you may get the impression everyone has a gun or possibly carries one. Just saying- we do not.

@drbobbint: @cornbredx: Let me use your weird logic against you. Should homemade bombs be legal then? I mean people still make them regardless of the law. They aren't made exclusively to kill since they can be used for deconstruction purposes. Hell, should anything be illegal? Should murder be illegal since people will do it anyway? Like, what are you arguing?

I'm not saying that guns should be banned. Only that there needs to be tighter regulation on them. I think most of the focus should be on improving society so that people are less inclined to do the terrible things that they do. But we shouldn't outright ignore gun control or any other method used to cause harm. Do everything you can to prevent more incidents.

@sethphotopoulos: I am arguing that removing guns (or even just tighter restrictions) doesn't solve the problem. It's basically ignoring other factors because it's easier to ban something else than actually look for the root cause.

And ya, I don't think you want to know my answer to whether or not home made bombs should be legal.

I'm out of this conversation, though. I didn't intend to stay this long and I didn't realize how closed minded it would be but it's cool. You can win you internet argument or whatever. No worries, agree to disagree and stuff. =)

You should refrain from calling someones opinion "weird" just because you disagree. Someone might misconstrue it as offensive.

@cornbredx: Multiple branches of my family in the states have handed me firearms when I was as young as 8 and said go shoot stuff. They're not rednecks or anything, they're pretty much all from New England, New York and Jersey. Own successful businesses, have happy and healthy families, etc. Fairly normal people. I still don't assume all Americans are like that though, and I doubt anybody really does. GB isn't as bad as most of the internet remember.

I will say though that only 2 people in my family up here (Canada) own guns, one is a proficient hunter, he only owns rifles and even then he literally follows the whole use every part of the animal ideal. The other serves in the navy. Both reasonable reasons to be gun owners and that's an unusually high number for this part of the country. Sure that example is just anecdotal but it's a trend that tends to hold true.

Think about it like this, Americans defending gun privileges always say something along the lines of what you said "We're not all gun toting redneck cowboys, how dare you assume that." and "There's plenty of other ways to kill people" I'm gonna stay away from the second one because you guys seem pretty set on that. But people assume the prevalence of guns in the US because it's an accurate stereotype compared to most of the western world. (many) Americans tend to assume the rest of the world is more or less the same as they are. On things like Guns though? Really it's not that way at all, America is outlier in this.

Again anecdotally, I've traveled a lot, Korea, every man serves either the police or army, No gun culture, England, Greece, Spain, I could go on, but it's pretty much standard everywhere I've traveled, guns aren't a right, they're a tool, and a dangerous one at that (obviously conflict zones are different). The worst I've ever encountered is in Germany, where even with their extreme history, All I ever encountered was a cap gun, and my great Aunt whacked me with a fly swatter and took it away when my cousin and I returned to her house with them.

TLDR: Don't be so quick to assume others are judging you guys, They might just be wondering why you can't even try the alternative.

Edit: no need to reply at length, i'm done in here as well. Before all this gets too messy.

@zfubarz: I wasn't really making assumptions about you- my only response to you in particular was clarification.

Let me make something clear before I go, I guess (because I cant sleep). I have used a gun for purposes that my country asked me too and I will never use one again even for fun/target practice (minus pellet guns really which I still enjoy from time to time). So, yes, I am arguing for something I myself don't even intend to ever use or touch again.

I believe every adult has the right to make or own whatever they want as long as it's not used to hurt someone else. I know your argument, though. Why do they need it? What purpose does it serve other than to hurt someone?

That is really up to the individual and in this particular topic I don't think society or government has a place to say what people can or cannot own. Government should step in when it's used for nefarious purposes. That's really all my stance boils down to.

You don't "try" removing peoples rights. Either you do or you don't- it's not like it's something that can be taken back. It boils down to I should be allowed to be responsible on my own. I don't need someone else telling me I can't because they don't like what someone might do with it.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's almost 5am here and I haven't slept in a while.

Because society can always do better. You're basically saying: 'Well, too bad they all died, this is the best we can do'. That's a dark and bleek look on life and society. Always strive to do better. Psychological aid, signaling of problems and adressing them has improved tremendously since the 90's and even more in the early 2000's. You just said yourself that issues dropped significantly in that time period.

What I'm wondering is: what's wrong with striving to do even better? The idea that everything can be prevented is a false idea. The idea that this couldn't have been prevented on the any circumstances is also false though.

There is also conclusive evidence that the structure of society in many places is actually harmful for young people as they grow up. Focus and value lies on performance and achievements, while marketing focusses to sell people as much crap as they can. Basically, do your fucking job and buy stuff. It sometimes conflicts with human nature. Am I saying society is completely out of control? Absolutely not. But if you're suggesting that this is as good as it could possibly get; absolutely not.

I think the main issue is with the media. Every time there is a shooting they seem to be thanking their lucky stars for the ratings it gives them. They plaster the shooter's face all over the news for weeks, have "memorial" shows annually after the shooting, and basically turn the shooter into an infamous villain. I think this, above all, contributes to more people thinking it's okay to express their anger to the world through mass shootings because it makes everyone acknowledge their existence. It's like an idolization to them. Sure, nobody thinks they're a hero, but in their own twisted mind they probably see themselves like that.

Of course it's also society's fault for giving media these crazy ratings every time a shooting happens too. I swear this world is addicted to disaster porn.

This is like saying you know the food is bad at a restaurant you haven't eaten at because you read a bad review about the place. With all due respect, it's pretty damn irritating when foreigners haughtily act like they completely understand our country and have the solutions to all our problems. I don't know where you're from (probably Western Europe), but I assure you I wouldn't have the audacity to try to tell you about your own country and how you guys should fix your problems based solely on what I've heard about you. That's freaking insulting. Frankly, you don't know shit about us because you inherently CAN'T know everything about a place without actually being there, no matter how much "research" you do. You get presented with an IMAGE of America, not America itself. You hear about every single mass shooting incident because our media absolutely loves to capitalize on tragedies. You don't hear a damn thing about the stories where some average gun owner protects his family by scaring off/shooting a career criminal who breaks into his home, because that's not deemed newsworthy enough. I have personal experience with precisely this, and this stuff happens all the time where guns prevent crime, but there's no soapbox to get on over that because there's no tragedy there for politicians to use towards an agenda and no public fervor for the media to exploit. In short, all you hear about guns in America on your end is the negative stuff.

You think you could write a thesis on American society? Well, let's have it. It would be entertaining to watch you flail about over things you heard from CNN/the internet, if nothing else. You claim we're "disconnected", but seem to fail to consider that America is the most culturally diverse country in the world. We don't always all get along. Let me put it this way, if you put ten Wyoming ranchers in a room, they'd probably get along. If you put a Wyoming rancher, a San Francisco sushi chef, Miley Cyrus, an obnoxious guy from Boston, a Mexican illegal immigrant, an old lady from Florida, an inner-city Chicago gang member, a non-conformist hippie from Seattle, a Texas oil baron, and a suburban tween obsessed with social media in a room together, there would probably be yelling within minutes. Most other countries are like the room of Wyoming ranchers and have a single dominant culture of like-minded individuals who inherently have a pretty good chance of getting along. We don't. Our greatest strength and greatest weakness as a people is that we're an amalgamation of varying cultures, ideas, and perspectives. The collective diversity is a good thing, but the potential for discord is higher than most places.

As for gun control and gun bans, I'd be curious to hear what, if anything, you know of those processes/results here. Since you claim to be into "research", look into the gun bans implemented in D.C., Chicago, et al. and their effects on crime. Crime goes UP when guns are banned here because the effect is that law-abiding citizens become unarmed, and criminals, who inherently don't care about laws, keep their guns with the knowledge that their victims are now less likely to be able to defend themselves. I can't even comprehend how people think that someone who's willing to break tons of laws to go on a shooting spree is going to obey a law that says they can't have a gun. Actually, I can, because I don't think anyone actually believes that. I think this b.s. all stems from fear. People who don't know how to safely operate guns assume no one can and fear them irrationally, and the media is more than happy to prey on those fears by highlighting every time some crazy/horrible person uses a gun to harm others.

Blaming the inanimate object is inane. If I go insane and mow down a line of pedestrians with my car on my way home today, that wouldn't qualify as a reason to ban cars. The same goes for guns, yet that doesn't stop a bunch of really ignorant people from pretending that a gun loads, chambers, aims, and fires itself and needs to be stopped. It's easier to blame the gun instead of the individual, though, no matter how illogical that is. It's much tougher to identify and label potential psychopathy and draw some really hard lines in the sand on mental illness. Quite frankly, it's impossible to know what someone's going to do until they actually do it. And when that happens to where there's a mass murder, everyone wants to know what could have been done to prevent it. Realistically, the answer in a bunch of cases is nothing. Except people don't like that answer. They're upset and reactive, and need to feel like they can solve this problem, so they do nonsensical shit like blaming inanimate objects.

Bad things happen. Unfortunately, there will always be crazy/horrible people who murder others. Banning guns a) does not stop this from happening, and b) does not magically make guns disappear or become unusable for criminals anyway. Even in a hypothetical gun-free utopian fairy gumdropland full of unicorns and rainbows, criminals would simply use explosives, knives, etc. It's pathetic to live in fear, and it's completely unreasonable to expect the world to make the things you're afraid of illegal. I'm a gun owner who has played plenty of violent video games, and yet somehow I'm not going around shooting and raping people. Weird. And no society has managed to "prevent" violent crime, so cut the "you" shit as if this is only an American problem. It's merely a sad reality of life, here and elsewhere.

Ultimately, I'm confident that supercilious, ill-informed posts and blogs from non-Americans are the key to making America a much safer place.

Both the way society deals with mental issues, brushing them aside unless impossible to avoid, and gun control are important factors that come into play in the shootings, along with the fact that a person after committing a serious crime, is stripped of his humanity by society, and demonized, thus sidestepping any serious discussion of the causes.

Like this song exemplifies, there is a close relationship between the mental aspect of a person, the easy access to weapons and the ignorance about said mental issues: