Yet another mass shooting in America

First topic message reminder :

The USA, home of the free and land of the deranged mass shooter.

No doubt usual vigils, well meaning words, heart felt condolences etc given out but ultimately naff all be done to alleviate the scourge of gun crime.
What's the NRA line, only way to deal with this is to arm more people?

Yep that's really working out fine and dandy....

https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

Oooooh. My stats are bigger than your stats.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

The website does give you a breakdown of who is committing these shootings, and the FBI crime stats also show that.

It show 12% of the US population committing the vast majority of the shooting, and by far the most crime on an absolute and per capita basis. Now, I have already proven that it isn't poverty, so it must be something else, or a mix of other things.

So we know the demographic, we know the political party that runs these areas (and they have for decades). Tell me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

Gun laws if uniform across the country would do something, as shown by Western Europe. The laws in individual states is a red herring, state lines aren't a magic barrier, if it's easy to buy a gun in Texas it enables the nutcases in places like New York an easy and legal route to purchasing them. 54% of mass shootings in the US are carried about by white men.

False, around 15% of mass shootings are committed by whites, around 70% are by blacks.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

Your study is BS, it only lists 172 over a 50 year period. There were over 600 in 2020 and 2021 alone, 600 each year.

the-goon2 wrote:Your study is BS, it only lists 172 over a 50 year period. There were over 600 in 2020 and 2021 alone, 600 each year.

The study uses this definition -
The Congressional Research Service has defined a public mass shooting as a “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms”, not including the shooter(s), “within one event, and [where] at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”

Too much nuance for you?

Why are we handwaving away the vast majority of mass shootings then? I thought this was an issue to be solved?

It's so obvious that the left want to highlight gun violence, but can't bring to light the main demographic that is the cause of mass shootings and gun violence, because that demographic votes 95% democrat. So we need to manipulate the definitions so we get to a statistic where their voter base aren't number 1. Although the still are 1 if you break it down by per capita, but hey.

the-goon2 wrote:Why are we handwaving away the vast majority of mass shootings then? I thought this was an issue to be solved?

It's so obvious that the left want to highlight gun violence, but can't bring to light the main demographic that is the cause of mass shootings and gun violence, because that demographic votes 95% democrat. So we need to manipulate the definitions so we get to a statistic where their voter base aren't number 1. Although the still are 1 if you break it down by per capita, but hey.

Do you know the difference between a known and unknown perpetrator?

70% of known perpetrators does not mean 70% of all perpetrators, you are significantly more likely to be found guilty of a crime if you are black than if you are white.

the-goon2 wrote:Why are we handwaving away the vast majority of mass shootings then? I thought this was an issue to be solved?

It's so obvious that the left want to highlight gun violence, but can't bring to light the main demographic that is the cause of mass shootings and gun violence, because that demographic votes 95% democrat. So we need to manipulate the definitions so we get to a statistic where their voter base aren't number 1. Although the still are 1 if you break it down by per capita, but hey.

The demographic of who the shooters are is not the cause of the shootings.
Would stricter gun laws and background checks prevent some mass shootings?
Would a better health care system focussing on mental health prevent mass shootings?

You don't actually want a nuanced discussion, you just throw out the word. What you want is simply to attack the left.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Why are we handwaving away the vast majority of mass shootings then? I thought this was an issue to be solved?

It's so obvious that the left want to highlight gun violence, but can't bring to light the main demographic that is the cause of mass shootings and gun violence, because that demographic votes 95% democrat. So we need to manipulate the definitions so we get to a statistic where their voter base aren't number 1. Although the still are 1 if you break it down by per capita, but hey.

The demographic of who the shooters are is not the cause of the shootings.
Would stricter gun laws and background checks prevent some mass shootings?
Would a better health care system focussing on mental health prevent mass shootings?

You don't actually want a nuanced discussion, you just throw out the word. What you want is simply to attack the left.

It isn't the fault of the demographic that causes 70% of the mass shooters, for the 70% of the shootings they commit. Ok, who's fault?

Democrat cities have the most strict gun laws in the country.

I'm simply pointing out the failures of the left and your inability to see reality as it as. The left have controlled every major city for decades, if those cities are failing it's no one else's fault other than the party in control and the voters that vote them in year after year.

Look at your 3rd suggestion, if only these criminals could talk about their feelings they wouldn't commit that armed robbery. It's the system, not the criminal, not their parents (or lack), not the inner city culture, not the perverse incentives of welfare or blaming "racism" on everything.

You want less shootings? You need more cops, harsher prison terms, more arrests, and find a way to change the culture. But sadly will never happen, the police have been demonised so much that no one decent will become one. Changing the culture actually requires tough love and honesty, do you think a single politician or celeb is willing to do that? No chance.

How do you explain the mass shootings that occur in non-Democrat controlled areas? Is that a failure of the party in control and the voters that vote them in?
Or don't Republican areas have crime?

Why do you choose to ignore the research that shows many mass shooters are suicidal?

Why do so many bad people become cops that all cops end up being demonised?

Why do you absolve the Federal government of any responsibility?

I agree that no single politician on either side can fix it - but 'thoughts and prayers' certainly won't, which is generally the only Republican response to mass shootings in their districts.

The significantly fewer amount of shooting that occur in Red areas? I blame the shooter primarily. I don't excuse them by blaming the "system".

Very few cops are bad, obviously some are. I'm not very pro cop, i understand that while they are not perfect, i'd rather them than not.
Do you support the leftwing policy of defund the police?

I do blame the government, they dish out the welfare like it's candy that help create the toxic inner city culture.

the-goon2 wrote:The significantly fewer amount of shooting that occur in Red areas? I blame the shooter primarily. I don't excuse them by blaming the "system".

Very few cops are bad, obviously some are. I'm not very pro cop, i understand that while they are not perfect, i'd rather them than not.
Do you support the leftwing policy of defund the police?

I do blame the government, they dish out the welfare like it's candy that help create the toxic inner city culture.

So you don't blame the system but you do blame the government?
What is the difference between the two?

I don't agree with defunding the police, nor with most radical left policies, that fall outside the mainstream policies of left wing parties.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

This was my point. Criminals will always be criminals, stricter gun laws wont prevent that, you need major cultural and systemic overhaul to even begin to get rid of crime altogether.

However, stricter gun laws might be able to stop the bullied autistic kid from going to his parents gun locker, grabbing a few high capacity rifles and blowing away 10 of his class mates.

Some of the things parents have to do just to send their kids to school now beggars belief. I know parents who take photos of their kids every single morning, so they know exactly what they’re wearing so if something happens the can quickly identify them in a crowd. You can buy bullet proof inserts for school backpacks now. Jesus Frak christ, bullet proof inserts. Live shooter drills for Gods sake.

All so they can stand there, every morning with their hand on their heart and pledge allegiance to the flag of a country that couldnt give a flying Frak if they make it through the school day or not.

However, stricter gun laws might be able to stop the bullied autistic kid from going to his parents gun locker, grabbing a few high capacity rifles and blowing away 10 of his class mates.

Some of the things parents have to do just to send their kids to school now beggars belief. I know parents who take photos of their kids every single morning, so they know exactly what they’re wearing so if something happens the can quickly identify them in a crowd. You can buy bullet proof inserts for school backpacks now. Jesus Frak christ, bullet proof inserts. Live shooter drills for Gods sake.

This.

I don't have the stats and can't be arsed to wade through a ton of data but I suspect most mass shottings, eg those at schools etc are not carried out by criminals. So the ridiculous excuse of "oh not point having gun controls as bad guys will always get them" is uttter nonsense and a total cop out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:The significantly fewer amount of shooting that occur in Red areas? I blame the shooter primarily. I don't excuse them by blaming the "system".

Very few cops are bad, obviously some are. I'm not very pro cop, i understand that while they are not perfect, i'd rather them than not.
Do you support the leftwing policy of defund the police?

I do blame the government, they dish out the welfare like it's candy that help create the toxic inner city culture.

So you don't blame the system but you do blame the government?
What is the difference between the two?

I don't agree with defunding the police, nor with most radical left policies, that fall outside the mainstream policies of left wing parties.

I blame criminals for their actions primarily. Clearly you don't. It seems to be a classic trait of the left to blame the police for arresting so many blacks, rather than those blacks for committing crimes. So what happens, police officers resign or retire or chose a different job in 1st place knowing that if they have a violent interaction with a black man, even if it was justified they will be demonised. They refuse to police black neighbourhoods, so crime goes up even further. And as I've shown, crime drives poverty, those neighbourhoods become poorer.

It's called the "Ferguson effect".

But the locals vote the same leaders that push this, and have done for 50 years now. It won't change if you continue to vote in race grifters, so good luck to them, you get what you deserve in that sense. The issue is the hotbed of criminality that it fosters, is no longer confined to these neighbourhoods, others are affected.

I think you'll find the "Ferguson effect" is intimidating officials to add more injury time to allow Utd to snatch a winner.

the-goon2 wrote:I blame criminals for their actions primarily. Clearly you don't.

Clearly that's a lack of understanding on your part.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:I blame criminals for their actions primarily. Clearly you don't.

Clearly that's a lack of understanding on your part.

Oh please, go on. This should be entertaining.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:I blame criminals for their actions primarily. Clearly you don't.

Clearly that's a lack of understanding on your part.

Oh please, go on. This should be entertaining.

Yes it would be, but let's face it, you are who you are.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:I blame criminals for their actions primarily. Clearly you don't.

Clearly that's a lack of understanding on your part.

Oh please, go on. This should be entertaining.

Yes it would be, but let's face it, you are who you are.

It's a shame that you conceded defeat so quickly. Hopefully there are others more capable of defending their views on here to engage with.

Yes, I concede defeat. You are obviously both morally and intellectually superior to me, and I'm sure you take great satisfaction in that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I concede defeat. You are obviously both morally and intellectually superior to me, and I'm sure you take great satisfaction in that.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I concede defeat. You are obviously both morally and intellectually superior to me, and I'm sure you take great satisfaction in that.

Where did this prick come from?

You disagree with anything i've said?

the-goon2 wrote:You disagree with anything i've said?

No, 'prick' is a term of endearment.

Are you capable of a rational conversation or playground insults the best you can do?

I am interested to understand your position on Mass Shootings in the US.

the-goon2 wrote:Are you capable of a rational conversation or playground insults the best you can do?

I am interested to understand your position on Mass Shootings in the US.

From previous discussion I find it unlikely that you are actually interested in anyone else's position.

superflyweight wrote:

Where did this prick come from?  

Norway?

I am interested in yours, I thought it was completely wrong, and gave my reasons why.

You ended the discussion by just saying I somehow lack understanding because I hold humans responsible for their own actions without going into why.

I don't think I've made a point that I haven't given reasoning to why I hold it.

I said you clearly lacked understanding of my position. Which you do. Ironically you didn't understand that statement either.

Nothing personal, but no stranger on the internet is worth arguing at length with, unless that person is reasonably interesting to argue with. No-one is going to change anyone's mind either way. But someone like Duty, for example, I feel is worth having a discussion with from time to time. You aren't.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Where did this prick come from?  

Norway?

That's just not realistic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I said you clearly lacked understanding of my position. Which you do. Ironically you didn't understand that statement either.

Nothing personal, but no stranger on the internet is worth arguing at length with, unless that person is reasonably interesting to argue with. No-one is going to change anyone's mind either way. But someone like Duty, for example, I feel is worth having a discussion with from time to time. You aren't.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I said you clearly lacked understanding of my position. Which you do. Ironically you didn't understand that statement either.

Nothing personal, but no stranger on the internet is worth arguing at length with, unless that person is reasonably interesting to argue with. No-one is going to change anyone's mind either way. But someone like Duty, for example, I feel is worth having a discussion with from time to time. You aren't.

Don't f*cking start!

I shot a steppe buzzard in the face with an R4 assault rifle once. Lol

Can we at least agree that the person most responsible for a crime is the criminal who committed it?
And thus the logical inference of that statement.

I don't think I've seen you agree on this point, which seems quite obvious to me.

More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

the-goon2 wrote:Can we at least agree that the person most responsible for a crime is the criminal who committed it?
And thus the logical inference of that statement.

I don't think I've seen you agree on this point, which seems quite obvious to me.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this point. You mis-understood what Julius was saying though, which was that UNTIL they commit a mass shooting, many of the shooters are not criminals, and they obtained their weapons legally. Therefore, your 'criminals will get weapons' phrase was trite and irrelevant in the context of discussions of mass shooting (and of the recent cases where home-owners have over-reacted and shot people on their doorstep).

The US has two linked issues though - too many guns and a culture that seems to actively promote their use. Both of these need to change to see a significant reduction in gun violence.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

Wait, what?

Well yeah, if areas aren't safe from crime ppl won't setup new businesses > less jobs > less services > higher insurance costs/risks > higher cost of living > lower standard > ppl become more poor >

If any investment gets lost to crime, how does the area improve?

The 1st step to revitalize an area is get crime down, this allows decent hardworking ppl who provide goods and services to the population to thrive and add wealth which can be re-invested in a virtuous circle of improvement and wealth creation. With high crime, there is no incentive for long term investment as anything built will be destroyed or comes at too high a cost, a cost ultimately paid by the residents, and you get the above circle towards poverty.

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:
Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

That's right because if you haven't got any money.....You are going to just starve aren't you ??

.... It's not like poor ppl don't have ample access to food stamps or food banks, and are generally overweight from err. starvation...

This is the first time I have noticed "the-goon2" but certainly his statement (highlighted in red) caught my attention and I was impressed how he defended the first part of his statement "crime causes poverty".  He got the final word in the exchanges that it elicited.  With regard the parallel interaction on "statistics" I decided  to stay clear of that exchange for now.  

With regard the initial highlighted statement I would say the first part was well argued ("crime causes poverty") and the arguments used have formed the bases of political policies.  

With regard the second part to the statement "NOT the other way around".   I disagree although I am not going to make an argument here.  

I would instead like to comment that BOTH can be correct: a) Crime causes Poverty.  b) Poverty causes Crime.   In real world situations complexity and context usually apply, whereas people tend to OVER-simplify and Decontextualize in order to enable them to "understand" and then based on that "understanding" develop policies.  

Lots of disagreements I have seen on-line and elsewhere are often based on people's limited thinking and taking fixed sides, when in fact they may both have important points.   The most important thing in such interactions in my view is to be civil with each other and not to start attacking each other using various forms of ad hominems.  

Going back to the a) Crime causes Poverty -  b) Poverty causes Crime duality,  I suspect BOTH are correct but one may be more relevant to a given situation depending on Context.

Of course the word "crime" can mean a lot of things but I assume we are talking about "violent crime" rather than "white collar crime".   On top of that there is corruption within law enforcement and the Judicial system.   The situation is complex, which tends to occur when you add humans to the environment.

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

That's right because if you haven't got any money.....You are going to just starve aren't you ?? ...

... It's not like poor ppl don't have ample access to food stamps or food banks, and are generally overweight from err. starvation.....

You may have been violently mugged, but did you know the real victim was actually the mugger. You see it's the systematic structures of structural racism that is oppressing him [them]. Or is it the structural systems? I forget which one.

People holding academic positions often have to justify their positions by making such statements (highlighted in red), then people take them seriously because these academics are "experts" and teach their young adult students this, which these students then have to regurgitate and defend in order for them to pass and get a University Degree.  

Such statements trickle down to the streets through media amplification and "do-gooder" social activists (fresh out of University), and provide individuals and groups "justification" for their crime / violent crime.

No name Bertie wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

That's right because if you haven't got any money.....You are going to just starve aren't you ?? ...

... It's not like poor ppl don't have ample access to food stamps or food banks, and are generally overweight from err. starvation.....

You may have been violently mugged, but did you know the real victim was actually the mugger. You see it's the systematic structures of structural racism that is oppressing him [them]. Or is it the structural systems? I forget which one.

People holding academic positions often have to justify their positions by making such statements (highlighted in red), then people take them seriously because these academics are "experts" and teach their young adult students this, which these students then have to regurgitate and defend in order for them to pass and get a University Degree.  

Such statements trickle down to the streets through media amplification and "do-gooder" social activists (fresh out of University), and provide individuals and groups "justification" for their crime / violent crime.

This is an interesting view of the world.

You may have been murdered by a racist cop but the real victims are the honest cops, because now people don't trust them.

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

The link you posted does not say that; you are 11 times more likely to be convicted of a crime in the USA if you are black. 70% of known perpetrators does not equal 70% of mass shootings being commited by black people. The term you insist on using is somewhat vile.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You may have been murdered by a racist cop but the real victims are the honest cops, because now people don't trust them.

I thought the film Crash (2004) covered the issue of race,prejudice, stereotypical thinking in Law Enforcement, Politics and Society in one part of America in one moment of time with sensitivity and realism.  Nothing to do with mass murder granted (this subject has an ability to stray) but there was one example of a killing by a white officer of a young black man and plenty of examples of prejudice.

Well apparently the UK police and the MET in particular are "institutionally racist" but strangely not many mass shooting.

Hang on, could it be because the UK has strict gun control laws?

No, surely not....

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

Nope.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35878710/

I'm sure we could all find a load more of this.

You've (accidentally? Deliberately?) moved the topic off mass shootings (which is where this started) to general gun crime. They aren't the same and regardless, the defence of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of deaths due to gunshot is morally repugnant. Still, they're welcome to it.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

The link you posted does not say that; you are 11 times more likely to be convicted of a crime in the USA if you are black. 70% of known perpetrators does not equal 70% of mass shootings being committed by black people. The term you insist on using is somewhat vile.

Blacks are far more likely to be convicted because the rate of crime is so much higher, is not complex or racist. Asians have a lower conviction rate than whites, I guess the whites are also being systematically oppressed. Men have far higher rates than women, guess we have a sexism against men issue too by your logic. Their neighbourhoods are policed more because the crime rate is so much higher. Police forces tend to focus on areas where more crime is committed.

Obviously this is changing due to progressive policies, leftwing activist DAs, and defunding and demonising of the police. But more some reason crime is going up, murders up, robberies up, and so much so that business after business are leaving the inner cities because the lefties in charge have de-criminalised theft and drug use.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You may have been murdered by a racist cop but the real victims are the honest cops, because now people don't trust them.

So who is to blame in the scenario? Who is to blame for crime in general?

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

Nope.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35878710/

I'm sure we could all find a load more of this.

You've (accidentally? Deliberately?) moved the topic off mass shootings (which is where this started) to general gun crime. They aren't the same and regardless, the defence of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of deaths due to gunshot is morally repugnant. Still, they're welcome to it.

I've given you my data source. I think it's more accurate as it doesn't ignore the vast majority of mass shootings.

But if we are taking your data on a per capita basis of the US population, who is on top? I'll let you do the math on that in your own time.

In terms of gun availability, the cat is out of the bag in the US now. There are so many illegal guns on the street now any gun control laws will only disarm law abiding citizens. In fact gun sales have been increasing rapidly because more and more ppl (including liberals) are realising that the police are less and less likely to save you. They are being defunded and hamstrung and can't fund decent recruits, if you aren't armed, you are an easy target for criminals.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/22/us/united-states-rising-gun-sales/index.html

Crime can be blamed on a lot of things, poverty as people steal to get money for food etc. Greed, people steal because they want more and to them it's easier to steal than work for it.
For some it's a way of family life, the grandparents did it so the sons/daughters follow in family tradition.

As for violent crime, often happens in conjunction with another, eg armed robbery. Or a shopkeeper gets beaten up.
Then there's gang crime, beaten/killed because you are a member of another gang.
Murder - most often done by someone connected to victim apparently. Spouse, work associate, etc.
Let's not forget drugs of course, a massive cause of crime worldwide.

Basically there are lots of reasons but no excuses.

However, I started this thread specifically about mass shootings and it seems the cause of those is most often an imagined or real slight/offence taken against someone or some institution.

Ultimately the only ones to blame for crime are the offenders.

There are so many illegal guns on the street now any gun control laws will only disarm law abiding citizens.

Seeing as this thread is about mass shootings and they tend to be committed by seemingly ordinary people with no history of crime or violence then yes, gun control WILL prevent some of these.

The old chestnut of saying it's no good, too late the bad guys all have guns anyway is a pathetic cop-out I'm afraid.

If nothing is done to at least try and prevent mass killing of innocent men, women and children then how will it ever end?
The line of saying "well just arm more good guys" isn't working.