,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So let's talk about gun homicides, mass shootings, and gun control one more time.
If your goal is to prevent tragedies instead of simply exploit them for political gain, you will want to look at the problem and whether the proposed solutions are relevant to the problem.
If your goal is to prevent tragedies instead of simply exploit them for political gain, you will want to look at the problem and whether the proposed solutions are relevant to the problem.
There are 2 underlying facts that are very important in this discussion.
1) Gun homicides have steadily and significantly declined for decades in America.
2) Mass shootings, regardless of your exact definition, have clearly increased over the last decade.
1) Gun homicides have steadily and significantly declined for decades in America.
2) Mass shootings, regardless of your exact definition, have clearly increased over the last decade.
In order to address the problem we must look at what is the difference between these two things.
Why did the former happen (hint: it wasn’t due to less access to guns)?
Why is the latter trend occurring given the reduction in gun homicides?
Why did the former happen (hint: it wasn’t due to less access to guns)?
Why is the latter trend occurring given the reduction in gun homicides?
If you look at the facts in these mass shootings, we have consistently seen that many of the gun control proposals on the table are not relevant. That’s why the people who start yelling about them have no interest in the facts of these tragedies.
They don’t care where the shooter got a gun, if they passed a background check, what type of gun they used (most mass shootings = handguns) etc.
In other words, we have to look at each solution individual while gaining a better understanding of the problem.
In other words, we have to look at each solution individual while gaining a better understanding of the problem.
That’s why former 538 gun researcher wrote this op-ed about how her research led her to change her mind and conclude that the current gun control proposals wouldn’t address mass shootings. washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-use…
So what is the difference?
Most gun homicides are personal or crime-related, but mass shootings tend to be political. The goal is typically to send a message or promote an ideology (ex: radical Islam, white nationalism etc)
Most gun homicides are personal or crime-related, but mass shootings tend to be political. The goal is typically to send a message or promote an ideology (ex: radical Islam, white nationalism etc)
In addition, mass hooters have consistently displayed warning signs of mental health issues and radicalization.
If those are the differentiators, any logical person would say that’s where we need to start looking for solutions.
If those are the differentiators, any logical person would say that’s where we need to start looking for solutions.
The next question should be how can we improve our current system to look for those warning signs and address them before a tragedy.
That’s how we save lives. But that won’t happen as long as people are more interested in scoring political points than saving lives.
That’s how we save lives. But that won’t happen as long as people are more interested in scoring political points than saving lives.
Yes, the media problem is the biggest one that needs to be addressed. Outlets have definitely gotten better about not publicizing the shooter as much, but a long way to go.
Adding to this thread. One of the most popular suggestions is mandating background checks on private transfers, but once again that change would not have been relevant in either of the mass shootings:
It’s now clear that those warning signs existed yet again in these cases, but were overlooked. Those actually interested in preventing these tragedies should focus on how we can ensure someone intervenes earlier next time:
