I have added many links at the end.
These questions do not apply to one event in particular.
- Do they still sell weapons over the Internet?
- Why is it so hard to convince legislators background checks (including medical history and family violence, court cases…) are necessary?
- Why do people with behavioural or mental health problems so often end up stuffed with pills without any serious monitoring? Does someone even check the pills are being taken and what the effects are?
- Why do people still blame video games for ALL senseless events of violence, even if they are not necessarily a factor in all cases?
- Why do we spend more on bombs and the military than on health care (also true for Canada if you factor in the F-35s and budget cuts)?
- What are the negative effects of some mind or behaviour altering drugs and if the effects are mostly negative, why are they still on the market?
- Gun manufacturers see their profits increase every time a massacre happens. It’s a business like any other business, right? So massacres are good for sales. Is this why they fund the NRA? (They do. I checked.)
- Why do people who have to live with potentially dangerous people have so little support, if any?
- Why do people not see that gun control alone will not solve the problem? Nor will arming everyone.
- There are social issues that compound the gun violence problem. They are many, and they are complex. Are you willing to lobby your legislators for those issues to be addressed too?
- Just what I thought. Go back to watching TV. Wait for others to do something.
Someone else’s take on the problem: The red herring of mental health. I don’t agree with everything, though, and said so in the comments.
Also interesting: Gun control, yes, but that’s only the beginning
The Newtown massacre is not a tragedy. It’s a policy decision.
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence? The crime rate is going down, not the number of mass shootings and casualties, which are going up.
"Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It’s called "aggrieved entitlement." According to the authors, it is "a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine." This feeling was clearly articulated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. Harris said, "People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts…" A group of girls asked him, "Why are you doing this?" He replied, "We’ve always wanted to do this. This is payback… This is for all the sh*t you put us through. This is what you deserve."
"At the risk of getting too existentialist, I’d like to propose a very simple and elegant explanation for not only school shootings but a host of other barbaric acts in recent years: White men are having a crisis of both aggrievement and entitlement."
Why is the shooter always male? (actually (62/63; added the guy in Webster, NY)
Time to profile white men? (and the right-wing reaction)
Why most mass murderers are privileged white men ( I am not a "rabid feminist" and this HAS to be said, whether you like it or not. MOST men are not violent, but those who are do a lot of damage.)