The Top 10 Mass Gun Shootings in the United States

[RandallS]

This was inspired by a comment from a Facebook friend who posted a meme saying “Legal Gun Owners Are Not the Problem. Mentally Unbalanced Leftist Activists Are The Problem.” The quote was attributed to someone named Don Williams, but I can find no evidence of any source for it. I wondered if the quote was true and whether most mass shootings could be attributed to “Leftists.” Here’s what I found.

Here Are The Top 10 mass gun shootings in the United States:

Read the article for the list (and commentary)

Truth in Posting Department: I've known the author since high school.

[Uneryx]

Read the article for the list (and commentary)

Truth in Posting Department: I've known the author since high school.

The lift of the ban on people with mental health issues purchasing guns makes me want to chew my own face off.

Why on earth can't the states regulate guns with the same oversight and vigor they regulate cars, health care, immigration, etc? Like, why is treating a gun like a car in terms of licensing and insurance such a point of contention?!

[MadZealot]

The lift of the ban on people with mental health issues purchasing guns makes me want to chew my own face off.

Why on earth can't the states regulate guns with the same oversight and vigor they regulate cars, health care, immigration, etc? Like, why is treating a gun like a car in terms of licensing and insurance such a point of contention?!

Anyone adjudicated mentally unfit is barred from possessing a firearm. But reporting is inconsistent and NICS needs serious overhaul.

[MadZealot]

Truth in Posting Department: I've known the author since high school.

No slight to your schoolmate. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed by the United States Government. 

(Link code fix - Sunflower)

[Owl]

No slight to your schoolmate. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed by the United States Government. 

(Link code fix - Sunflower)

What MZ said. Never forget what happens when you get on the wrong side of our government and they feel they can get away with doing something about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MadZealot]

(Link code fix - Sunflower)

Thanks for that, SP. I had no idea what I was doing wrong. Figured it was just my own 'puter being a dick. 

[Morag]

No slight to your schoolmate. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed by the United States Government. 

(Link code fix - Sunflower)

Wounded Knee was a military action of an invading force against the people whose land they were occupying. It was a massacre. It was an act of an ongoing attempt at genocide.

Calling it a mass shooting redefines the term into meaninglessness (which is already happening), and muddies the discussion.

Not to mention, the common perception of a mass shooting -- unsanctioned murder of multiple people by someone or someones with a fire arm, going out in a "blaze of glory" -- allows the gov't to escape the blame they deserve for Wounded Knee. It also allows people to avoid the hard discussion about how the culture of the US is one of glorification of violence.

The men who massacred those people got medals of honor, because it was a military operation that was considered good. It was not even considered murder when it happened.

When we call it a mass shooting, we open the door for people to rewrite history, and say "Oh, the gov't didn't really sanction it! That was the work of some people who went rogue!" Instead of being honest about the history of the US, and the policy of genocide that was Manifest Destiny. Instead of being honest about a culture that cultivates a love affair with violence.

Calling it a mass shooting waters down the truth.

[Owl]

Wounded Knee was a military action of an invading force against the people whose land they were occupying. It was a massacre. It was an act of an ongoing attempt at genocide.

Calling it a mass shooting redefines the term into meaninglessness (which is already happening), and muddies the discussion.

Not to mention, the common perception of a mass shooting -- unsanctioned murder of multiple people by someone or someones with a fire arm, going out in a "blaze of glory" -- allows the gov't to escape the blame they deserve for Wounded Knee. It also allows people to avoid the hard discussion about how the culture of the US is one of glorification of violence.

The men who massacred those people got medals of honor, because it was a military operation that was considered good. It was not even considered murder when it happened.

When we call it a mass shooting, we open the door for people to rewrite history, and say "Oh, the gov't didn't really sanction it! That was the work of some people who went rogue!" Instead of being honest about the history of the US, and the policy of genocide that was Manifest Destiny. Instead of being honest about a culture that cultivates a love affair with violence.

Calling it a mass shooting waters down the truth.

Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Castus]

Read the article for the list (and commentary)

Truth in Posting Department: I've known the author since high school.

People with any diagnosed mental illness whatsoever should be federally barred from owning firearms. We're not /too/ far off but there certainly remains work to be done. For example, I myself am barred from owning a firearm due to 'involuntary' institutionalisation, as opposed to voluntarily admitting myself for mental health treatment. That's all fine and dandy and I absolutely agree with the necessity for such a law but I also know that I could get the right to own a gun restored; and fairly easily at that. That's no bueno. Close the loopholes, tighten the regulations, and don't let the mentally ill own guns.

Problem solved.

[SunflowerP]

Thanks for that, SP. I had no idea what I was doing wrong. Figured it was just my own 'puter being a dick.

You had quotation marks around the link. Necessary in HTML, link-breaking in the BBCode used on TC.

Sunflower

[SunflowerP]

Close the loopholes, tighten the regulations, and don't let the mentally ill own guns.

Problem solved.

This is not supported by the evidence.

Mental illness and violence (Harvard Mental Health Letter, January 2011)
Violence and mental illness: an overview (World Psychiatry, Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association, June 2003)
Violence and Mental Illness: The Facts (PDF; fact sheet on the California Department of Health Care Services website)
Facts About Mental Illness and Violence (fact sheet on UW School of Social Work, Mental Health Reporting website)
Violence and Mental Illness Stats, Mental Illness Policy.Org
Fact vs myth: mental illness & violence (fact sheet on SANE Australia website)
Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health (Q&A with an expert who studies the relationship between mental illness and violence on ProPublica)

This is not difficult information to find; put 'mental illness and violence' into your preferred search engine (I used DuckDuckGo). These were among the first 15 hits I got (the others were mainstream news articles with less substance, plus one or two non-relevant ones. Oh, and NAMI's policy position on Violence And Gun Reporting Laws, which is worth a read in context but has no citations or references, so I omitted it from the above list.)

Sunflower

[Hariti]

People with any diagnosed mental illness whatsoever should be federally barred from owning firearms.

I don't see why this is the case. It's totally arbitrary. Some mental illnesses have no measurable effect on a person's likelihood to commit violent crimes. Banning guns for people who have illnesses that have been *linked* to violence in peer reviewed scientific studies is fine and reasonable. Taking away guns from ALL mentally ill people, irrespective of the illness they have, is nonsensical and overtly discriminatory

[RandallS]

Taking away guns from ALL mentally ill people, irrespective of the illness they have, is nonsensical and overtly discriminatory

Not to mention, probably unconstitutional.

[MadZealot]

I don't see why this is the case. It's totally arbitrary.

The prohibition is quite specific.  Federal Law mandates that anyone who 'has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution' is prohibited from a firearm.  The way it's implemented is explained here; but to sum it up, 'mental(ly) defective' describes " individuals found unfit to stand trial, incompetent to take care of their own affairs, or a danger to themselves or others."

If you read through the Fed law you'll see it's quite comprehensive.  Not only felons, but domestic abusers and certain mentally ill persons are barred, among others.

But how did the TX shooter get a gun? He had mental illness AND domestic violence.

He got a gun because authorities failed to forward his info to NICS.  Failure to report also allowed the VA Tech shooter to get a gun.  On top of that, not all states report, nor are they required to.  I could have a mental health history in MT and buy a gun here in CA, because CA will never see that record. 

Sadly, Castus' solution ain't so simple.  The laws are there, the mechanism for enforcement is there, but the enforcement is not.  Basically, the gov't sucks at gun control. 

[Hariti]

The prohibition is quite specific.  Federal Law mandates that anyone who 'has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution' is prohibited from a firearm.  The way it's implemented is explained here; but to sum it up, 'mental(ly) defective' describes "individuals found unfit to stand trial, incompetent to take care of their own affairs, or a danger to themselves or others."

Two comments:

1) Just because it's specific doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary. You can specifically prohibit lots of thing without any sound evidence or logical motive to do so.

2)People who are legally "Mentally defective" is NOT the same thing as everyone who has a mental illness. There are plenty of mentally ill people who are not "individuals found unfit to stand trial, incompetent to take care of their own affairs, or a danger to themselves or others." So the current law is not, in-fact, the same as what Castus is describing. If the law followed Castus' recommendation, there would be many, many more people on that list, including many people with manageable and non-dangerous illnesses.

As an aside, I think the fact that anyone who has been in a mental hospital is barred is outrageous. There are lots of people who voluntarily go to such institutions, and they should not have to surrender their constitutional right to bear arms. My own grandmother was in such an institution for a while, and she did not have any conditions that would make her more dangerous than anyone else.