18 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

That's key too, but it is not about one thing. In other words, yes the access to guns clearly is an issue as it's the instrument of choice. But there are other variables that indicate that is not the only thing at play, and if that was the only difference, then why the consistent drop in crime for decades? Why the increase in these mass shootings when access levels haven't changed materially? Why did one particular type of incident blow up in direct opposition to all the related trends?

 

The removal of a neurotoxin, lead, that did serious long-term damage to the brains of children exposed to it, from gasoline and other consumer products after the establishment of environmental protection.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

The removal of a neurotoxin, lead, that did serious long-term damage to the brains of children exposed to it, from gasoline and other consumer products after the establishment of environmental protection.

I was more showing that mass shootings were working against the greater trend, but... surely you are not suggesting that the only reason crime has been decreasing has been less lead, right?

Anyway, that clearly misses the greater point I am going for here. Why have the mass shootings gone from the rarity (a la Laurie Dann) to a constant barrage, when violent crime generally has decreased so dramatically?

 

2 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I was more showing that mass shootings were working against the greater trend, but... surely you are not suggesting that the only reason crime has been decreasing has been less lead, right?

Anyway, that clearly misses the greater point I am going for here. Why have the mass shootings gone from the rarity (a la Laurie Dann) to a constant barrage, when violent crime generally has decreased so dramatically?

 

Frankly, yes, I will go with that being the entire cause of the increase in crime through the 2nd half of the 20th century and the entire cause of the decrease starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s. There is absolutely nothing else that correlates with that trend line. Police tactics didn't suddenly change in the early 1990s, the amount of money put into policing didn't suddenly change, the number of guns used defensively didn't suddenly increase. Find another variable that goes up drastically in the latter part of that century then turns around at around 1990 over the entire country, with differences in timing based on when each state banned the use of those chemicals. You won't. 

And on the 2nd point...this isn't the only answer, but it sure helps to kill a lot of people when you have access to an assault style semi-automatic weapon that puts people on the ground with one shot.

The founding fathers were huge fans of 3D printers.

The Parkland, Florida shooter had a "demon voice in his head that told him to burn, kill, destroy" and was legally and responsibly able to purchase an AK style rifle. Since we judged him to be responsible, I'd assume that's true about most other responsible gun owners. 

Reporting four dead, at least 10 shot

That video is so damn crazy.  I haven't read much on the situation yet, was there a motive or just general craziness?

27 minutes ago, bigruss said:

That video is so damn crazy.  I haven't read much on the situation yet, was there a motive or just general craziness?

As of right now, just seems like he was mad he lost.

6 minutes ago, Quinarvy said:

As of right now, just seems like he was mad he lost.

FFS, ugh.