In light of all the recent shootings, do you think there’s anything that can be done to reduce their occurrence?
I don’t have the answer. I don’t know if there’s some acceptable form of gun control that would make sense while also maintaining our constitutional rights, or if an investment in mental health is needed as a country, or what other ideas you think have potential.
I’ll ask for patience with each other as this is a sensitive issue.
Stop the ssri and gender altering drugs. I have seen reports that all mass shooters have been on these drugs. Our media is controlled by pharmaceutical companies so they don’t want this to be known and they try to hide this as best they can. For what it’s worth my kids go to school 8 miles from Annunciation Catholic school that had this recent shooting. We play sports against that school and my kids are similar age 9 and 11 of the kids that were killed. These drugs alter the minds of some people so drastically that these things have been the result. Without these drugs this doesn’t happen. That’s my take it’s not a gun problem it’s a drug problem
@Cjberan Here is some data that highlights the distribution of these horrible acts. AND the data shows that it’s not trans people who are doing the killings mental health plays a huge roll as well. The facts are indisputable. We have a big fear and hate issue in our country. All sides fear and hate the other. It’s a dangerous state of affairs. As a range safety officer and an NRA member. It’s hard for me to support constitutional Carry just based on what I see at the range I. How people have no idea how to safely discharge a weapon at the minimum. And at maximum I feel very unsafe when they do flashing left and right etc. unable to hit paper at 5 yards. that’s just one point. While i really don’t like the inconvenience especially in my state I rest just a little easier knowing some deeply disturbed person has at least some hoops to jump through before they are armed See facts below the violence is overwhelmingly being committed by people from our community or at least demographic I’m sorry if I over generalize And I’d assume ( we all know what does) that most of us are moderate to conservatively leaning while CIS <hetero) males I don’t have the answers I wish i did Charlie felt that some deaths were worth the protections of the 2nd amendment I for one break a bit with that and feel that there has to be a sane balance what that is is beyond me at this point Data below
Most mass shootings are committed by individuals, and the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are cisgender heterosexual men
. Statistics on perpetrator demographics over the last 15 years show that other groups are involved in only a tiny fraction of these crimes.
Mass shootings by groups of people
Mass shootings are almost always carried out by individuals, not groups.
Solo Male Perpetrators: A factsheet from the Rockefeller Institute of Government, based on data from 1966 to 2022, found that 94.8% of mass shooting perpetrators acted alone and were male.
Multiple Perpetrators: The same data found that male-female pairs accounted for 1.1% of mass shooting perpetrators, while two or more males acting together accounted for 0.6%.
Mass shootings by heterosexual white men
Statistics consistently show that cisgender men commit the vast majority of mass shootings, with the majority of those offenders being white.
Cisgender Men: Of the 201 mass shooters included in a database maintained by The Violence Project, 97.5% were cisgender men.
Sexual Orientation: A study from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, notes that the “vast majority of offenders are heterosexual”.
White Men: Data covering mass shootings up to 2024 shows that white men, who make up about 31% of the U.S. population, have committed 51% of mass shootings since 1966.
Mass shootings by heterosexual women
Female mass shooters are extremely rare, and when they do occur, it is often in the context of domestic violence.
Cisgender Women: A database of mass shootings found that 2% of attacks were carried out by cisgender women.
Historical Trends: A criminologist at Northeastern University found that women committed only 33 of the 589 mass killings with four or more victims that occurred since 2006.
Mass shootings by transgender individuals
Claims that transgender individuals are a significant driver of mass shootings are false and not supported by data. Transgender individuals are statistically more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
Less than 1%: Research by The Violence Project and other sources indicates that less than 1% of mass shootings have been committed by transgender individuals.
Incidents in the Last Decade: The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) database, which uses a broader definition of mass shootings, notes that transgender suspects account for less than 0.1% of mass shootings over the past decade.
And for political leaning
Attempting to assign a political ideology to perpetrators of mass shootings is not a straightforward or reliable process for several reasons:
Most mass shootings are not politically motivated. The majority are driven by personal motives, such as workplace disputes, domestic violence, gang violence, or mental health crises. A significant number are not connected to any identifiable political cause.
Perpetrators typically act alone. The vast majority of mass shootings are carried out by a single individual, not a group. Assigning a “group” ideology is inapplicable in these cases.
Ideology is often difficult to determine or is ambiguous. Even in cases with an ideological motive, determining the specific political leaning can be difficult, as the shooter’s motivations may be complex or unclear.
However, some data exists regarding extremist violence, a subset of attacks that are ideologically motivated:
Extremist violence: Studies show that ideologically motivated violence in the U.S., including mass killings, has been overwhelmingly committed by right-wing extremists.
**Anti-Defamation League (ADL) data:**The ADL, which tracks extremist-related murders, has found that right-wing extremists are responsible for the majority of these killings, and in some years, such as 2022, they were responsible for all of them.
Focus on white supremacy: ADL data for 2022 revealed that 80% of extremist-related murders that year were committed by white supremacists. In 2023, white supremacists were responsible for 74% of extremist killings.
Left-wing extremism: According to PBS, left-wing extremist incidents, such as those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, represent a smaller fraction of ideologically motivated attacks and fatalities. This violence is also more often directed at property rather than people.
The question I ask ppl who are for gun control is, who gets to make the decision to take away someone’s gun? The justice system we have is flawed, and federal law prohibits felons from owning firearms already. The justice system is slow and onerous, but in some ways, this is good because taking the rights away of anyone should always be a big deal and the crime should match the punishment. We know healthcare workers including mental healthcare cannot be trusted. So I ask, who gets to decide who can or can’t have a firearm? Bureaucrats? Law enforcement? Psychologists and psychiatrists? Politicians? I don’t think I know of anyone I would trust to make that decision. And if anyone believes this is an over reaction, let me introduce you to Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Tyrannical regimes often implement strict gun laws in order to disarm their political enemies.
Mass shootings in modern America are tragic. We had higher gun ownership per capita in the past and did not have this problem. Maybe we should look to what has changed about our society and country? But a hundred million dead under communism and 25 million dead under fascism during the twentieth century in some part resulting from the disarming of good people who are left to be taken advantage of by the state who has the true monopoly on violence? I would be hesitant to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
My personal thoughts on it is that it is a conspiracy on behalf of the gun control nuts. Finding people who are easily influenced and convincing them that it would be a good thing to do. It’s all political. 
I generally agree with your statement that most of the targeted mass shootings have been perpetrated by young, heterosexual, white men. That said, I do have a few thoughts to offer.
First, regarding political affiliation and violence, the methodology used by most researchers, including the ADL data you cite, is flawed and skews the analysis. I’ve looked at their methods closely and much of the left-wing extremist violence is not included because it did not result in fatalities. For example, in 2020 the federal building in Portland, OR was attacked for 100 nights straight, and in total, over 200 days, by overtly left-wing extremists. They assaulted officers, used incendiary devices, broke windows, set fires, etc every night for over three straight months, but that isn’t counted by ADL as left-wing extremist violence. These attacks are categorized merely as public order disturbances, property crimes, or assaults, and thus not included in the ADL data, yet they most certainly represent extremist political violence.
In the last year, or so, we have seen left-wing extremist attacks become more lethal. I heard a great quote last night, paraphrasing here, the left uses violence like a dial, whereas the right uses it as a switch. Left wing extremists start with lower-level violence, riots, looting, property crimes, arson, and then increase the level of violence over time, like a dial. For those of you who remember the TEA Party days, you never saw riots, cars set on fire, vandalism, etc, but in contrast, right-wing extremist attacks, while far less frequent, tend to go directly to lethal attacks, flipping violence on like a switch. To me, however, it looks like the left has turned up that dial to where now they are at the level of lethal attacks, and the frequency is increasing.
The other point I want to make is that while historically, I agree, the mass shooter profile has been a young, heterosexual, white male, we are seeing an increase in transgender shooters. This is speculation on my part, but the use of testosterone for long periods of time for this purpose may be a contributing factor.
The last point I want to address is the differentiation between “mass shootings” as defined by advocacy groups and targeted mass shootings. The FBI defines a mass murder as one in which four or more are killed in a single event. This definition is then applied by many researchers and subsequently reported by violence prevention advocacy groups. As a result, many instances of what I will term street violence, that is to say violence associated with criminal activity (gangs, drug dealing, etc.) are swept up in their counts. One such shooting took place a couple of years ago in my hometown, Sacramento, when two rival gangs started shooting at each other late one night on a busy street as the bars and restaurants were closing. Tragic for sure, and yes, innocent bystanders were killed, but not the same as targeted mass murders where a specific location is attacked.
I much as I hate to say this, and it should be simple, a gun license just like a drivers license… it’s a big pain in the ass, and they should possibly do a slow progression into it like states have done with boater education cards to drive a boat, or hunter safety course to hunt, that if you were born in this year or early your exempt etc… But once you issue me my license that’s where the state should STOP! If I have a license then I should be able to buy and own what ever gun I want….
But on the police end of it, if someone’s driving a car and gets pulled over, well their cars getting towed if they don’t have a license. So if a cop pulls a car over and see guns in the car, and asks can I see your gun license well if they don’t have one the guns get taken away…
But the truth of it all is that if someone’s Hell bent on hurting another individual then, they’ll find a way regardless if they have a gun or not.
@Mark_MacBayne well said
Yes I agree with much of what you say. The more direct point was and is that these are more about individuals acting on their own and not tied to a specific ideology so pointing fingers at specific groups that one disagrees with can be at best misleading and at worst the inflammatory rhetoric that fuels our nations divide even more. I included the point about white hetero males
To make the point that ‘when we point a finger at something there are usually 3 pointing back at ourselves. And in saying that old adage It highlights I could have been clearer. It really highlights what IMHO is the greatest threat to our country. Fear and Hate. When one is caught up in hating another person or group It will almost Always boil down to fear. It’s the common denominator. When we get to know and see the humanity in another and It’s always there somewhere we can find a way to bridge differences. It doesn’t mean we agree or even have to like another idea or opinion. Being said It gives us the ability to live by what I firmly live by which is a true libertarian ideal, this is my personal saying. Not what libertarianism’s been co-opted to be …..
“Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose and My beliefs stop at the tip of your rights. “
Peacefully Debating rights is a good place to start
There will be a solution to this problem when we collectively as Americans find a way to be tolerant of each other. All the religions state this in one way or another. With tolerance there is listening with listening there is dialog with dialog there is compromise with compromise there is peace. I am my brothers keeper.
I agree and particularly liked the section quoted above. I condemn political violence from both sides. My earlier post was intended only to clarify that sadly both the extremist elements of both the left and the right are engaged in violence. I hold the firm belief that the US Constitution is the best form govenment yet devised. While there have been instances of political violence throughout our nation’s history, the ideals you articulate are exactly what is inteneded with the rights recognized in the Constitution. Civil society in which we settle differences with words and not violence is much preferable to the alternative. Peaceful debate and tolerance of opposing views is the key.
Yes and you left off the saying posting here as im gonna make a t-shirt of this 
“Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose and My beliefs stop at the tip of your rights. “
And unfortunately the constitution which was designed to be a living breathing document cant live an breath right now. For at least the time being It will stay stagnant with no chance of amendment.
To amend the U.S. Constitution, a proposed amendment must first be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or special ratifying conventions.
Good luck with that. Our fore fathers designed It to be just that, changeable. They realized times change and that the leaders to come needed to be able to roll with those punches. They didn’t think they knew it all they realized they could be wrong so they left room to fix what needed to be fixed. Remember the right to bear arms is not a god given right .. Its a right given to us by an amendment to the constitution we would never be able to get that done today.
They also were not career politician’s they were farmers and business men who came together a couple of times a year to make laws and govern It was a part time gig. Thats why we have executive orders, not to do things when congress is around but to do things when they were not in session. Take a look at what the compensation is for the congress and the senate. Its insane. also they are not subject to insider trading rules. Im heavily vested in the ‘NANC’ fund (Up19.25% 1yr) this is a fund that tracks Nancy Pelosi’s investments as they are of public record It just does what she does. look how It beats the S&P (15.44% 1yr) in a big way. There is the GOP (15.27 1yr) fund to tracking GOP investment. Why its not doing what the NAC fund does is beyond me makes me wonder if the GOP know what Its doing ROFL ( Not a fund).
Basically the short answer IMHO is MAYBE SOME KIND OF Term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. this will get out the career people bring in people to roll up their sleeves and work . People who want to do something not get rich and power only . Back to the days of part time governance. They will only have the time to do the job and get something done then good by. Maybe 2-3, 3-4yr terms. I dont have the answer to that but It sounds reasonable.
Term limits would help for sure. It would eliminate the fact that over time even good people are beholden to who funds their next election campaign. Problem is who pays for it is not the people they represent. Saying that also means we need to get big money out of politics.
It is difficult to ammend the Constitution, but I think reading the history, the Founders wanted it that way to prevent the fundamental governing document of the country from being subjected to the shifting sands of culture and passions of the day. That said, it absolutely can happen because it has 27 times. Now granted the first 10 were immediately following ratification, but that still leaves 17 additional amendments. I think the point of the two-thirds requirement both in Congress and the states is the ensure the amendment truly represents the will of the people, not the simple majority.
In this conversation, I do have to take a different point of view on the origin of our rights. The Founders very much articulated that we have rights given by our Creator that cannot justly be taken away. One of those inalienable rights is life. That is to say, no one has the right to unjustly deprive another of their life. By extension, if one’s life is being threatened, they have the right to self-defense. By extention to the polity, this right can also be exercised collectively to resist a tyranical government. So I would clarify that in my understanding our right to keep and bear arms is God given.
I do agree with you on term limits. I don’t think it is the panacea for all our current problems, but I definitely think it would help.
I hear the argument. Endowed by the creator. And they were clear on separation of church and state in the first amendment they were clear about establishing religion nationally. So they seem to acknowledge the creator and in the next stroke ask him to stay out their business.
We agree most of this. Even most of the gun side of the discussion. Hey I’m armed and prepared physically mentally and with extreme proficiency to act given a true imminent threat to me and mine. Existentially I’m not looking or thinking it’s lurking around every corner. I walk pretty comfortably on the streets of manhattan unarmed. I don’t begrudge one the right to walk around armed either. If we really want to toss a creator into all of this I’d reframe It from a god given right to if one chooses to it’s a god given deep responsibility one takes on. This is why having some real requirement around walking with one in the chamber in public is in order. I’ve said It before. Being an NRA range safety officer me and the fellow brothers sit around and pretty much to a man feel like that from what we witness not everyone should be walking around armed. With the right training and respect to the responsibility it’s a diff story. How we decide is another topic and I don’t know if there is one definitive answer to It. That’s my story and opinion. And we all know about opinions they are like &$@?homes everyone’s got one 
As a fellow NRA certified RSO, I hear you. I have no qualms about how you reframe, recognizing the significant responsibility one takes on by choosing to carry. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation
Hope to hang one day Mark
Yep I’m all in for Term limits! 8 years max!
Oh where do I begin?
First you can’t use data without using all the data.
The adl and npr? I hope your not expecting anyone to take that serious.
First. If a mass shooting is defined by 4 or more casualties there are many intercity neighborhoods that would be fighting for the crown. But those incidents are not counted 
isn’t that convenient?
2nd over half of gun deaths are suicide.. these should be excluded at least in part because there are other methods of suicide that would be employed in almost all of those cases.
Case in point. Suicide rates in prison are very high
Firearms are not available to the inmates.
3rd The constitution was designed to be c changed but it’s very difficult to do so on purpose.
The 2nd amendment was ratified within the bill of rights at @ 78% of states voting for it. 11-3.
4th ( should be 1st) gun control has never worked, and to employ it today in America would have to equal confiscation. There are more firearms in the US than there are people.
Taking us to #5…. Licenses for firearms isn’t going to make a difference. There are less cars than guns and more motor vehicle deaths than gun deaths. You think the gun range is dangerous try the I-10 
it’s kinda like getting rso from the nra. When my brother went and got his there was a guy from California there to get his and he would not even touch a gun, but he got the cert! ( i think he was a scout leader and the troop sent him? )
Last but not least. In light of what’s going on today ( not data spanning 6 decades) where Christian conservatives are being targeted, killed for their beliefs both political and spiritual. …
I will be giving my weapons up to absolutely no one. The only reason anyone would ask you to give up your 2nd amendment right is because they prefer unarmed victims because they do not plan on giving up theirs believe that!
So no matter how politely you ask or coercive your lies ( data from the adl , npr etc) my answer is always going to be emphatic NO! And I’m getting sick of being being polite about it.
I really believe that social media is the vehicle that is pushing people over the edge. The irony doesn’t escape me that I type this on an online forum. I’ve been in the tech industry since 1991 and understand the psychology that developers utilize to keep people on their sites. That is the only way they make money is by ads on eye balls. The algorithms are very sophisticated to keep feeding you what you react to.
I believe in personal responsibility but if you keep feeding people hate and division it will take root.
Root cause relates to socio-political changes to US culture decades in the making. If there’s a fix, it will require a shift in US culture away from the current oppressor-oppressed victimhood culture that says “words are violence” inculcated in 10s of millions of Americans back to a greater acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability. As long as people routinely blame others for their unhappiness and anger with the understanding that they have a right to violently “defend” themselves from their oppressors, killings attributed to mental illness &or political motivations will continue and perhaps continue to increase.
In the mean time, the only way to reduce is to deter (e.g., note that the guy who shot up a movie an Aurora CO theater in 2012 passed several other theaters en route, preferring to target one that expressly prohibited patrons carrying firearms).
PS - gun control has never reduced crime in the US and certainly won’t stop hate-based violence.