And mass shootings are virtually nonexistent in countries where gun ownership is restricted.
If it is true "mass shootings are extremely rare in comparison to the total number of guns owners
," and "mass shootings are virtually nonexistent in countries where gun ownership is restricted
," then the problem is neither guns nor their number. The problem is mental health, not gun ownership, possession, number of firearms per person, or open carry. ALL of these are red herrings to the problem of mental illness manifesting as mass shootings.
We pour billions
of dollars into mental illness but don't address this one area. We have seven or eight decades
of social science research telling us what creates and maintains healthy, functional society on both an individual and corporate level, but that information is largely ignored in policy and law. Why? Supposedly this information is ignored because it is not profitable politically or in the media but that's just hogwash. The very same argument applied to "green policy" (the economy will adapt) could be applied to research-driven social policy and legislation.
In the over-whelming number of cases of mass shootings, the perpetrator was mentally ill AND known beforehand to have some sort of emotional and relational dysfunction.
Did the NYT's article mention any
of that? Is the absence of this information a lie of omission? Neglect? Incompetence? Intentionally left out because of some unstated reason, purpose, agenda, or goal?
Now here's a thought that's gonna provoke: most of us are complicit!
because if we really want this to stop then we'll act in a manner that ignores all
the red herrings and addresses the actual problem to be solved. One step in that direction is NOT authoring ops like this one! Another step is not relying on biased sources that assert red herrings and ignore the truth.
Open Carry: How many guns is too many? Who in heaven and hell knows, but that is not the question we should be asking! It is a red herring. It is beneath us to entertain that question as veracious. It should be called out for what it is (a fallacious red herring), and then ignored. And if EVERYONE did that then we'd have one small place of consensus, one small place of unity that transcends political divisions, and maybe one small place of unity and consensus upon which we can build more of the same to keep fools who don't shoot a bunch of people from carrying multiple firearms (even soldiers in combat don't carry more than a few firearms; they carry ammo, not multiple weapons), AND those who are mentally ill from endangering others.
America is not other nations
. On ALL such occasions, comparisons with other nations are ALWAYS false analogies
. False analogies are not a reasonable, rationale basis for sound social policy and law. For better or worse, Americans like their guns. For better or worse, the US Constitution guarantees a right to bear firearms to every citizen AND prohibits the federal government from legislation restricting that right. Americans may have a collective hole in their soul but complaints and contempt do not solve the problem red-herringly cited in this op and the NYT article it referenced.
Lastly, in my profession we have a "rule," a guideline that says, simply, there is not proper treatment absent correct diagnosis
. It's a concept that can and should be applied to a variety of circumstances as a universal core-concept in problem solving. This is important because the vast majority of argument over "gun control," and the Second Amendment are red herrings. If I did in my profession what politicians and the media do in theirs, I'd be in front of the ethics committee, a courtroom judge, and quite possibly looking for a new profession. HERE is the Journalists' Code of Ethics for everyone to read. Go back to the NYT article and measure it by the standards listed in this Code, and then ask yourself how it is they get away violating their own ethics (frequently and severely, often with enduring effect)? Likewise, every single legislator swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of either the federal government, the state government, or the laws of their municipality. They do NOT swear an oath to change the Constitution based on transient political ideology or personal preference.
We are all complicit when we do not hold the institutions of our country accountable to the rule(s) of law. We are also complicit when we abdicate logic, reason, and the rule of law to ideological preferences.