Sociologist: Rampage Killers Private, Emotionally Controlled, Hard To Stop
About as resistant to easy solutions as you can imagine
What can the micro-sociology of violence contribute to understanding the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado, and similar incidents? In the immediate shock of public attention, there is an imperative to give policy answers. I could join the chorus advocating a ban on weapons in the USA. This is a hope; it is not a guarantee. Mass shootings are very rare events. There are about 15,000 homicides per year in the USA; the great majority are single-victim killings. Less than 1% are mass killings (4 or more victims in the same incident). Spectacular mass shootings, where many persons are killed or wounded, have been happening at a rate of about 1 or 2 per year, in the 30 years since 1980, for the most common type, school shootings; shootings in other venues, apparently imitating school shootings, are rarer but on the rise. It is their rarity that attracts so much attention, and their out-of-the-blue, seemingly random relationship between killer and victims, that makes them so dramatically alarming.
This rarity means that very distinctive circumstances are needed to explain mass killings, and that widely available conditions cannot be very accurate predictors. There are approximately 190 million firearms in the civilian population in America, in a population of 310 million. The vast majority of these guns are not used to kill people. Even if we focus on the total number of yearly homicides by gun (about 12,000), the percentage of guns that kill someone is about 12,000 / 190,000,000, or 1 in 16,000. Another way to put it: of approximately 44 million gun owners in the US, 99.97% of them do not murder anyone. It is not surprising that their owners resist being accused of abetting murder.
(H/T Geoff Nathan)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
... as a guy who's studied genocides for years- children killed, tortured, maimed, and mentally destroyed is very much the landscape of the political planet. So much so that it is only earth-shattering news when it occurs in wealthy neighborhoods in white 'Merica. Terrible tragedy? Yes. Uncommon on the planetary scale? Absolutely NOT. In fact, the CT horror is minimal compared to modern Darfur or 90's Sierra Leone and Rwanda, for example.
Good points. I wonder what has happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the last 24 hours.
This is what I was writing below.
What happens when you libertarians start shutting down fire stations? Hospitals?
What?
This is virtual murder.
Frankly, you're an idiot.
snarkometer = 0
Sure.
Every day I sit at my desk a-workin' on devious plots to shut down fire stations and hospitals.
With guns! We will invade those vile institutions!
And then we will replace those institutions with guns! Fires? CHOOT EM! Sick people? CHOOT EM TWICE!
Derp.
Non sequitur.
What does this have to do with anything?
Your post (#3437032) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email webmaster@reason.com.
Snarkometer = 0
Eugene Volokh has a thought experiment on school shootings.
Suppose we allowed armed security guards at schools? Ones who had undergone background checks for moral fitness and licensed to carry guns. Suppose you didn't have the money to pay these security guards, so you relied on volunteers? Suppose those volunteers were recruited from the ranks of teachers and administrators already present at the school? Why do I assume that the sorts of people who have no problem with 'resource officers' being placed in schools would be horrified at the thought of mundanes being allowed the opportunity to defend themselves rather than being left to the tender mercies of the State?