Two RECENT US mass shootings. Where do we go from here?

[oladub]

This is unusually silly for you.

Homicide associated with guns and gangs is always going to be more concentrated in urban areas, which in the US context are almost all more Democratic.

Yes, they are mostly Democratic. I agree that gangs are most often found in Democratic cities. However, there must be lot of hunters who own guns in New Hampshire.

Comparing NYC to NewHampshire is silly.

Actually, I listed the U.S. next to Canada and Louisiana next to New Hampshire. Both are states.

You at least need to find a large 2M+ urban centre that tends to vote Republican if you wanted to draw that rather specious comparison.

There are some large U.S. cities like Seattle and NYC that have lower homicide rates the the U.S. although Democratic cities usually have higher homicide rates. Of the 33 cities of the largest 100 cities that have a lower homicide rate then the U.S., a higher percentage of Republican cities show up. Maybe Jefferson was right about the evils of urbanization. Of the corresponding 33 of 100 cities with the highest homicide rates, only a few might be Republican or at least not overwhelmingly Democrat. I didn't make up these numbers.

After all, right in your own list, you show the Canada-wide homicide rate at roughly 1/3 of the U.S. rate.
Canada's most conservative regions are to the political left of anything you'd fine in LA or NYC.

So what? I cited Democrat, not liberal.

Our Big Cities across the board have homicide rates, this year of 2.2 or less.

Toronto [[2.2), Montreal around 0.9, Vancouver 1.0.

All are subject to Canada's gun laws; and universal healthcare.

Did you miss the part about "Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000."? That's remarkable progress. I made it red this time to stand out. We must be doing something right.

I did put the U.S. and Canadian rates next to each other. I wasn't trying to hide them. Congratulations on Canada's better numbers. You can pat yourself on the back. Thank's for caring.

I found this too. "The global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004. UNODC [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 [[in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide2013").

Canada and most of the developed world are doing better than the U.S which in turn is doing better than the world average. Much of the world's population considers abortion to be homicide. I usually don't. If we included abortion numbers, my guess is that the United States would be in the middle again with a more or less reverse order of nations.

[ABetterDetroit]

Almost all of these nuts realize that afterwards they are either dead, or going to prison for the rest of their life. The idea that having to pay more for ammunition would deter them is insane in itself.

A tax on semi-automatic receivers at the point of manufacture and the same with ammunition primers wouldn’t be to “deter”.

It would raise funds for needed mental health and law enforcement to help with the cost on society that people with mental problems and guns inflict.

It would raise billions needed when the federal government can’t come close to balancing a budget.

If a tariff is necessary for consumers to pay because of the danger of importing to many Chinese toys some income generated for mental health and law enforcement surly can be tolerated by taxing guns and ammunition.

Intelligent fiscal policy has to prevail at some point. Many of us are sick and tired of giving a free ride to the special interest of both political parties. They are hypocrites that blow money like crazy on their respective bases and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

[Canadian Visitor]

Yes, they are mostly Democratic. I agree that gangs are most often found in Democratic cities. However, there must be lot of hunters who own guns in New Hampshire.


Actually, I listed the U.S. next to Canada and Louisiana next to New Hampshire. Both are states.


There are some large U.S. cities like Seattle and NYC that have lower homicide rates the the U.S. although Democratic cities usually have higher homicide rates. Of the 33 cities of the largest 100 cities that have a lower homicide rate then the U.S., a higher percentage of Republican cities show up. Maybe Jefferson was right about the evils of urbanization. Of the corresponding 33 of 100 cities with the highest homicide rates, only a few might be Republican or at least not overwhelmingly Democrat. I didn't make up these numbers.


So what? I cited Democrat, not liberal.



Did you miss the part about "Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000."? That's remarkable progress. I made it red this time to stand out. We must be doing something right.

I did put the U.S. and Canadian rates next to each other. I wasn't trying to hide them. Congratulations on Canada's better numbers. You can pat yourself on the back. Thank's for caring.

I found this too. "The global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004. UNODC [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 [[in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide2013").

Canada and most of the developed world are doing better than the U.S which in turn is doing better than the world average. Much of the world's population considers abortion to be homicide. I usually don't. If we included abortion numbers, my guess is that the United States would be in the middle again with a more or less reverse order of nations.

First off, FFS leave abortion out of this.......

Second.....the correct comparison for the United States is the OECD. ie. Developed countries.

The number for the average their is 3.7 homicides per 100,000. That includes some comparatively violent outliers as well. If one considered only Canada, Europe, Aus, NZ, and Japan and South Korea, the number would be materially lower.

****

Second, the US gun homicide rate has declined almost precisely at the same level as the non-gun homicide rate.

Which went form 9 per 100,000 in 1994, to the 5 or so we see today, a decline of slightly more than 40% and less than 50%.

The overall decrease in homicide rates has been seen across the developed world in the last 3 decades and is not unique the the U.S.

There are a variety of reasons for this, ranging from the baby boomers aging out of crime [[the primary group of violent criminals is males age 14-29); as well as other sociological phenomenon.

The distinction of import would be that other countries started with lower rates and went to lower rates still.

That countries with laxer gun laws who tightened them saw corresponding drops in homicides that were better than the average improvement.

[oladub]

First off, FFS leave abortion out of this.......

Second.....the correct comparison for the United States is the OECD. ie. Developed countries.

The number for the average their is 3.7 homicides per 100,000. That includes some comparatively violent outliers as well. If one considered only Canada, Europe, Aus, NZ, and Japan and South Korea, the number would be materially lower.

****

Second, the US gun homicide rate has declined almost precisely at the same level as the non-gun homicide rate.

Which went form 9 per 100,000 in 1994, to the 5 or so we see today, a decline of slightly more than 40% and less than 50%.

The overall decrease in homicide rates has been seen across the developed world in the last 3 decades and is not unique the the U.S.

There are a variety of reasons for this, ranging from the baby boomers aging out of crime [[the primary group of violent criminals is males age 14-29); as well as other sociological phenomenon.

The distinction of import would be that other countries started with lower rates and went to lower rates still.

That countries with laxer gun laws who tightened them saw corresponding drops in homicides that were better than the average improvement.

C.V., Since when did you get to tell others what comparisons and topics are allowed? I'm not blaming your intolerance on Canada but our 1st. Amendment protects us in the U.S..

Hong Kong could be included in your list of developed OECD places that don't allow guns.

I'm glad that gun homicides and other homicides both went down dramatically in the U.S.. It's good that although gun sales have skyrocketed, gun homicides have decreased. One would think from listening to all the anti-gun talking points that gun sales and gun homicides would go hand in hand. Instead, as you pointed out, gun homicides went down with other homicides. Now if homicides would only go down in Democratic cities, U.S. homicide statistics would be closer to that "3.7 homicides per 100,000" OECD average you mentioned.

[Shelby_]

Almost all of these nuts realize that afterwards they are either dead, or going to prison for the rest of their life. The idea that having to pay more for ammunition would deter them is insane in itself.

That depends on the cost of the ammunition.

Have you ever seen the Chris Rock bit about"bullet control?"

Who knows? Maybe he's on to something.

[Canadian Visitor]

That depends on the cost of the ammunition.

Have you ever seen the Chris Rock bit about"bullet control?"

Who knows? Maybe he's on to something.

Like Chris Rock, try Jim Jeffries on gun control, from Australia, moved to the US, compares the 2 on this issue.

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Note the difference in the cost of certain guns, on the street.

[Shelby_]

Why is homicide so high in big Democratic cities?

Correlation isn't causation. There are no large cities with Republican majorities, so it's difficult to compare.

There are some safe cities led by Democrats. Denver, and Seattle come to mind.

This article explains better than I can.

[oladub]

Correlation isn't causation. There are no large cities with Republican majorities, so it's difficult to compare.

There are some safe cities led by Democrats. Denver, and Seattle come to mind.

This article explains better than I can.

I read the article. It correlated blacks, unions, and Democratic housing policies with poverty and crime. I did mention Seattle and New York City being exceptions to the tendency for most high homicide cities to be run by Democrats [[post 126). Exceptions do not mean that generalities or norms don't exist. I do think it is partly causation but also think that sets of values go together and people vote and act accordingly. It's sort of which came first the chicken or the egg, high homicide rates or voting Democratic. Maybe its part of the same package.

Also in post 126, is a link to the 100 largest U.S. cities with the largest populations. The smallest city has 217,000 people. The 33 of those 100 cities with the highest and lowest homicide rates each have 3 cities with over 1M people. It is statistically wrong to believe that cities with, for instance, 2 million people tend to wind up in the top tier of homicide rates at least for cities with at least 200,000 people. However, the top one third with the highest homicide rates is almost exclusively Democratic while the lowest third are less Democratic.

Your article also pointed out that their were upscale Democratic cities like San Francisco and Austin with high home prices and lower homicide rates and poorer Democratic cities like St. Louis and Baltimore with cheaper housing and high homicide rates. The other side of the tracks in the Bay area is Oakland. One side of the tracks for the liberal elites and another for poor Democrats. I would ask if that suggests coincidence or intent.

[Richard]

22 children and an elderly woman stabbed with 9 dead at a primary school in China,with a knife.

We need to implement back ground checks when purchasing knifes.

The recent Texas shooter failed a background check.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-knifeman.html

But hey lets obsess with background checks and continue to spread fear under false pretenses.

The failure to address the core issues is the greater danger then guns.

[ABetterDetroit]

22 children and an elderly woman stabbed with 9 dead at a primary school in China,with a knife.

We need to implement back ground checks when purchasing knifes.

Cell phones, knives, or cancer are not the subject being discussed. Everyone will die sometime Richard, that’s not hard to understand but thanks anyway for the irrelevant.

The question being asked is do Americans need to die like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bFA2-2mdnRM

[Richard]

Cell phones, knives, or cancer are not the subject being discussed. Everyone will die sometime Richard, that’s not hard to understand but thanks anyway for the irrelevant.

The question being asked is do Americans need to die like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bFA2-2mdnRM

No,read and comprehend the title of the thread.

How do you know where to go from here if you do not understand where you are at and why?

Useing guns in in order to remove culpability because of the failure to address the core issues is a weak argument.

I can sleep at night because it is the guns fault and not mine.

Show me were in this thread where I ever referred to cell phones or cancer,bet you cannot.

But sense you brought up cell phones it can be used as a prime example.

15 teenagers a day were dieing from distracted driving with cell phones,not including the ones they took out in the process.

Nobody called for a ban on cell phones,the laws have been changed but yet I can still sit at an intersection and see the 4 cars surrounding me playing with thier cell phones,when it is clearly illegal.

You can blame all of the inate objects and place millions of laws and regulations in place that you want,the proof is out there that it clearly does not work,maybe it is time to look at the real issues and stop blaming every thing else on our own failures.

Outside of this post I will be waiting for you to show me where I posted in relation to cancer and cell phones.

Sense you choose to use it against me you really need to back up your claim.

[Canadian Visitor]

No,read and comprehend the title of the thread.

How do you know where to go from here if you do not understand where you are at and why?

Useing guns in in order to remove culpability because of the failure to address the core issues is a weak argument.

I can sleep at night because it is the guns fault and not mine.

Show me were in this thread where I ever referred to cell phones or cancer,bet you cannot.

But sense you brought up cell phones it can be used as a prime example.

15 teenagers a day were dieing from distracted driving with cell phones,not including the ones they took out in the process.

Nobody called for a ban on cell phones,the laws have been changed but yet I can still sit at an intersection and see the 4 cars surrounding me playing with thier cell phones,when it is clearly illegal.

You can blame all of the inate objects and place millions of laws and regulations in place that you want,the proof is out there that it clearly does not work,maybe it is time to look at the real issues and stop blaming every thing else on our own failures.

Outside of this post I will be waiting for you to show me where I posted in relation to cancer and cell phones.

Sense you choose to use it against me you really need to back up your claim.

FFS!

Its 'since', not 'sense'.

I am formally accusing you of PWI [[posting while intoxicated).

Intoxicated by what, I'm entirely unsure and probably don't wish to know.

[Meddle]

14 year old kid in Alabama shot his parents and 3 siblings overnight.

[Richard]

FFS!

Its 'since', not 'sense'.

I am formally accusing you of PWI [[posting while intoxicated).

Intoxicated by what, I'm entirely unsure and probably don't wish to know.

The only thing that you are failing to do is read the TOU and can only use Ad Hominem.

People in this country spent more time and energy on deciding what bathroom to use verses mental heath care.

Politicians are spending more time debating gun control then addressing mental heath care in this country.

Society as a whole is just as responsible for pulling the trigger as the gun men,people are not angry at guns,they are angry because they cannot address the core issues and are directing thier anger at the guns.

[Shelby_]

I read the article. It correlated blacks, unions, and Democratic housing policies with poverty and crime. I did mention Seattle and New York City being exceptions to the tendency for most high homicide cities to be run by Democrats [[post 126). Exceptions do not mean that generalities or norms don't exist. I do think it is partly causation but also think that sets of values go together and people vote and act accordingly. It's sort of which came first the chicken or the egg, high homicide rates or voting Democratic. Maybe its part of the same package.

Also in post 126, is a link to the 100 largest U.S. cities with the largest populations. The smallest city has 217,000 people. The 33 of those 100 cities with the highest and lowest homicide rates each have 3 cities with over 1M people. It is statistically wrong to believe that cities with, for instance, 2 million people tend to wind up in the top tier of homicide rates at least for cities with at least 200,000 people. However, the top one third with the highest homicide rates is almost exclusively Democratic while the lowest third are less Democratic.

Your article also pointed out that their were upscale Democratic cities like San Francisco and Austin with high home prices and lower homicide rates and poorer Democratic cities like St. Louis and Baltimore with cheaper housing and high homicide rates. The other side of the tracks in the Bay area is Oakland. One side of the tracks for the liberal elites and another for poor Democrats. I would ask if that suggests coincidence or intent.

You're cherry picking.
You fail to mention the article also notes the poorest county in the country is 98 percent white and overwhelmingly Republican.

You're also misrepresenting what it says.
It says: Crime correlates with variables such as race and economic status. Relative to their share of the population, African Americans commit more violent crimes and suffer more violent crimes.

Violent crime in Detroit has decreased significantly over the past 25 years. Do you credit Democratic leadership?

Like Socrates [[paraphrased by Plato), the only thing I know, is I know nothing. In other words, the vastness of what I do know, is minuscule when compared to what I do not know. One thing I know is true: complex questions rarely have simple answers. Anyone saying different has an agenda. Building a wall won't stop illegal immigration. More restrictive gun laws won't end gun violence. Relaxed gun laws and more people carrying won't make us safer and electing Republicans won't make America's cities safer.

[Richard]

47 shot in Chicago over the Labor Day weekend.

Not In 200 other cities across the country where guns are equally obtained.

What is the difference in Chicago?

Not electing republicans have not seemed to make cities safer,it is not a democrat or Republican Party issue,it is an American issue.

Me carrying a gun may not make me safer but would sure increase my odds of not becoming a statistic.

[bust]

Guns are incredibly common in Detroit. I'm not going to try to back that up because I'm from there and so are most people on this forum, and I don't think I need to prove it.

Guns are incredibly rare in New York City. In decades of living there I literally never met a single person who owned one who was not a cop. I don't think I need to prove it.

There is a huge practical difference that results.

In Detroit, when a burglar breaks into your house he knows the chances are high you have a gun to defend yourself, so chances are he brings one too and is ready to use it. A mugger on the street knows you may have a gun, so chances are he brings one too and he's ready to use it.

In New York, the burglars and muggers know there is little chance they will encounter a gun, so it's likely they don't bring one. They probably don't even own one. If they do they know their risks are less and they're not as quick to use it.

Where guns are common the risks are much higher for everyone. This is obvious and I don't think I need to prove it.

And before someone says, "But Chicago!" again, don't try to tell us guns aren't common there too, especially in high crime areas, and especially among criminals. Gun restrictions can't truly be effective when it's easy to bypass them just a short drive away in Wisconsin or Indiana.

We need sensible gun ownership restrictions passed across the entire nation.

[bust]

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...rnational.html

The chart only includes data through 2012. Another thing I don't think I have to prove: the number of mass shootings in the US has only gotten worse since then.

But I will. This is from Sunday:

"We’ve studied every public mass shooting since 1966 for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Our research spans more than 50 years, yet 20% of the 164 cases in our database occurred in the last five years. More than half of the shootings have occurred since 2000 and 33% since 2010. The deadliest years yet were 2017 and 2018, and this year is shaping up to rival them, with at least 60 killed in mass shootings, 38 of them in the last five weeks."

We analyzed 53 years of mass shooting data. Attacks aren’t just increasing, they’re getting deadlier
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...dland-increase

[Richard]

Guns are incredibly common in Detroit. I'm not going to try to back that up because I'm from there and so are most people on this forum, and I don't think I need to prove it.

Guns are incredibly rare in New York City. In decades of living there I literally never met a single person who owned one who was not a cop. I don't think I need to prove it.

There is a huge practical difference that results.

In Detroit, when a burglar breaks into your house he knows the chances are high you have a gun to defend yourself, so chances are he brings one too and is ready to use it. A mugger on the street knows you may have a gun, so chances are he brings one too and he's ready to use it.

In New York, the burglars and muggers know there is little chance they will encounter a gun, so it's likely they don't bring one. They probably don't even own one. If they do, and they bring it, they're much less on edge and are not as quick to use it.

Where guns are common the risks are much higher for everyone. This is obvious and I don't think I need to prove it.

And before someone says, "But Chicago!" again, don't try to tell us guns aren't common there too, especially in high crime areas, and especially among criminals. Gun restrictions can't truly be effective when it's easy to bypass them just a short drive away in Wisconsin or Indiana.

You say guns are rare in New York City,But that is based on what?

Everybody is not out publishing their gun ownership.

According to the state just 23,847 people registered their so-called “assault weapons” since the 2013 law took effect. These people registered a total of 44,485 firearms. So, according to the NSSF’s estimate, some 976,153 New Yorkers didn’t register their “assault weapons.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi.../#7494c22f702f

Your whole “but Chicago” part is confusing,nobody said guns were not readily advailable in Chicago.

I posted that guns were readily advailable in any city in the United States and asked the question,given that how come Chicago has the amount of weekly shootings that other cities do not?

Answer that question.

The second link you posted,you cherry picked parts of it in order to fit a narrative.

Read your link to the end ,it does not place sole blame on guns,it also addresses the mental state as well.


Speaking of violence in America why is the left so violent

The Boston Herald published a list of the 36 arrests from the event Saturday, which includes 9 suspects charged with assault and battery on a police officer, 5 charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon or carrying a dangerous weapon, and dozens arrested for either disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.
“Four officers sustained non-life-threatening injuries as they attempted to prevent the antifa-fueled crowd of about 1,000 counter-protesters from mixing it up with an estimated 200 parade participants,” the Times reports.

https://conservativefighters.org/new...rying-weapons/

[bust]

You say guns are rare in New York City,But that is based on what?

That's based on decades of living there. Nothing like experiencing it in person. You should visit sometime.

For that matter, have you ever even visited Detroit? Serious question.

So, according to the NSSF’s estimate, some 976,153 New Yorkers didn’t register their “assault weapons.”

That estimate is from a pro-gun lobby, and it's for New York State, not New York City. Do you understand the difference? Even if it could be trusted, most of New York State has more in common with Central Pennsylvania than it does with the 5 boroughs. Again, visit.

how come Chicago has the amount of weekly shootings that other cities do not?

Chicago ranks 14th in murders per capita according to the FBI in the most recent data they have available. Include small cities and it drops further. Detroit's murder rate is nearly double. Visit.

Read your link to the end ,it does not place sole blame on guns,it also addresses the mental state as well.

I did. There are crazy people everywhere. Funny how where they have a hard time getting a gun there aren't so many going on shooting sprees, isn't it?

Despite recent violence, Chicago is far from the U.S. ‘murder capital’
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/13/despite-recent-violence-chicago-far-from-u-s-murder-capital/

It's GO time Detroit
https://visitdetroit.com/

PS, That last website you linked to in the completely irrelevant paragraphs you added has been identified as extreme right Russian propaganda. I've warned you before. Yet it's been one of your favorite sources for years. Don't you want to find a better source?

[Richard]

So as long as you are so interested in telling people that they do not know because they have not visited a city to know the availability of guns,have you visited every household in the country and did a search for your research?

It is that attitude that keeps you from ever knowing how many or who has a weapon.

I do not care if you lived in NYC for 100 years,illegal or not,you will never know who has a gun,they are not going to broadcast it.

I just proved to you that at least just shy of a million people in New York have weapons that New York does not even know they have.

That did not include hand guns which far outnumber long guns.

You are still skirting my question.

Weather Detroit or Chicago has the highest amount of murders it is totally irrelevant,the question is and remains.

Why?

[oladub]

You're cherry picking.
You fail to mention the article also notes the poorest county in the country is 98 percent white and overwhelmingly Republican.

I failed to mention counties in part because I was responding to your post #133 in which you only mentioned cities.

You're also misrepresenting what it says.
It says: Crime correlates with variables such as race and economic status. Relative to their share of the population, African Americans commit more violent crimes and suffer more violent crimes.

I didn't ignore that. I wrote "I read the article. It correlated blacks...with poverty and crime." You must have missed that.

Violent crime in Detroit has decreased significantly over the past 25 years. Do you credit Democratic leadership?

I addressed homicides not crime. 1. 'Counties' and 'cities' are different. 2. 'Homicides' are a subset of 'crime'. 3. From another conversation, 'Immigrants' and 'illegal non-citizens' mean different things.

Detroit's population decrease from 1,012,000 25 years ago in 1993 to 673,640 in 2017. I would blame much of that population decline on Democrats although, in my opinion, Mayors Bing and Duggan have started turning Detroit around. In 1993, there were 579 murders in Detroit. In 2017, there were 267 murders in Detroit. The lower number of homicides has much to do with fewer people living in Detroit in 2017. That works out to a 39.6/100,000 murder rate in Detroit in 2017 and a 56.765/100,000 murder rate in Detroit in 1993. The ratio of Detroit's 2017 rate over its 1993 rate is [[39.6/56.765=.698). Both national homicide rates are much lower than Detroit's. The National homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5/100,000. The national homicide rate in 2017 was 5.3/100,000. The national 2017 rate over its 1993 rate is [[5.3/9.5=.558) In other words, the national rate of homicides decreased at a faster rate than the Detroit rate during the 25 years you mentioned.

[Canadian Visitor]

How about we scatch all that Oladub.

Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...lity-and-crime

The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime. Not a coincidence.

The addition of allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people further increases the seriousness of the initial problem.

[Richard]

I am so proud of Wal Mart in taking the first step as a responsible buisness and stopping the sale of ammunition.

I hope they continue the fight against obesity in America by stopping the sale of eating utensils.

Auto parts so the amount of automobile related deaths decreases.

Sugar to help fight diabetes related deaths

Maybe they will close thier pharmacy so they do not contribute to drug deaths.

It is about time buisnesss took the first steps in order to make the world a better place.

[Jimaz]

... Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality....

Thank you for stating the obvious. That it doesn't get discussed much reveals how uncomfortable that subject is to U.S. citizens.

No one seems to be disputing that there has been a significant increase in the number of mass shooting incidents recently. But why?

Although Trump may have emboldened some of these "berserkers," I don't think he started them on their path of destruction. It's the Great Recession. My theory is that they're reacting to to the injustice of a system that encourages "too big to fail" banks to sabotage the economy, leaving an underclass to pick up the pieces.

Then that underclass is provided convenient scapegoats to blame — who had no means whatsoever to cause their distress.

There's a whole lot of social engineering going on in this country and that too will be blamed on scapegoats.