Because they want to take a whole bunch of people with them, because they’re asocial and nihilistic, and belief that their suffering (if they ARE suffering, because it really seems more than a bit dodgy to assume mental illness, as opposed to, say hateful ideology) is so central to reality, that others should suffer along with them. Same with family annihilators (they don’t see their wives and children as individuals, but merely as extensions of themselves who should not outlive them).
This is almost always about ideology, not mental illness. But since the vast majority of mass shooters are white men, that is almost always the party line…
Misogyny is a big part of it too. I can’t find the stats, but most mass shooters begin with some form of violence against a woman or women in their lives. And the fact the vast majority of mass shooters are men
It seems a similar phenomenon to the family annihilators. Men who must take out others with them.
No doubt the reasons why they do it are complicated. But the way to stop it, or at least lessen the death toll, is easy. Restrict the guns and ammo
Edit to add: easy to know what to do. Not easy to implement in the US without a sea change in our culture. A sea change I am hopeful our kids have begun
We should remember that patriarchy isn’t just bad for women and children, it IS bad for men, too… But in cases like this, the OUTCOME is worse for everyone around them who ends up dead, due to their inability to see others as fully human.
Worth keeping mind, along those lines, that domestic violence is the most significant indicator for mass shootings. And red flag laws for DV could be the most effective (realistically reachable) intervention to decrease them.
Of course, wouldn’t be called the 2nd amendment if there wasn’t. Though given the level of the gun and constitution cult in your country I doubt it would ever take place. Sadly the Iron river runs throughout the Americas.
Yes, it is. Hence, why I took your post seriously without the /s…
It can be changed, though people treat the first ten amendments as more central to our democracy than other amendments, so it’s a harder lift to change the 2nd. It absolutely needs it (and I doubt any American here would disagree that we need changes, or at least an understanding that we can regulate guns, since it says “well regulated militia” in the amendment itself…
Which means some legal interpretation or a law clarifying the fact that guns can be regulated would be nice.
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, but as @Kii alluded it wasn’t until the 1970s that people started interpreting it to mean “an unregulated individual right to own guns.”
For most of this country’s history the idea that everyone should have an unfettered legal right to purchase military-style assault weapons would have seemed crazy. Heck, as recently as the 1970s both the NRA and the Republican Party were both pro-gun control (albeit for different reasons, some of them racist).
Indeed, it was literally the only amendment that explicitly stated the rationale for its existence (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”) so it’s pretty damn disappointing that the gun nuts eventually won out with their own fringe interpretation of what it was for.
I was at an indoor shooting range where we shoot at round target shaped targets. With target pistols. You can put stickers of other smaller round target shaped targets on your big target. You’re not allowed to fire more than 1 shot ever two seconds.
Police also use this range for target practice. There were two cops at the end of the range. They use human shaped targets. They’re not limited to how fast they can shoot. They were also shooting only at the head and the heart, making giant holes with tons of rounds instead of changing the targets out as they wore through them.
I don’t like it.
