Perhaps we could compare the violence in other modern, first world, Western coutries. Such countries do not have these events of killing sprees to anywhere near the extent they exist in the US.

In pretty much all European countries people live very closely together, far more so than in the US, yet you do no see similar type of incidents to any comparable extent. So, I don't believe it has to do with 'too many people crammed in too small a space.'

Instead, maybe we should be looking at the societal triggers that precipitate such events.

Agree with this. Not easy, but surely better than arming the population to fend off the result.

Old timers, did we ever have that much pressure to keep up with the Joneses before?

There's a significant difference between NOT arming a population to fend off violence (so if you're unarmed, the violent offenders will bypass you??), and disarming a population on the mere theory that it will reduce violence.

This completely ignores the all-important social factors in any particular country or society.

This past decade, the rate of mass murders have increased to an alarming rate. From schools to workplaces to even military bases, more and more individuals seem to have gone over the edge.

Hrmmm...message to the "guns are bad and I think inanimate objects do things on their own" group: Start holding people accountable for their own actions and stop shifting blame.

Well... in one sense I will acknowledge that this is right... a gun that NEVER leaves the factory floor is unlikely to be used to kill anyone...

However... the same CAN'T be said of the guns that wind up in the hands of the "it's my god-given right to have a gun and the gov't has no business knowing about it" types...

This shooting at Fort Hood had nothing to do with that. A friend of mine in the airforce OD'ed on some pills once and Uncle Sugar payed $12K in counseling/therapy in-patient bills for her, and it honestly helped. She was a changed person.

It's stress (usually). Why do you think obeisity and heart-disease have risen so much?

Stress.

Look at society in the 50's. You got your GED or highschool diploma, you went to work for GM, or whatever business your dad owned, or whatever. You stayed in that field until you died or retired.

Now a GED is a joke, an AS degree is a smirk, a BA is a grudging nod, and an MA will get you somewhere sortof.

We stay in school until our late 20's now days. In your late 20's in the 50's, you were already in a senior position, or working towards it.

Things are a lot more complex, a lot more knowledge is required to function, and it is taxing us mentally and that leads to physical taxing from over-eating, etc. etc. to cope. Lots of things are going down-hill and the only reason it isn't showing up in life-expectancy is because medical technology is giving the false impression that we are healthier because we can be strung along a little longer before shuffling off our mortal coils....

-People don't trust each other now.
-Back then, communities banded togather, now, next-door neighbors don't know each other.
-Things are a lot more complicated now.

Happy killing spree.

IMO, it's a constellation of various factors. Possibly violent media and /or overall violent cultural examples could have something to do with it, and also there's certainly by now the "copycat" factor with these shooting mass murders. Then you have the general easy availability of guns and ammo here ...let's face it , it's a different story to have to go on a "mass stabbing spree" for instance, and you'll likely kill or wound far fewer people... (Don't anyone make it another gun debate; this is just *IMO*... I've no power to take away your firearms with my opinion so don't worry).

In the individual himself (the mass shooter), you possibly or likely have still another constellation of factors; mental illness obviously, stress factors, etc; something that just puts the "right" (or actually the wrong) kind of person over the edge.

Personally for criminality in general I tend to lean towards the idea that it's a mixture of genetic and environmental. In other words, for instance , take a person who could "lean towards" criminal behaviors in his teen years for example. Put him in with the "wrong crowd" and he finds some mischief with them surely. BUT, add in a few important stabilizing factors such as a good home life, good supportive loving family with no history of any abuse, two parents present, and also perhaps better impulse control than some of the other kids in his crowd (and that in itself could be partly genetic or brain-related). Likely he'll "outgrow it" and he won't stray too far off the path.

But put that same marginally at-risk youth into a dangerous daily environment (a crime-ridden gang-plagued inner-city area) , with a defective home life and family and/or a history of abuse, surround him with violent movies and TV and lyrics and so on, give him poorer impulse control, and perhaps add in alcohol and/or drugs and the general availability and frequency of weapons, and it would be a miracle if he makes it out of his teen years without entering into the penal system for some kind of major violent crime.

Stop pointing the finger at me and my hobbies when your way of life is part of what kills almost 2x as many in your country as homocide accounts for. This means you pose roughly 2x the threat to your fellow canadian as other canadians pose to thier fellow countrymen through any avenue of murder. You pose roughly 5x the threat of someone who has a firearm.

Oh wait. You're not in America. Well, you can still whine about it and I can still own it, and so the world will keep on spinnin'

Homocide of all types only accounted for 605 in 2006. (190 shooting deaths)

Which just serves to prove the value of gun control... so few shooting deaths and yet I can still own my g21 and 92fs... imagine that...

Now... all that needs happen is for equivalent restrictions to be placed on firearms in the U.S. and we'll be even...

But I do vote in US elections... and guess which kind of policies and candidates draw my vote... today, health-care... tomorrow, gun control... and still the world will keep spinning... but eventually, not so lopsided from the weight of all that extra metal (and composites) concentrated in part of one hemisphere.

The number of homicides with multiple victims that don't involve guns has dropped steadily overall since 1975 while the number of homicides with multiple victims that do involve guns has risen equally steadily... and by about the same amount... in that same time frame... apparently guns DO kill people and with increasing frequency...

There is a huge difference, ghost panther, between a 'gun' and a 'large magazine, semi-automatic weapon

The problem is, America does not favor "sensible" gun control (background checks, etc. etc. are done, yes) but rather the "lets ban everything" type of gun-control.

However... the same CAN'T be said of the guns that wind up in the hands of the "it's my god-given right to have a gun and the gov't has no business knowing about it" types...

But I do vote in US elections... and guess which kind of policies and candidates draw my vote... today, health-care... tomorrow, gun control.

and still the world will keep spinning.

The thing about the round and gun this guy was using - a 5.7mm FN (Five-seven, probably), the round is small - 28 or 40 grains, but it's doing almost 2,000 fps. That's 330-340 foot-lbs of energy each. Compared to a standard 9mm at 12-1400 fps, 115-140 grains (310-475 foot-lbs each). What it means is that this thing can zip through you like butter and just as likely zip into or through another person near you as well, unless it hits one of your bones and continues ricocheting inside of you. Earliest commercial loads were discontinued because they were penetrating Level IIA vests in testing.