Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Mass shooting incidents are very commonplace in the USA.
Whenever any shooting occurs, the same debate about "gun control" comes again and again.
However, shooting incidents are a byproduct of various social issues. E.g., bullying at schools, depression, joblessness, office politics, etc.
Have the political community recognized those social issues to be the causes of mass shootings?
Broader research on gun violence in the United States has been somewhat hampered since 1996 by the NRA-backed Dickey Amendment to the federal budget, which said no money allocated to the CDC for injury prevention "may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
In principle, the language merely forbids advocacy; in practice, the vague language of the amendment blocked any significant federal funding of research into the societal or epidemiological causes of gun violence, since such work could have been used to promote gun control. Though Congress eased up the language in 2018 and began budgeting money to allow such research in 2020, the result was more than two decades during which there was little scientific research into the public health aspects -- causes and prevention -- of gun violence in the United States that could be used to support policymaking.
Has there been any discussion in the political sphere about why shooting incidents are taking place?
Certainly. That's why police and others always try to look for what motivated a mass shooting incident or a mass murderer. Looking for motivation is not done to justify that person's acts; there is no justification for a single homicide, let alone a mass shooting or multiple homicides. They want to forestall or prevent the next one.
It doesn't always work.
The subject line and main text of your question are slightly different. To answer your headline question, yes, such debates are happening. But the issue is sufficiently politicized by now that scientific analysis will be accepted by many if it fits the preconceived notions, rejected if not.
Some argue that "guns don't kill people, bad people kill people." What that means is that killers rather than gun laws are blamed, without necessarily questioning the mental health of the killers. Becoming a criminal is seen as a personal lifestyle choice of the criminal, who deserves the consequences if he or she is caught.
Others decry that the mental health system has been slashed to the bone along with other social services, and that police and the criminal justice system are used as an insufficient substitute.
The main text of your question is "pushing" for the conclusion favored by just one side of the debate. Many believe that it is the right position, but that is a political position, too.
There have been numerous reasons proposed by both sides of the argument. Everything has gotten the blame, including mental illness, drugs, video games, the presence of guns themselves, and so on. The debate itself has gone back to the founding of the nation - The debate itself has gone back to the founding of the nation. Presumably, people debated the need or reasons for those laws. In the modern context, this article summarizes some of the lines of thought around mass shootings.
The issue has been heavily politicized for decades, with less restrictions on firearms ownership favored in areas that are more conservative or rural, and gun control favored in area that are more urban and liberal/progressive. Most people don't favor either unrestricted ownership or a complete ban, but the debate on the right/Republican party side centers around the nature and condition of the shooters themselves, while the left/Democratic party focuses more on the type and number of firearms available. Obviously, no one having access to firearms at all would prevent mass shootings, but enforcing a blanket ban would be impossible for a number of reasons.
Interesting, even as firearm owning households has remained relatively constant, mass shootings having risen year over year.
Perhaps the best explanation is one that Malcolm Gladwell proposed. Essentially, the more people that commit a transgressive act, the more like others are to see that it is acceptable. Looking at the mass shooting by year above, there does seem to be some weight to this hypothesis.
