There has yet been one more mass shooting. This time it happened at Umpqua Community College in Douglas County, Oregon. At latest count, there were 13 dead and 20 wounded.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
No comments:
Post a Comment