biggest mass shooting in us history

biggest mass shooting in us history

Analyzing the Biggest Mass Shooting in US History: Causes, Impacts, and Policy Responses

1. Introduction to the Biggest Mass Shooting in US History

To put the Orlando attack in its proper context, in Section 2 of our article we review trends in mass shooting events in the U.S., concluding that these events have become increasingly frequent. Democrats and Republicans differ in their responses to these assaults, with both political parties merely offering “thoughts and prayers” to the victims, with neither group currently willing to propose any policy solutions to reduce the high number of multiple-fatality public mass shootings that occur annually. Consequently, there are far more mass public shootings in the U.S., than in any other nation, raising questions about the apparent relationship of these events to the presence of high-capacity firearms. Yet, to date, there is little extant research that examines the relationship between possession of high- or intermediate-capacity firearms and the lethality of these public mass shootings.

Introduction The June 12, 2016, mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida was the deadliest such event in U.S. history, with 49 individuals killed and more than 50 injured. Although the massacre was carried out by a single gunman, the death toll was higher than any prior mass shooting due to a unique combination of high-capacity firearms, a location filled with defenseless victims, and the presence of packed, thirsty, and initially unsuspecting victims. These factors allowed a heavily armed single gunman to kill and critically wound a large number of patrons before police were able to breach the security doors surrounding the building. This deadly event raises difficult questions about changes in federal and state firearm policies, the growing frequency of mass shootings, inadequate state responses to federal terrorism watchlists, the possible misrepresentation of the shooter’s motivations, and ranges of potential impacts from such assaultive attacks. The main purpose of this article is to address the Orlando tragedy, offering insights that document the most substantive outcomes of this mass causal event.

2. Understanding the Causes of Mass Shootings

In a landmark study of lethal violence, Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin reported that 7% of American homicides (1965-71) followed a confrontation or dispute. At least another 25%, they calculated, could be categorized as arising from social problems in the offenders’ environment which the victims were seen to represent. Primarily, these were accidents but somewhere between 40% and 50% probably resulted from felonious activities. While these numbers have lessened due mainly to the dropping off of confrontation motives and the increase in accidents, the underlying relations have not. They remain, if anything, primary to understanding and controlling a large portion of American murder, and we must recognize that many of those who become victims do so from the lack of self-preservation skills, all too often inspired by a culture encouraging dangerous behaviors as adventurous and visually beneficial to the male ego. The general public behavior and its probable consequences in the face of an obnoxious offender appear to have left our lower class citizen unprotected from murder. Our problem, then, is to construct strategies designed to encourage self-preservation, and to examine the behaviors and characteristics of the other participants in confrontations that result in homicide.

The causes of mass shootings are complex and many forces likely play key roles. A starting place for understanding mass shootings is to recognize, however, that they are both a type of extreme violence and a subtype of homicide. A large body of criminological research on homicide can thus provide valuable insight into the causes of mass shootings and how to best prevent them. Within the research on ordinary assaults and homicides, a key distinction is drawn between individual-level factors and societal-level factors that motivate violent behavior. This distinction helps to identify leverage points for violence prevention, broadly characterized as both primary or secondary prevention of violence at the broader population level and the identification and treatment of individuals at risk for violence.

3. Impacts of Mass Shootings on Individuals and Society

The impact from exposure to mass shootings varies as a function of proximity and intensity. Those who are targeted or do become injured by gun violence directly experience the most intense and severe trauma. Those who witness friends and neighbors who are shot or killed or who survive intensive fighting in their hometown are hit hard as well. Desensitization to gun violence after repeated exposure is especially problematic when the shootings involve children, youth, and family experiences. Meanwhile, fewer people have fully explored longer-term personal-level and societal-level impacts from mass shootings. These outcomes put demands on both direct intervention and indirect community-based intervention in the context of increasing prevalence of mass shooting incidents.

In this section, we examine the varying types of impacts from mass shooting incidents on those who are physically injured, the families and friends of those who are killed or injured, those who witness the shooting incident but are not targeted, and others who do not directly experience the event. Next, we discuss the longer-term impacts from coping with the trauma and the deaths and the personal and societal-level impacts on mental and physical health, workplace functioning, educational and social communities, and society as a whole.

4. Existing Policy Responses to Mass Shootings

Even so, all public and private postsecondary educational institutions in Florida must have a police force or actively monitor to prevent drugs and gun violations.

In the US, some common laws limit possessors. Among them, the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (FSGSA, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) prohibits possession of any firearm whenever the possessor knows or should know that the possession is in a school zone. A similar policy to the FSGSA in Florida is local legislation that keeps guns out of postsecondary educational institutions’ campuses. However, state legislation does not apply to the Florida state public safety zone; thus the owner of a firearm is allowed to carry a concealed weapon except in post-secondary policies in Florida.

Federal policies are generally divided into two types: laws that regulate the ownership and carrying of firearms; and legislation that regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of guns. Coincidentally, most research empirically analyzes and discusses how to reduce the effects of mass shooting events by managing gun possessions.

Section 4: Existing Policy Responses to Mass Shootings

5. Recommendations for Future Policies and Interventions

Counter violent extremism interventions are a type of crime prevention and sit on a spectrum of actions to prevent the wider gender-based causes of violent extremism. It is clear from the literature, parliamentary inquiries, and consultations that collaboration, coordination, and governance are key in the fight against violent extremism. Accordingly, the models and designs behind these interventions should be multidimensional, developmentally sensitive, and authentic. But there are also competing challenges when justice responses are inconsistent, judicial release discretion is opaque, and social attitudes thwart reintegration. Such challenges include the continuing trauma and alienation from mainstream societies, as well as a turn to notoriety from dysfunctional groups that are identified by concentrated punitive responses. Any recommendations must consider principles based on the tension between the need to deter serious violent criminals on one hand and the need to prevent them from becoming worse on the other.

The facts, impacts, and policy responses can instruct ways forward for both anticipatory and remedial action. These extend from some suggestions in our proposition about layers of approaches. These include the task of international diplomacy with other nations still wrestling with the nexus between terrorism and radicalization, as well as nationwide, consistent responses to shore up worldviews of tolerance and understanding of greater collective interests. Given these layers of approach, future interventions should be designed to: address misconceptions through evidence-based education; promote understanding and solidarity with Muslim Australians; and support community leadership and networks. Rethink counterterrorism and countering violent extremism. Prevent violent extremism in the prison and detention systems, as well as juvenile justice. Develop multi-leveled, integrated services for violent extremist offenders, including de-radicalization programs and reintegrate the offenders within the community.