What can be done about mass shootings in America?

But the only ones calling for action from either of the above perspectives are dismissed as socialists and communists or having a fanciful woke agenda as the traditional conservatives refuse meaningful action on either.

Because it's not practical. Taking firearms away from Americans would cause a civil war.

I have a close friend from North Carolina, and he's something of a gun nut. He's listed his range of legal and illegal weaponry to me, with everything from shotguns to anti-tank rifles. He lives with a variety of weapons for home protection. Two rifles loaded on the ground floor, a handgun in the kitchen, a loaded shotgun under his bed, and he carries a rather large bowie type of knife with him wherever he goes (that doesn't include his extended collection of "antiques", all of which are fully usable). He will not allow the Federal State to take them away from him, and he's perfectly capable of killing to defend his rights. And... apparently, he's considered something of a moderate in his family, where his uncles have full-on arsenals and hidden shelters stocked if America was ever attacked.

A slow erosion of weapon ownership over a century or more would make the most sense... and anything else a recipe for disaster. The conditioning that Americans have lived under for two centuries about gun ownership, and their rights to defend their property mean that any efforts to take firearms away from them, would result in violence. That conditioning needs to be replaced with an alternative view, and replaced again, once they've reached a more accommodating point of view.

The Federal government isn't trusted, and any kind of trust has been eroded by all manner of initiatives since Sept 11. For many Americans, having their access to firearms means that they can hold the government in check... which is especially true for states with historical resistance to federal influence.

You started by saying it wasn't practical to have meaningful action, then suggested a slow erosion of the ownership of guns over a century.

I said in respond to what you suggested that it wasn't practical.. since invariably these kind of suggestions have the expectation of a fairly quick resolution (one or two decades), and the conditioning that Americans have experienced guarantees resistance to such initiatives.

How many people are talking about banning all guns in all cases? No one. I don't care if it's marketed as a slow erosion of weapon ownership, it's still moving towards making the place safer.

Yes it would be... but it's important to be realistic about the feelings/emotional attachments along with the historical connections that many Americans have with their right to own weapons. The people who are dismissed as communists, or whatever, tend to disregard such sentiments, mostly because they're from the cities of the East, and have little understanding of rural America.

The mindset of your NC friend has no place in the 21st century.

It does in America. That's the point really. Removing such a concept will take time, and a definite plan towards social conditioning. It's perfectly doable, but not in the manner that has been put forward so far.

That mindset has no place in Europe. However look beyond European borders and you'll find similar mindsets in many places, even when firearms are controlled legally but personal possession is commonplace. I've seen walls in Russia covered with firearms, and I've known people in Asia with similar setups, even when the government has a strong aversion to people having such firepower at their fingertips.

The basic problem with America and firearms is historical, and by extension, cultural. It will take time to reverse the attitudes that exist, but honestly, America needs to deal with other urgent problems first before dealing with firearms. IMHO, the social and wealth inequalities, the alienation/isolation of individuals in society, the wide range of double standards and hypocrisies are a bigger reason for violent expression, with or without firearms... and it's likely to get worse.

But is it not the case that when people try to deal with these things (many of who also want to see deaths and violence at the hands of guns reduced) they are branded as authoritarian or socialists, or the most evil of all evils, communists? Their arguments for more access to education, opportunity etc so as to prevent people feel isolated and disenfranchised are ridiculed and dismissed.

Of course they are... because it's a reflection of American culture. Republican vs Democrat. That's what it boils down to. Always a simplistic grouping of opinions into two camps that face each other head on, and do all they can to dismiss, discredit, whatever, each other.

But TBH when it comes to the anti-gun lobbying in the US, I always get the impression that it's more about scoring points, and less about effecting any substantial change. As with most American stuff, there's too much posturing.

We saw it in a nutshell with the conversation around the 'defund the police' phrase. People were advocating for better use of public money to serve communities and target factors that led to an increased likelihood of being involved in crime and they were accused of not wanting any police at all.

Except there were calls by many to completely defund the police and replace them with something else. A wide range of opinions as to what should happen... most of which completely ignored the negatives of the societies the police operated within. I saw the threads on boards at the time, along with the news reports or other articles on American sites discussing what should be done... and it wasn't as reasonable as you want to suggest above.

Ignoring the left vs right origins of arguments on reducing gun violence when one side is suggesting the solution is more guns (whether in the hands of civilians, or hired security) surely they can see how that will ultimately escalate in to more violence.

Of course they do... but then, a decline in availability of firearms will likely have the same result because the inherent problems with American society aren't being addressed.

As for the mindset having a place in America, I'm being pedantic, I know it exists in America, but I still maintain it has no place there, and what I mean by that is that it shouldn't have a place there. The practical concept of it requiring guns in the hands of civilians to control a government just isn't realistic in todays world.

Actually, I could argue that it has greater relevance in a modern world to limit the control of a modern government, considering the erosion of voters power by politicians over time. Especially in the US, where we've seen all manner of corruption in manipulating voters, and the expansion of the Federal government. Personally, I have very little trust in modern governments, and considering the influence that corporations or lobbies have, I can quite understand the desire by people to have some kind of personal protection. The US with the Home Guard, and personal gun ownership, means that the citizens have a real way of protesting that would be next to impossible to ignore. An unarmed population is far easily ignored... as we all saw in Ireland after the banking crash. No accountability for the politicians, or those in government... and the population limited to expressing it's disgust by not voting them in next election. Whooptie do. At least, an armed population has to be treated with some respect or wariness.

If only science was ever that simple. It rarely is. And the study you quote themselves also admit that correlation is not causation. There is any number of complex issues that might explain a correlation like that one which would be more complex than the simple inference we might want to take from it.

For example if there is a large amount of gun crime in an area then people might feel compelled to get guns themselves in self defence. So gun death and gun crime will correlate with ownership not because higher ownership leads to more such incidents. But because higher such incidents leads to more people wanting guns.

Another example is that gun laws may correlate with certain political styles. For example less restrictive laws might relate to the right and restrictions to the left. It is possible that other policies and laws and elements of that political governance leads to more of these crimes. So it would in that situation not be that more guns lead to more gun crimes - but the other policies of the type of government who are less likely to restrict guns - also lead to more such crimes. Which might make sense if the "right" is known for taxes and policies that benefit the rich and disinfranchise the poor? Doing that is certainly going to lead to more crimes from those classes.

Just two examples that jump to mind - but enough to make the point about why we so often tout the cliche "Correlation is not causation".

So as with just about every statistic in science - merely noting that "When the value X goes up the value Y goes up too" rarely tells us anything informative or gives the big picture. Rather it tends to just highlight a complex area that deserves further study and investigation.

If a correlation exists then you would of course expect multiple studies to show it. So that is not a surprise. But 1 study showing a correlation or 10,000 studies show a correlation - are all just saying there is a correlation. And saying the same thing 10,000 times does not add anything that was not there the first time it was said.

The methods of science demand we verify a causation. Simply decrying the concept as a "fallacy" when it is not - unfortunately does not make that requirement go away.

Where a correlation exists it is interesting to find out why. Jumping to any conclusion - especially one we want to be true or just happens to fit with our political world views and narratives - is generally unadvisable.