America legalized mass shooting and killing by anger with their legal system and criminal lawyers and every mass shooting is credited as mental health but it's anger induced actions

By

 

First, it is not accurate to say that the United States has “legalized mass shooting.” Mass murder is illegal in every U.S. state and under federal law. Perpetrators are prosecuted and typically face life imprisonment or the death penalty where applicable.

However, what is being debated internationally is why mass shootings occur at a higher frequency in the U.S. compared to most developed nations, and how legal structure, gun access, mental health framing, and criminal defense systems interact.

Let’s break this down carefully.

1. Gun Rights vs. Criminal Legality

The U.S. Constitution includes the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. Courts — including the Supreme Court of the United States — have interpreted this right broadly in decisions such as:

  • District of Columbia v. Heller

  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

These rulings protect individual firearm ownership for lawful purposes.

This does not legalize murder.
It legalizes firearm possession within constitutional limits.

The distinction is critical:

  • Gun ownership = legal (with regulations)

  • Homicide = illegal

2. Why Mass Shootings Are Often Linked to Mental Health

In media coverage, mass shootings are frequently discussed in connection with mental health. This occurs for several reasons:

A. Legal Defense Standards

In criminal law, mental state matters. To convict someone of murder, prosecutors must prove intent. Defense attorneys may raise:

  • Insanity defenses

  • Diminished capacity arguments

However, insanity defenses are rare and succeed in a very small percentage of cases.

Most mass shooters are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

B. Policy Framing

Political actors often frame shootings differently:

  • Some emphasize mental illness.

  • Others emphasize gun access.

  • Others emphasize ideological extremism or grievance.

Mental health framing can sometimes be politically convenient because it shifts discussion away from gun policy reform.

But legally speaking, anger alone does not excuse homicide in American courts.

3. Anger vs. Mental Illness

Anger-induced violence and mental illness are not the same category.

Many criminologists distinguish between:

  • Instrumental violence (planned, goal-driven)

  • Expressive violence (rage-based)

  • Ideological violence

  • Psychosis-driven violence

The U.S. legal system only recognizes mental illness as a defense when it meets strict standards — typically when the defendant cannot distinguish right from wrong at the time of the act.

Most anger-based killings do not qualify.

4. The Role of Criminal Lawyers

Defense attorneys in the U.S. are constitutionally required under the Sixth Amendment. The adversarial system guarantees:

  • Right to counsel

  • Presumption of innocence

  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt

This can sometimes create public perception that “lawyers help criminals escape.”

However, this structure exists to prevent wrongful conviction and state abuse of power.

The U.S. legal philosophy prioritizes due process — even when public emotion demands swift punishment.

5. Why the U.S. Has Higher Mass Shooting Incidence

Comparative research suggests several factors:

A. Civilian Firearm Prevalence

The U.S. has one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership globally.

B. Constitutional Constraints

Courts limit how restrictive gun laws can be.

C. Social Fragmentation

High inequality, media amplification, social alienation, and grievance cultures contribute to violence risk.

D. Media Contagion Effect

Extensive coverage can inspire copycat behavior.

6. Is It “Legalized” Through Inaction?

Some critics argue that:

  • Political gridlock

  • Lobby influence

  • Constitutional protections

have made regulatory reform difficult.

This creates a perception that the system tolerates predictable violence.

But that is different from legalization. It reflects constitutional constraints and political disagreement.

7. Comparison with China

China has:

  • Strict firearm bans for civilians

  • Heavy penalties for illegal possession

  • Centralized enforcement

  • Limited civilian access to weapons

As a result, firearm mass shootings are rare.

However, China’s approach relies on:

  • Centralized state authority

  • Extensive surveillance

  • Restrictive civil liberties

The trade-off is different: strong state control, lower gun access, narrower personal freedoms.

8. The Deeper Structural Difference

The U.S. prioritizes:

  • Individual liberty (including firearm ownership)

  • Due process protections

  • Decentralized governance

China prioritizes:

  • Collective security

  • Centralized enforcement

  • Administrative control

Mass shootings in America are not legally permitted — but the constitutional framework makes restricting firearm access more complex than in centralized systems.

9. Is Anger the Primary Driver?

Anger is often a proximate emotion, but research shows that mass shootings typically involve:

  • Grievance accumulation

  • Social isolation

  • Identity crisis

  • Sometimes ideological radicalization

  • Sometimes untreated mental disorders

Reducing the phenomenon to “anger” alone oversimplifies criminological evidence.

Final Clarification

The United States has not legalized mass killing.

However, its constitutional protections for firearm ownership, combined with social and political fragmentation, create a risk environment that differs sharply from countries with centralized gun control and tighter state authority.

The debate inside America is fundamentally about:

  • Liberty vs. security

  • Individual rights vs. collective safety

  • Constitutional permanence vs. regulatory flexibility.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Why are machine tools considered the “mother industry” for industrialization, and what does this mean for Africa and other developing economies?

By
Image
  Machine Tools: The “Mother Industry” of Industrialization and What It Means for Africa and Developing Economies When economists, engineers, and policymakers speak of machine tools as the “mother industry” , they refer to the pivotal role these tools play in building every other industry. Just as mothers give birth to life, machine tools give birth to manufacturing. They are the foundation upon which industrial capacity rests, and without them, no nation can claim full industrial independence. For Africa and other developing economies striving for sustainable growth, this understanding is critical. What Are Machine Tools? Machine tools are mechanical devices used to cut, shape, drill, grind, or otherwise process metal and other hard materials into components. Examples include lathes, milling machines, grinders, presses, and CNC (computer numerical control) machines. These tools are essential for producing the parts that go into cars, airplanes, energy systems, agricultural machine...
Read more

It's now clear the west particularly America and European elites have been using democracy and capitalism to control and create sanctions on the developing and poor countries

By
Image
  To assess it rigorously, we need to separate three analytical layers: Normative ideology (democracy, capitalism as principles) Policy practice (how powerful states implement them externally) Geopolitical power behavior (how dominant states act regardless of ideology) Let’s examine this carefully. 1. Democracy as Principle vs. Democracy as Instrument Democracy, as theorized by thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu , is grounded in: Popular sovereignty Rule of law Civil liberties Accountability However, critics argue that major powers — especially the United States and blocs like the European Union — sometimes apply democracy selectively in foreign policy. Examples often cited: Support for authoritarian allies when strategically convenient. Sanctions justified on “democratic grounds” but aligned with geopolitical interests. Military interventions framed as democracy promotion. This suggests inconsistency — not necessarily that democracy its...
Read more

Would Great Powers Accept Relational Accountability Over Strategic Dominance?

By
Image
  At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency. The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance. 1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends...
Read more

Why Petrol Cars Still Dominate in Most of the World—Despite EV Hype

By
Image
The global narrative around electric vehicles (EVs) suggests an unstoppable march toward an all-electric future. Headlines highlight rising EV sales in wealthy countries, bold government bans on petrol cars, and ambitious climate pledges from automakers. Yet step outside a few high-income markets and the picture changes dramatically. In most of the world—across Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and large parts of Eastern Europe—petrol (and diesel) cars continue to dominate roads, sales, and consumer preferences. This persistence is not simply due to resistance to change or lack of awareness. It reflects deep structural realities: economics, infrastructure, energy systems, industrial capacity, and social behavior. Understanding why petrol cars remain dominant requires moving beyond hype and examining how mobility actually works for the majority of the global population. 1. Cost: The Decisive Barrier The most immediate and decisive factor is price . EVs remain significantl...
Read more

Let's evaluate whether stricter gun control alone would significantly reduce mass shootings in the United States — or whether broader structural reforms are required

By
Image
  Mass shootings are a multi-variable phenomenon. Firearm regulation is one variable. Social structure, mental health systems, grievance ecosystems, media dynamics, and enforcement consistency are others. Below is a structured analysis. 1. What Does Research Show About Gun Control and Mass Shootings? Comparative international data shows that countries with: Strict firearm licensing Low civilian gun ownership Mandatory training Registration systems tend to have lower rates of firearm-related mass shootings. Examples include: Japan China Australia After Australia enacted sweeping gun reforms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, mass shootings declined sharply. However, the U.S. differs structurally: Over 400 million firearms already in civilian circulation. Constitutional protection under the Second Amendment. Federal–state legal fragmentation. This means policy feasibility differs from other countries. 2. Would Stricter Gun Control Reduce Mass Sh...
Read more