No they do not cover it as insanely as the u s. "You got the high score" news cycle.
Also there have been complains in some western European countries about the media selectively avoiding reporting some killings due to uh... Not making groups look bad. But I think all killers should be known regardless. Lives are only once
Yes they do. The question is why do you think they don't?
e:
I mean, if your point is that media in other countries don't cover gun related spree killings in their own countries as much as US media covers gun related spree killings in the US - you're right, but that's because gun related spree killings happen in the U.S more than anywhere else in the world.
That's not the media painting a "narrative".
What are you talking about? Mass killings are always reported.
Especially the "high score got" tone. I've seen the coverage for mass killings in other countries, only in America do they consistently I'd the most overblown way possible basically congratulate the killer. Which does not help with stopping the killings at all.
Please take some time to look at coverage and interviews for the last few mass shootings then compare them to other countries. No one else's media comes close to being as insane.
It's certainly not simple when you try to bring in other crimes and fail to consider that many other factors drive crime, by gun or otherwise, than the current status of gun ownership legality.
Speaking of zealots on either side, I wish each of you so desperate to say guns aren't the problem would explain why you are so OBSESSED with allowing no change to gun laws.
Because to the rest of us, it really looks like you value guns more than human life.
Why can't legally owning a gun be as restrictive as legally driving a car? I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one. Aside from a poorly written Second Amendment that has been agreed even by conservative judges to still allow for restrictions on gun ownership, so try a different path, please.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html
Again, gun violence rose up sharply.
Violence in general went up, including homicide.
It took well over a decade for it to go below levels before the gun ban, but it rose to as much and more as before.
And again, it's hard to attribute the decline of crime in general to gun control, because that was already declining.... aside from that jump when the gun ban hit.
Also, the US had a similar drop in homicide related deaths as well.
Still higher than Aus, but it's a pretty similar steep decline without banning even toy guns.
It only goes to show the trend would have happened without it, because it's also true for other countries as well.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...y-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
Also also also, this is interesting
Oh, and gun ban effectiveness? The vast majority of gun crime happens with pistols. Guess what almost all bans are about? Not pistols. It's almost always about scary machine guns you only see in the movies, because this is where most of our knowledge about guns comes from.
You're talking shit, because I do not live in the US,
"Please take some time to look at coverage and interviews for the last few mass shootings then compare them to other countries."
I look at Mass Shootings on German, UK news, ireland, and I look at CNN Ms.NBC, Abc and they all are like "YES HE GOTZ THZE HIGH SCORE! NEW RECORD UNLOCKED! THIS GUY ALMOST GOT IT MAYBE NEXT TIME! OHHH HE ACTUALLY HAD AN ESCAPE PLAN! IF HE DIDN'T DO <Insert here> HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY/KILLED MORE PEOPLE/GOTEN LESS JAIL TIME."
I have no idea why someone would dispute that the U.S. media is crazy when reporting on mass shooters.
Your very own source shows that after 96 gun homicides dropped greatly.
I think his point is that the news media makes the kill count to be very important, especially when they were showing it live and letting us know what his killstreak score was at the time.LordRaptor said:Should be real easy for you to find a single example of a reputable media outlet glamorising any spree killing then.
I think his point is that the news media makes the kill count to be very important, especially when they were showing it live and letting us know what his killstreak score was at the time.
You also have the news making sure that any messages they were making, by going on their rampage, did get out to everyone by repeating it across every news channel and local reports for days and weeks, even years later.
He was saying there is something unique about US media that in turn is somehow feeds back into what is predominately a US problem - but that is not true.
Spree killings are covered the same the world over.
What is the substantive difference between media coverage of, say, Sandy Hook compared to, say, the Paris Charlie Hebdo shootings?
The answer is of course that the Paris shootings were more shocking - and therefore more newsworthy - due to spree killings in France being vastly less common.
The United States has 270 million guns and had
90 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012.
No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters.
The answer is simple. We have far more guns than other countries.
So it's been investigated in the USA, but what about the rest of the world? You can say your country's media also makes a big deal out of it, but how many dedicated news channels do you have? What about local news?
FIRST: Numbers alone doesnt mean anything. Thats totally wrong to compare raw numbers without considering population size. What really matters is % of armed population. A lot of smaller contries have similar gun to pop ration of the US.
So you're saying there's fewer news channels available and fewer hours of news media than the US?The UK - which is a tiny country - has 2 domestic rolling 24 hour news networks and upwards of 2 hours of news programming a day on our "network" channels, including regional news - and regional news is regional, in true adherence to Reithian values.
You're ignoring the commonality and frequency of copycat killers, and those seeking their violent martyrdom to spread their message because of the news.The US media is not the reason US gun crime is as it is.
but it has a very significant gang problem.The US is a first world country.
Its not in the middle of a civil war, run by military juntas, or controlled by drug cartels.
In a typical year in the so-called ”gang capitals" of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.
Do you think comparing the US to third world countries / developing nations with huge socio-economic problems paints the US particular problems in a better light?
The US is a first world country.
Its not in the middle of a civil war, run by military juntas, or controlled by drug cartels.
Fixed?I checked the "free" version of cable/satellite and there are like 5 "free" news channels .
Cageyoudontsay.jpg
Fixed?
I thought you had to pay the licensing fee?
And you can get those extra news stations with cable/satellite depending on your provider in the US.
Some news networks, like CNBC, will run HOT VIOLENCE NOW, even though their station is supposed to be dedicated to financial news. I'm pretty sure the Weather Channel does shit like that too.
So you're saying there's fewer news channels available and fewer hours of news media than the US?
Roughly half the population of the US subscribes to cable/satellite, so that's 4-5 24/7 news stations.
Rabbit ear TV is free, and many local stations can and do run roughly 8 hours of news each weekday.
but it has a very significant gang problem.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
Third world countries / developing nations usually have a much lower gun/pop ratio.
While Brazil, where over 60 thousands people are murdered each year, the gun prevalence is very low. They even passed a law a decade ago to restrict and de-arm the civilian population... the effect on criminallity was the oposite of the anti-gun lobby preached. Violenced soared and murders skyrocked.
The only real difference in news coverage on UK news
I'm a little weirded out.No, I was giving bare minimum values.
There is a cultural difference with regard to TV, but if we look at BBC1, our oldest "network" channel, today - not being any particularly different to any other day - and looking at midnight to midnight has ~11 hours worth of news broadcast in that 24 hour window. ...
Needing to feed a 24 hour media cycle is not exclusive to the US media.
You're ignoring things I've said.From a socio-political viewpoint, there should be no reason why violent guncrime is as high as it is, nor why spree killings are so prevalent, unless you want to contend that Americans are just inherently more violent than people in comparable first world countries.
The major observable difference is the amount of guns - far higher than most other countries.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspxAs many as 1 million gang members are believed responsible for as much as 80 percent of crime in America
Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005
I'm a little weirded out.
I look up regional stations in the UK, and there seem to be very few and they only seem to show a few hours of news each day. Am i missing something on how local news is handled?
My own area has 14 local stations and 7 of those have news programs in English, and each one has roughly 8 hours of news each weekday. With cable, there's also the 4 main news channels and a couple of odd balls like CNBC and Weather Channel where they'll start showing non-channel related news if it's violent enough.
Depending on your carrier and "package" you can get pretty much the additional channels you talked about for the UK, including BBC.
Still, I'm wondering the difference is on reporting of violence on the news. Again, violent crime reporting jumped about 7x from the 80s to 90s in the US, which has made Americans believe there's more crime today than before despite the fall in crimes being committed.
You're ignoring things I've said.
There are over 400 gangs in Los Angeles. There's over 120,000 members in these gangs.
London has twice the population of LA, but has 120something gangs and about a 1,000 gang members.
Pretty huge difference, don't you think?
Should we ignore gang violence? Because if you do... http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx
Suddenly America is much safer if you'd ignore the gang problem like you're trying to do.
Small countries scare me.. or it just seems to be the UK.There are 5 terrestrial channels. ... Local news to my knowledge is not that big of a deal, like TV regions are massive
That's like treating the symptoms of cancer instead of trying to wipe the cancer out.Also if gang violence is the main problem why not ban straw purchases, national register and people having gun checkups yearly or randomly. Maybe a nominal $10 fear so someone can do a yearly inspection of all the guns someone owns.
I'm a little weirded out.
I look up regional stations in the UK, and there seem to be very few and they only seem to show a few hours of news each day. Am i missing something on how local news is handled?
There are over 400 gangs in Los Angeles. There's over 120,000 members in these gangs.
London has twice the population of LA, but has 120something gangs and about a 1,000 gang members.
Pretty huge difference, don't you think?
No point. Just boggled that a country doesn't really have... other places, like other countries. It's not nitpicking, I'm just trying to learn more, because it's pretty interesting.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make, and nitpicking the differences between media reportage is veering into "no true scotsman" territory.
What do you mean by "local" news?
I've been repeating over and over how US media reports on violence. This hasn't changed and as I've read, it's increased 7 times over from the 80s to the 90s. So today, with even more news channels and the increase of time spent on just reporting news by local broadcasters? It's safe to assume it has doubled, at the very least.The US TV channels you specifically called out as examples of irresponsible reporting that contributes towards spree killings, are in fact aired all over the world, and none of the other countries in the world that get that exact same media have a spree killing problem like the US does.
So again, what is the point you are trying to make here?
I didn't realize that gangs needed guns to be gangs.London doesn't have "street gangs" like the US does, because the UK has some of the strictest gun contorl on the planet (and correspondingly some of the lowest gun crime statistics on the planet).
I don't know what talking about gangs does to help any argument against the US needing vastly stricter gun control to reduce gun violence.
You make some good points. Enforcement of our current gun laws would be a huge help here in the US. I'd love to see a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty for using a gun in a crime.I've lost track of the point you are trying to make, and nitpicking the differences between media reportage is veering into "no true scotsman" territory.
What do you mean by "local" news?
England is tiny. Attacks at an Arianda Grande concert in Manchester dominate headlines in Cornwall just as much as they dominate headlines in Anglia, just as they dominate headlines in London.
Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own TV channels, because they're actually other countries.
The US TV channels you specifically called out as examples of irresponsible reporting that contributes towards spree killings, are in fact aired all over the world, and none of the other countries in the world that get that exact same media have a spree killing problem like the US does.
So again, what is the point you are trying to make here?
London doesn't have "street gangs" like the US does, because the UK has some of the strictest gun contorl on the planet (and correspondingly some of the lowest gun crime statistics on the planet).
I don't know what talking about gangs does to help any argument against the US needing vastly stricter gun control to reduce gun violence.
Do you know why gang members don't walk around London strapped?
Because they face a minimum 5 years in prison just for having a gun in their possession.
No point. Just boggled that a country doesn't really have... other places, like other countries.
I didn't realize that gangs needed guns to be gangs.
How did other countries with gang problems solve their issues with them?
Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.I still don't really understand the point; I'm a 3 hour plane trip away from being in Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Reykjavik, Oslo, Dublin, Florence, Bruges, Vienna....
There is huge regional variation within England.
Like, there have been civil wars between Yorkshire and Lancashire. And as I said, Wales Scotland and Ireland are actual seperate countries.
You don't need a rolling 24 hour Cumbria news, or a rolling 24 hour Norfolk news to be the defining point of regional difference.
For most intents and purposes, UK news might as well be "London" and "everywhere else".
I'm asking by what definition of "Gang" has you saying there are only 100 in London. Because literally every estate has gangs, every football team has gangs, there are organised eastern European begging gangs that roam the tube lines, there are organised drug gangs, there are organised prostitution gangs, there are organised street crime gangs, there are organised burglary gangs, there are organised car theft gangs.
Firearms legislation.
Most people are just not legally allowed to roam the streets carrying guns.
Gang violence becomes a case of beatings and stabbings (or as is currently an issue in the UK acid attacks, until that gets legislated).
I guess the difference there is that a gang member with a gun isn't necessarily probable cause for a search and arrest in the US because of our gun laws while in Britain it's jail time no matter who is carrying one.Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.
Pretty weird and shows how different news is handled in the US, even within a single state that is sectioned off.There is huge regional variation within England.
Like, there have been civil wars between Yorkshire and Lancashire. And as I said, Wales Scotland and Ireland are actual seperate countries.
You don't need a rolling 24 hour Cumbria news, or a rolling 24 hour Norfolk news to be the defining point of regional difference.
For most intents and purposes, UK news might as well be "London" and "everywhere else".
Ok, you're just playing dumb with that gangs bit, because it should be understood what kind based on violence and theft.Firearms legislation.
Most people are just not legally allowed to roam the streets carrying guns.
Gang violence becomes a case of beatings and stabbings (or as is currently an issue in the UK acid attacks, until that gets legislated).
Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.
Ok, you're just playing dumb with that gangs bit, because it should be understood what kind based on violence and theft.
And does it matter, anyway? Roughly 100 in London vs 400 in LA.
Please understand how much the media does affect us. There would be a noticeable drop if they treated it like (not) reporting suicides. Lots of research has been put into this shit that it's almost basic knowledge now.
Technically this is true, but in practice? Cops tend to freak out if you look like a stereotype or minority. Cops are known for using any excuse to go after you if they even feel a hint of something wrong.No, but there are criminals legally carrying firearms in public places, just like there are criminals who have no criminal record.
You're ignoring the fact that gangs can and do make up a majority of this shits, if not always known for wanting them.But the way criminal economies work is this;
low level crime - eg a junkie - will burgle a place for high value items to sell on to a fence, or trade for drugs directly with a dealer.
I've actually been waiting to hear some stats about how many hours or time is spent on reports of violence. Or how your favorite show is interrupted by the latest real time telling of great violence.But we're back to the same point; media everywhere else in the world acts the exact same way, and everywhere else in the world doesn't have the same problems.
It's the other way around, dude. Guns are the sprinkles. The Mass Shooting Soft Serve is brought to you by the influx of news making them so prominent for higher ratings.Its like saying the sprinkles on an ice cream sundae are the problem; they don't help, but you're not getting fat and diabetic on a daily diet of sundaes because of sprinkles.
Is that why they solved the gang problem?Here is a thought, if most mass shooting weren't perpetrated by white americans, this problem would be solved a long time ago.
The Mass Shooting Tracker obfuscates the variety of circumstances that give rise to gun violence in the United States and uses that misleading data to push a political point.
"Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation," the report notes as part of its key findings. "Typical gang-related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder and weapons trafficking."
And, in fact, gang-related shootings, crimes that occasion gunfire, disputes among families and friends that turn explosive these account for the vast majority of mass gun violence in the United States.
You're just sticking your fingers into your ears, wrongly attributing data to prove the cause of a problem, ignoring shit that actually makes way more sense because it has been studied, monitored, and repeated by experts for decades.
Again, you need to clarify your definitions, because there are WAY more "gangs" than that in London, as measured by crimes committed by groups.
Because you seem to be using a cyclical definition that there are "gangs" by US specific definitions of what a "gang" is, because US gangs have guns and gangs in other countries do not, to argue that the US has a specific problem with "gangs" but that is completely unrelated to the "having guns" aspect of that.
Again; my definition of a "gang" is a group of people participating in a criminal activity together. There are way more than 100 "gangs" in London.
How are you defining the term "gang" to source the claim that there is a huge disparity between the US and any other first world country?
Prior to any analysis of gang culture in Britain, we must first establish a coherent and standardised definition of what a gang is. A number of high profile murders such as that of 15 year old Billy Cox in London and 11 year old Rhys Jones in Liverpool and the accompanying media coverage, have ensured that over the past decade the term gang has entered common discourse.
There now appears a tendency to apply the word gang to any and all groups of young people engaging in any and all forms of anti-social behaviour. This knee-jerk response to what is often petty, though intimidating, (criminal) behaviour is profoundly unhelpful. The vast majority of groups of young people are not gangs, and the labelling of them as such can have negative consequences for all involved (see below).
When developing a response to a problem the first step must be to accurately define it; this first step has been missed in relation
to gangs in Britain.
In some languages or national contexts, the word gang either cannot be translated or carries with it such an emotionally charged meaning that it cannot be used meaningfully, consensus was reached to describe such groups as troublesome youth groups.7
The emotive nature of the term gang is clearly visible in media coverage of gang culture and crime and the dominance of the American model can indeed be misleading: some gangs in the UK may have adopted the names of the infamous Los Angeles Bloods and Crips, but the scale and nature of their organisation, activity and violence is not (yet) comparable.
The Eurogang Network settled on the term troublesome youth group and defined one as any durable, street-orientated youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity.8
The Home Office in 2004 used similar criteria in their identification of delinquent youth groups in the UK. They identified such groups as having durability and structure and whose members spend time in public spaces and engage in delinquent activities together.9 The report highlighted five key defining points:
--Young people who spend time in groups of three or more (including themselves).
--The group spend a lot of time in public places.
--The group has existed for three months or more.
--The group has engaged in delinquent or criminal behaviour together in the last 12 months.
--The group has at least one structural feature (either a name, an area, a leader, or rules).
...if we tarnish all young people with the word gang then we are missing the point. Because there are some young people who like to move around in 6s or 7s because of safety...there are 6 or 7 of your mates, you went to the same school, like to hang out in the same area but then there are young people who specifically do negative things, make money from drugs, are willing to kill, willing to claim their postcode, willing to wear colours to reflect the set that they move in...
Read the thread.First of all, why are you talking about gangs and the media when this is about mass shootings?
Seriously, read the thread.and points to the mass shooting tracker and calls it "provocative and, unsurprisingly, misleading", decides to use a different definition under which there were only 67 mass killings. Better than 355 right?
That's some amazing selective reading kills you got there.You say 80 percent of all crime is done by gangs, which actually makes loads of sense when you think about it, gangs are about crime - it's their thing, how they sustain themselves - persistent crime. From an article you linked to
Except it didn't used to be, at least with all these high profile killings you only seem to care about when it doesn't involve gangs.it's just the way it is
Serious reading problems.I can't believe you posted this to defend.
Nice theory, especially when it comes from an opinion piece that ignores very heavily researched topics which are plainly obvious (trying to beat the high score, etc) in why a shooting happens.Ironic no? Less guns, less mass shootings, less gang shootings, less. Just less.
Can i add my sappy experience of living close to the Mexican (the country has very strict gun laws and registration) border and not wanting to go back anymore because of friends and relatives being killed in gang warfare?edit:Also can I just say, you bring up the gang shit - but as a young black man living in London the thing that really gets to when listening to people defend guns right after another mass shooting is to imagine living in a persistent fear of being shot. Shot by a gang, shot by your family, shot by the police for X while black, shot in a mass shooting, shot on your way home...
And the territory for these gangs crosses over into the US.the cartels foot soldiers are on a par with Mexicos army of about 130,000
So basically, there's even fewer gangs and those that could be called a gang are little babies compared ot the US ones?some gangs in the UK may have adopted the names of the infamous Los Angeles Bloods and Crips, but the scale and nature of their organisation, activity and violence is not (yet) comparable.
You're ignoring the fact that gangs can and do make up a majority of this shits, if not always known for wanting them.
(which are 170something and actual numbers for gangs in LA are 450something).
I've actually been waiting to hear some stats about how many hours or time is spent on reports of violence. Or how your favorite show is interrupted by the latest real time telling of great violence.
...
And I'm not against various methods of gun control. I just think it's fucking stupid to blame it the way you and others do for what is clearly caused by other factors. Like i said, it's like treating the symptoms of cancer instead of trying to wipe the cancer out.
First of all, why are you talking about gangs and the media when this is about mass shootings?
Whats your postcode fam. I think everyone in my secondary school was in a gang going by that definition. The image of "gang" morphs across the region too. #hugahoodie
Funny, since gun crimes increased in the past years (and immediately after the ban took place) in Australia more than two decades after their ban.I mean... maybe you're missing my point because you're agreeing with me that legally owned guns become guns used in illegal activities real fucking easily, and that any legislation removing guns from "legitimate" owners would therefore also dry up supply lines to illegitimate owners. ie that fewer guns leads to less gun crime.
Meh, i was being pretty braod and why i used such indistinct numbers, because i couldn't really remember the correct amounts. So i stated 120something for England and 400s for US. Learn to context and i undervalued the US's numbers more, so whatever.you've sourced your numbers now, and they've gone from 100 to "170 at the very least probably more" from your own source, so that's something.
So basically, so you really did want to ignore that the US has a gang problem (and england's gangs are jokingly overestimated), hence violence being many times higher, just to push a shitty theory? Great.But there isn't a one to one comparison, because we have really strict firearms legislation!
Seriously? You're also going to ignore the fact that the most watched TV shows in the US can and are interuppted to report on hyper violence is no different than however your country handles things? Nevermind I've continuingly been repeating how much more violence has been reported since the 90s?And like I'm telling you - there is no substantive difference in the way the media report spree killings anywhere in the world, despite your adherence that there is; in fact, as I keep repeating, we get some of the exact same US media that you do.
When you WILLINGLY ignore so many factors, of course the US is going to seem non-sensibly damaged.Which leads to the uncomfortable options that there is something very damaged in the US psyche that makes them more willing to spree kill than other nations of similar socio-economic standings, or that the prevalence of gun availability in the US, you know, just might have something to do with it.
Fixed that for you. i'd like you to support your view on how the NRA made gun crime go down, but i totally don't question your logic.The fall of gun crime since the 80s has a myriad of factors, including the NRA becoming a partisan political lobbyist movement instead of just a "gun owners club"
Considering copycat criminal do exist and has been used to describe many of the mass killers.... Of course, they're not completely responsible, that there's other things going on, because that's just how these things usually are.and I think you are mistaking increased media coverage as causation not correlation.
If an ice cream brand were used as entertainment, showing glorified violence and violence did increase, you would start fucking blaming that ice cream brand.Murder rates go up along with ice cream sales, but ice creams don't cause murders, you know?
Fixed that for you too.His contention is that (as I understand it);
- the US media are the primary cause of US mass shootings by glamorising it in the way that they over-report it, not the free availability of guns both legally and illegally, because it explains why there is an increase in that specific type of crime, while violence in general is falling.
Seriously? You're also going to ignore the fact that the most watched TV shows in the US can and are interuppted to report on hyper violence is no different than however your country handles things? Nevermind I've continuingly been repeating how much more violence has been reported since the 90s?
I'm serious as fuck as to wanting examples of your country doing the same shit or ANYTHING, but instead you just want to "they're the same because"... because WHY? HOW?
How does more gun control help when current gun control law enforcement is so lax?
From a perspective of "everyone should be able to have a gun, with a small selection who should not", weeding through the selection who should not is a huge drain of resources, bureaucracy and red tape.
From the alternate perspective - "almost nobody should have a gun, with a small selection who should" - the amount of verification required is vastly less.
I fail to see how this addresses the problem I highlighted which is a large number of people are prohibited from buying firearms due to felonies etc, they are breaking the law in trying to AND ARE CAUGHT DOING SO, thus denied permission to purchase a firearm and then no prosecution takes place. I am not the least bit interested in hearing arguments for increased gun controls when current gun control laws are barely enforced and they could easily be in the particular case I am discussing.
In 2010, the FBI conducted about 6.04 million checks, 72,659 of which were denied, Frandsen noted in the study.
Because its a question of resources.
From your source:
Its like asking why jaywalking or traffic tickets aren't habitually prosecuted for breaking the law and BEING CAUGHT DOING SO.
Is that really where the problem lies?
People going to an arms dealer and failing a background check?