Mass Shooting

[Brian Kennedy]

Yeah and only 2000 odd people died on 9/11 and for some reason we freaked out. I guess you can be all Mr Spock about this stuff if you want.

[Stargrunt6]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-06/heres-what-criminology-professor-learned-studying-every-mass-shooting-1966

[BansheeOne]

That's really so important that it should be quoted extensively:

 

[...]

 

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we havent found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

 

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

 

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

 

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

 

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

 

So what do these commonalities tell us about how to prevent future shootings?

 

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensing, universal background checks, safe storage campaigns and red-flag laws measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

 

Another step is to try to make it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions. Media campaigns like #nonotoriety are helping starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity, and technology companies are increasingly being held accountable for facilitating mass violence. But we all can slow the spread of mass shootings by changing how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media. Dont like or share violent content. Dont read or share killers manifestos and other hate screeds posted on the internet. We also need to study our current approaches. For example, do lockdown and active shooter drills help children prepare for the worst or hand potential shooters the script for mass violence by normalizing or rehearsing it?

 

We also need to, as a society, be more proactive. Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known to others before the shooting occurs. The vast majority of mass shooters leak their plans ahead of time. People who see or sense something is wrong, however, may not always say something to someone owing to the absence of clear reporting protocols or fear of overreaction and unduly labeling a person as a potential threat. Proactive violence prevention starts with schools, colleges, churches and employers initiating conversations about mental health and establishing systems for identifying individuals in crisis, reporting concerns and reaching out not with punitive measures but with resources and long-term intervention. Everyone should be trained to recognize the signs of a crisis.

 

Proactivity needs to extend also to the traumas in early life that are common to so many mass shooters. Those early exposures to violence need addressing when they happen with ready access to social services and high-quality, affordable mental health treatment in the community. School counselors and social workers, employee wellness programs, projects that teach resilience and social emotional learning, and policies and practices that decrease the stigma around mental illness will not just help prevent mass shootings, but will also help promote the social and emotional success of all Americans.

 

[...]

Including the satirical counterpoint by the "Babylon Bee":

 

An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.

[Burncycle360]

The left is roasting him hard right now for, you know, using facts:

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson

@neiltyson

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

 

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose

 

500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun

 

Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.

11:58 AM · Aug 4, 2019·TweetDeck

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status...297468928?s=20

 

Seriously, he's getting raked over the coals for this.

 

It's been deleted now.

 

Imagine how triggered they would have been if he mentioned the 3,000+ to abortion

Edited August 6, 2019 by Burncycle360

[rmgill]

Yeah and only 2000 odd people died on 9/11 and for some reason we freaked out. I guess you can be all Mr Spock about this stuff if you want.

Sorry. A darling of the left described 9/11 as some people doing something. Can you please provide me with a key as to what the left finds important?

[seahawk]

Are those mass shootings even a problem.

 

The only problem are gunfree zone which make those place prime targets for such attacks - but in the end this is a small price to pay for the freedom granted by the constitution and the right to carry.

[sunday]

Are those mass shootings even a problem.

 

The only problem are gunfree zone which make those place prime targets for such attacks - but in the end this is a small price to pay for the freedom granted by the constitution and the right to carry.

 

Is it possible to live normally without setting foot in a gun free zone?

 

Could it even been a idea for a real estate developer to work with?

[Burncycle360]

Well, while the mall adjacent was a gun free zone, Walmart was not (where the shooting began) -- apparently either nobody was carrying (contrary to popular belief, not everyone in Texas carries), or they were focused on removing themselves or their loved ones from the scene.

The simple answer is to remove the force of law from gun free zones, such that if you're caught carrying past them and the private business owner doesn't want you to, then they can ask you to leave and if you don't then it becomes a trespassing issue, which would carry legal weight. Some states do this, others do not -- but I am fond of it because it doesn't put the law abiding citizen in a position to have to decide whether to break the law as an act of "civil disobedience" in order to ensure they're able to protect themselves and their loved ones, or to follow the law and accept that they're at the mercy of those who won't. Enough muggings, shootings and attacks have happened in broad daylight at places you'd least expect (Garlic festivals, McDonalds, shopping places etc), and it's not a matter of how low the odds are that it will happen to you, it's a matter of how high the stakes are.

As an example to those overseas, Tennessee is fairly gun friendly state in the South, and out of a population of 6.8 million or so, there are ~500,000 handgun carry permits issued. Only a fraction of those actually carry every day, most will generally keep it in their car or home and only carry occasionally. Of those who do carry every day, you generally won't ever notice them because they will be concealed, and only a minority of them will choose to "open carry" where people can see it.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Burncycle360

[Burncycle360]

 

Are those mass shootings even a problem.

 

The only problem are gunfree zone which make those place prime targets for such attacks - but in the end this is a small price to pay for the freedom granted by the constitution and the right to carry.

 

Is it possible to live normally without setting foot in a gun free zone?

 

 

That's a good point. "Gun free zones" are the choice of the store management (or corporation) and ostensibly, in a capitalist society, if enough people chose to shop elsewhere (assuming there's a non gun free zone alternative) they would lose enough money in business to be incentivized to allow people to carry in their establishment. The reality is, they generally shrug and don't give a crap, they'll get enough business regardless that it doesn't come close to superseding their political ideologies.

 

In the majority of the country, yeah you'd probably be fine. In blue states (why aren't they red states again if socialism/communism is stereotypically red?) with the dense population centers, it can be a challenge to find someplace that doesn't prohibit firearms, assuming the state hasn't already instituted a blanket ban.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Burncycle360

[glenn239]

 

An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.

 

 

Nice post. Perfect satire. I saw on Saturday what was going on, then tuned into CNN on Sunday morning to see if they'd politicized it yet. Yep, they had, right on schedule...

[rmgill]

The simple answer is to remove the force of law from gun free zones, such that if you're caught carrying past them and the private business owner doesn't want you to, then they can ask you to leave and if you don't then it becomes a trespassing issue, which would carry legal weight. Some states do this, others do not -- but I am fond of it because it doesn't put the law abiding citizen in a position to have to decide whether to break the law as an act of "civil disobedience" in order to ensure they're able to protect themselves and their loved ones, or to follow the law and accept that they're at the mercy of those who won't. Enough muggings, shootings and attacks have happened in broad daylight at places you'd least expect (Garlic festivals, McDonalds, shopping places etc), and it's not a matter of how low the odds are that it will happen to you, it's a matter of how high the stakes are.

 

 

I think it needs to go further.

 

 

Gov't locations -

1. it needs to be a location where there is a REAL need. ie Past the Guard line at a jail for example. Or critical secure facilities where access is severely restricted. What it should NOT be is areas like a courthouse unless there's a clear lockup for folks who are allowed to carry under state law.

2. If you have to go there for various services license application, car tags, etc and it's the only place that processes such, then it should be legal to carry there with a license in a reasonable manner

 

 

Private locations - business

1. Signs may or may not carry weight of law, I'm not certain where this should go.

2. If the property owner excludes private citizens from carrying, they carry FULL civil liability for the safety of the customers from where the customer may park (or depart public transportation) to the business and into/out of the business.

3. The business owner may ask armed persons to leave. (in my state, failing to do so while armed is felony trespass)

The idea is that if I go to a business and I'm excluded from carrying, I must either not patronize the business OR I must leave my sidearm at home or in my car. Leaving it in my car is less than ideal, it's not very secure and that's a problem for theft. More over, they're essentially asserting that they're taking care of my safety by assumption that I cannot protect myself going from/to my car let alone within their premises of their business.

Private locations - homes

Don't want someone to carry, don't invite them. Feel free to ask them to leave.

 

 

 

[Mr King]

Meanwhile in Hong Kong it's a look into our future when the people like the starter of this thread eventually get their way.

 

[Mr King]

[Panzermann]

The NYT gets lead by the nosering by the loudest minority?

[Colin]

The left is roasting him hard right now for, you know, using facts:

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson

@neiltyson

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

 

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose

 

500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun

 

Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.

11:58 AM · Aug 4, 2019·TweetDeck

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status...297468928?s=20

 

Seriously, he's getting raked over the coals for this.

 

It's been deleted now.

Suicides are 123 a day roughly

Motor vehicle fatalities 100 a day

Flu- 216 a day estimated

medical error is tougher, depending how you determine relation to the event and death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error

Edited August 7, 2019 by Colin

[NickM]

 

Ill bet we only hear about the anti-Mexican shooter from the traditional media from now on.

That's all that NPR is saying.

 

 

Yeah, this morning, the news RE: the Ohio shooter, said 'no motive is known'.

[Burncycle360]

Remember that time some people did something in El Paso?

[Soren Ras]

The NYT gets lead by the nosering by the loudest minority?

So it appears.

 

Soren

[BansheeOne]

The Dayton shooter may have been a raging leftist politically, but so far I'm not seeing any indication that this motivated him - neither from some sort of manifesto nor his target set, which included his own sister and the guy who drove them both to town. And while some of his reported online posts went on about "white people", six out of nine fatalities were black. He looks just like somebody "with an interest in killing people" with his "kill and rape lists" from high school.

 

Of course per the research into mass shooters quoted earlier, I suspect the same is ultimately true for the El Paso perpetrator, and the immigration thing just provided a fashionable validation for his pre-existing intentions. Which made him "win" the competition for greatest media coverage in addition to the greater body count he racked up compared to the Dayton shooter, who was likely triggered by his example.

 

Unfortunately for the latter he was killed 30 seconds after opening fire, precluding him from reaching a "better" result. Even killing your own sister cannot compete with double-digit fatalities and tapping into the great polarization of American partisan politics. In the end I wouldn't be surprised if both shooters were shown to have had daddy and women issues, childhood abuse, couldn't get laid, etc.; the 4/8chan crowd has always struck me as including a conspicious concentration of that type.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Report on CNN that people were panicking in Time Square last night, after a car backfired.

[Murph]

Remember that time some people did something in El Paso?

FBI source reveals that the El Paso shooter was triggered by the Democrat debates? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/fbi-insider-el-paso-shooter-told-officials-it-was-the-democrat-debate-on-free-healthcare-to-illegals-not-trump-that-triggered-his-mass-shooting/

[Murph]

Antifa's first mass killer, there will be more...unfortuately. Antifa is upping the stakes: https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-may-be-antifas-first-mass-killer/

[Burncycle360]

 

 

Remember that time some people did something in El Paso?

FBI source reveals that the El Paso shooter was triggered by the Democrat debates? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/fbi-insider-el-paso-shooter-told-officials-it-was-the-democrat-debate-on-free-healthcare-to-illegals-not-trump-that-triggered-his-mass-shooting/

Ironically, In his manifesto literally everything he was complaining about were left wing talking points, from job loss to automation (yang), environment, too much corporate power, and everything in between. Even anti illegal immigration was traditionally left wing (or at least bipartisan) until recently.

 

The only issue he raised that wasnt left wing was the distaste for mixing of races and wanting separation based on ideological and ethnic / racial grounds, and so of course the media disregarded all of the other things.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Burncycle360

[BansheeOne]

The FBI now also treats the Garlic Fest shooting as domestic terrorism but say they still don't have a motive, and that the perpetrator was following different competing violent ideologies. I read that as shopping around for stuff that would provide the greatest encouragement and subsequent attention for his act.

 

If the Right keeps pointing to the Dayton shooter's leftist politics enough, I find it entirely likely that left-wing issues will become competitive as validation- and attention-providing mechanisms for prospective shooters. Just think of the novelity factor the first one with an unambigiously leftist manifesto would achieve - he would become an instant celebrity with the Right for breaking the "mass shooter = right-winger" paradigm, for starters. They would never let it drop from memory, which would again inspire countless copycats.

 

Imagine the redoubled carnage that opening socialism as an excuse for killing people to Incels would permit! Shooters will compete for biggest attention with both left- and right-wing manifesto, seeking to outkill their own as well as the other camp! It will be beautiful from a partisan media point of view!

 

(No, I'm not cynical, why?)

[FlyingCanOpener]

The FBI now also treats the Garlic Fest shooting as domestic terrorism but say they still don't have a motive, and that the perpetrator was following different competing violent ideologies. I read that as shopping around for stuff that would provide the greatest encouragement and subsequent attention for his act.

 

Unless they're a hardcore believer in an ideology, kooky nutbags just gather all of the oddball theories that are rattling around in their mind then drop them onto their manifesto when it's time to do whatever it is they want to do--a method that's stood the test of time whether it's a hostage situation, a bomb maker, or a mall shooter. The lack of a coherent ideology is probably a tip-off that this isn't a partisan issue, but alas.

 

But like you said afterward, the starving partisan news media has no time for nuance, so if a shooter is close enough to their agenda, they're going to push it, while the other gets tossed into the memory hole.