Mass Shooting

[Harold Jones]

 

 

 

I think for Americans, internet censorship is going to be a FAR easier sell to the public than any of the other options. Maybe even a ban on violent computer games, under the illusory belief its going to stop violent attacks.

Banning violent games has come up a lot over the years, when passed it usually gets shot down in the courts via 1st amendment claims.

 

I hope it will continue to do so, because any effort to touch that is going to impact everything from GTA to flight simulations.

 

There's also the fact that there's no solid evidence that they're related.

 

 

Facts rarely enter into the arguments when something must be done. Hell if people cared about facts we wouldn't be seeing a resurgence of measles.

[Burncycle360]

Our understanding of mental health is constantly evolving, and it's extraordinarily dangerous to set precedent based on something we don't fully understand, especially since it involves not just biological, sociological and ideological variables, but corporate interests as well. Reformation is of course needed, but it shouldn't be hasty. Safeguards and limitations are needed, but with the framework designed around erring towards giving the citizen the benefit of the doubt to avoid false positives, even understanding that means some borderline people will slip through the system, and that's a trade off that people need to understand and be aware of.

The policies should be thoroughly red teamed to identify any potential for misuse or abuse for the simple reason that anything done with the best of intentions will almost certainly be warped and misused generations down the line in ways we may not be able to forsee. Examples like Red Flag laws have the potential to do a lot of good, but are also incredibly dangerous -- for those not from the US who may not be aware of what that is, they are laws that allow the government to pre-emptively search and confiscate firearms from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. It throws out innocent until proven guilty and not all of them have clear roads to redemption or processes to appeal. Should the pendulum of thought in our society ever shift towards a more authoritarian attitude, such laws therefore are a potential back-door way to neutralize anyone perceived to be enemies of the establishment, a threat to societal order simply because they may have ideological differences. The bar is flexible, and always inches forward. Health history forms in a lot of places now include "does your home have firearms?" to see a doctor for a sore throat.

Familiar to any student taking a medical ethics class, the Rosenhan experiment is a great example of this. Experimenters feigned a mental illness enter psychiatric hospitals, where they received a diagnosis, were given medication, and were admitted. The experimenters acted normally afterwards, telling the staff they felt fine and had no further symptoms to see how they would respond. As a condition of release, all of the pesudopatients had to admit they had a mental disorder, and agree to continue to take medication, and carried (what would ordinarily be) a lifelong label of being schizophrenic "in remission". There was no consideration that the doctor may have made a mistake or misdiagnosis (especially with what we understand today with some comorbid conditions mimicking others), nor was there a path to redemption that would lead that person to having a clean record -- no, they would be forever labeled as mentally ill, in remission, along with certain rights stripped. The staff's mentality was that they wouldn't have been there if they DIDN'T have a mental illness, so once you have that label from someone in a position of authority, it's a stigma that will never leave. From wiki: "The second part of his study involved an offended hospital administration challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 250 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 2 of these receiving suspicion from at least one psychiatrist and one other staff member. In fact, Rosenhan had sent no pseudopatients to the hospital."

Like some judges who are harsher than others, so are some doctors. As a result, some mildly or temporarily mentally ill patients (or even those who aren't mentally ill at all), who would never go on to hurt themselves or others, would be forever stigmatized with certain rights stripped and no advocacy or road to redemption. After all, they can't advocate for themselves (they're unfit remember?) and they wouldn't be declared so if it weren't true, according to the staff at hospitals and certainly the general public. It's a serious problem if you find yourself on the wrong end of something like that, and it really wasn't that long ago where it was common knowledge that women were just hysterical sometimes and the best doctors and treatment money could buy for the wealthy (ie, Rosemary Kennedy) was a freaking lobotomy.

You're treading on dangerous ground when a person can define another with the stroke of a pen, it ain't that simple. Look how people struggled to label this nutjob as a democrat or republican. Guess what, there are people who are pro choice AND pro right to bear arms, just to touch the surface. The vast majority of people who disagree with your ideology won't go on to kill you, much like the vast majority of people somewhere on the spectrum of mental illness won't go on to harm themselves or others. But some will. There are extreme outliers on the left who will throw acid in your face just for not calling them by their preferred pronoun, and there are outliers on the right who will kill you just because you're a different color than them.

I recognize the US has more gun related crime than other western nations, I do. Of course I'd like to effect change to reduce that. Those who carry firearms get just as mad as anyone else when a crazy gunman hurts anyone (including kids), and were they there, they'd likely be some of the first to run towards the sound of gunfire to do what they can to help. So this whole "you're old, conservative, simple, redneck and heartless" from the regressive left doesn't wash by and large. Yeah they offer what the left would consider useless thoughts and prayers, but guess what? They're also vastly more likely than those on the left to be in public safety (Fire, EMS, Police), the military, or associated with them than the people complaining and trying to start a movement on facebook, so it isn't just empty words. If they appear slow to call for enacting sweeping reform, it's not because they love their guns more than they love their children, it's because their depth of consideration for the ramifications of that sweeping reform run far greater than the short sighted impulsiveness of the young who don't consider the 2nd order effects of the precedents they want to set.

However, I do not want sweeping law changes that feel good, but sacrifice the liberties of the law abiding in order to take ineffectual swings at the radical outliers intent on doing harm to themselves or others because those will always exist in a society no matter how authoritarian people beg their governments to be. We've seen where that road leads, and the dead don't care if the authoritarianism comes from the left or the right. You're beyond diminishing returns.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Burncycle360

[Brian Kennedy]

Fuckin Trump could not even get the city correct. https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2019/08/trump-mistakenly-offers-thoughts-and-prayers-to-toledo-instead-of-dayton.html

 

In all fairness, Biden was worse. Probably shouldnt elect any more senile presidents. https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEKTRVyIPuT4uiaf2acMLTAwqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzww9oEY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Edited August 5, 2019 by Brian Kennedy

[Chris Werb]

A few points.

 

1. The "they'll just switch to another weapon, pick up truck, fertilizers bomb etc." argument has little validity. Very few have used trucks to kill even where they were the only option and when they did they generally killed fewer people than spree killers with semiautomatic weapons did. Effective bombs require a degree of planning and preparation that presumably puts many off and hardly lends itself to spontaneity.

 

2. Mental health is a huge multifaceted problem, but how many spree shooters and internal terrorists showed any symptoms that would have warranted mandatory clinical intervention or gun rights being revoked? I seriously doubt it's a significant percentage.

 

3. On the issue of rights being given up in the mainland UK, remember that having a rifled firearm for defensive purposes, even on your own property, ended in 1946. Carry had been greatly restricted in 1903 and ended in 1920. So these are not rights anyone on this forum gave up. Only a very small percentage of the population would like to see these freedoms reinstated here today. That sucks for gun enthusiasts like myself, but we are down to one shooting spree approximately every 14 years and all but the most scientifically minded terrorists are limited to pick up trucks and swords. I wouldn't want that to change.

[RETAC21]

If you get down to it, it's not the guns that do the killing, it's the ammunition. Ban the ammunition and the problem goes away. innit?

[Chris Werb]

Well I've been playing violent computer games for high on 40 years, and I've killed virtually nobody.

You must be a really crap player then

[Burncycle360]

A few points.

 

1. The "they'll just switch to another weapon, pick up truck, fertilizers bomb etc." argument has little validity. Very few have used trucks to kill even where they were the only option and when they did they generally killed fewer people than spree killers with semiautomatic weapons did. Effective bombs require a degree of planning and preparation that presumably puts many off and hardly lends itself to spontaneity.

 

2. Mental health is a huge multifaceted problem, but how many spree shooters and internal terrorists showed any symptoms that would have warranted mandatory clinical intervention or gun rights being revoked? I seriously doubt it's a significant percentage.

 

3. On the issue of rights being given up in the mainland UK, remember that having a rifled firearm for defensive purposes, even on your own property, ended in 1946. Carry had been greatly restricted in 1903 and ended in 1920. So these are not rights anyone on this forum gave up. Only a very small percentage of the population would like to see these freedoms reinstated here today. That sucks for gun enthusiasts like myself, but we are down to one shooting spree approximately every 14 years and all but the most scientifically minded terrorists are limited to pick up trucks and swords. I wouldn't want that to change.

1. More than one has said as much, and we've seen enough attacks using alternative means to believe it. The spontaneity argument may have some validity with crimes of passion (husbands who come home early...) but it doesn't wash when we're talking about premeditated mass shootings. Most of these were planned, and often times they had no history of breaking the law or anything that would be caught by a background check, so unless you're willing to throw innocent until proven guilty out the window and accept a hell of a lot of false positives... (and even then you STILL won't get them all)

 

2. Very, very few. That's why I'm concerned that more people will be negatively affected, and you can't prove a negative so it's difficult to quantify how many lives are saved by measures like this. Would they have gone on to hurt someone, or would they be like the vast majority who would not have?

 

3. Molehills become mountains when there's nothing around to put them in perspective. Look at the UK uproar over knives... and buddy when someone's got a knife at you and asking for your wallet, it's cold comfort that there aren't any guns and police are only 6 minutes away. I've seen more than a few who have complied and were killed anyway. Senseless? You bet. But don't fall into the trap of thinking they're rational people who think like you, and you never, ever, ever give them the benefit of the doubt that they won't snatch your life away as long as you do what they want. They created the situation, you have got to assume the worst because of the stakes.

 

Any society is a tradeoff between freedom and security, but the individual has their responsibilities too for that society to function, and effectively legislating out the right to self defense, to put your rights on pause to protect the rights of the criminals, is frankly too far. All in an effort to legislate out criminals who by definition don't abide by the law. Your society can be as authoritarian as you like, but even high security prisons can't keep out drugs and weapons (including firearms). No thank you.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Burncycle360

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Well I've been playing violent computer games for high on 40 years, and I've killed virtually nobody.

You must be a really crap player then

[sunday]

If you get down to it, it's not the guns that do the killing, it's the ammunition. Ban the ammunition and the problem goes away. innit?

 

I see a banning of lead, bismuth, charcoal, saltpeter, etc. on the way.

Edited August 5, 2019 by sunday

[Martin M]

 

 

 

 

Were such things happening so often 30, 40, 50 years ago? If not, what has changed? That's the problem that needs to be addressed, not guns.

Maybe because back then there was winners and losers. Now everyone gets a participation medal and they are unable to cope.

I posted here years ago that a study done of Palestinian Terrorists in prison were shown to almost exclusively have issues with their father, either from active abuse or passive neglect. I was mocked here for it by the usual suspects and labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

 

The issue still stands, and I would wager players a role in these men's actions.

Ah, no proper father figure. We're getting closer, aren't we? Now WHY does it occur more often than in the past?

To be honest I think its the Internet.

 

 

 

could be

 

I´m convinced it is overpopulation

2,5 billion in 1950

8,5 now

 

everyone is fighting (although it doesn´t always look that way) for existence

 

besides it is evermore crowded and crowding makes people afraid, aggresive and nutty

 

and besides the Left taught everyone : it´s ok to be violent for minor grevances and to be disproportionately violent

 

 

the CO2 increase (in case it means anything) is also due to numbers of people and NOT individual consumer behaivior

 

 

Stop pop growth, stop all immigration

 

 

WENIGER IST MEHR

Edited August 5, 2019 by Martin M

[Detonable]

If people who dont vote for your candidate are deplorable and racist its easier to kill them. Also if they are toxic Isnt it good to get rid of something toxic?

 

The shootings havent taken place in a vacuum. Weve seen repeated cases where people have been harassed while they were eating dinner, or physically attacked because they wore a red hat. Once it became mainstream to attack people of the other party, taking it lethal was only a step farther.

 

Imagine what it must be like to be the parents who lost both their son (shooter) and daughter (victim). Living out the rest of your life alone. Wondering where you went wrong, every day for the rest of your life.

It looks like they lived in quite a nice house.

[Detonable]

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

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Burncycle360 is really nailing it with these posts

very good stuff

[Nobu]

The prevalence may be higher, but the incidence certainly predates the DOOM/Splatterhouse generation. The first shooting incident that always comes to my mind is the "I am going to hunt humans in a San Diego McDonalds" guy, because that gave me nightmares. There was a comfort zone aspect to the place for kids back then.

 

Population growth sounds like a better reason for greater prevalence.

 

Bloodline/genetics may explain the incidence.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Nobu

[Burncycle360]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[rmgill]

Facts rarely enter into the arguments when something must be done. Hell if people cared about facts we wouldn't be seeing a resurgence of measles.

Or Cholera. Or Typhus. Or Bubonic Plague.

[rmgill]

1. The "they'll just switch to another weapon, pick up truck, fertilizers bomb etc." argument has little validity. Very few have used trucks to kill even where they were the only option and when they did they generally killed fewer people than spree killers with semiautomatic weapons did. Effective bombs require a degree of planning and preparation that presumably puts many off and hardly lends itself to spontaneity.

Nice. 86 dead with a truck. What mass shootings have the same number of fatalities? Any with a single participant?

 

 

2. Mental health is a huge multifaceted problem, but how many spree shooters and internal terrorists showed any symptoms that would have warranted mandatory clinical intervention or gun rights being revoked? I seriously doubt it's a significant percentage.

It's a number larger than zero in the case of several of the shootings.

 

Easily demonstrated that in the Parkland case police had been to his home 39 times prior to the incident. I suspect that there was a problem there. Noone was REALLY following up on it.

 

 

 

but we are down to one shooting spree approximately every 14 years and all but the most scientifically minded terrorists are limited to pick up trucks and swords. I wouldn't want that to change.

How many truck/vehicle attacks since then? Bombings?

Edited August 5, 2019 by rmgill

[rmgill]

I see a banning of lead, bismuth, charcoal, saltpeter, etc. on the way.

Pressurized air?

[bojan]

Explosives and propellants can be made from so common materials that attempt to ban them would have way too disastrous consequences for a lot of other things.

[Skywalkre]

Tying in with what some have been discussing my browser feed just showed me an article discussing how 22% of millennials claim to have no friends.

 

That's... not good.

[sunday]

 

I see a banning of lead, bismuth, charcoal, saltpeter, etc. on the way.

Pressurized air?

 

 

Covered!

[Chris Werb]

Ryan, I'd have to check, but we have had very, very few vehicle attacks in the UK in the last couple of decades. I can think of two offhand. Neither killed anything like 71 people and in at least one instance the attackers used swords as well. Bombings? I can think of two offhand over the same period. The London tube bombing and the Ariane Grande concert. That's in 20 years, during which we had one mass shooting. Despite being awash with wannabe jihadis and experienced ones returning from the ME, we don't have lots of nutters and terrorists, disenfranchised of gun rights, turning to trucks and peroxide nail bombs. A few is still too many of course.

 

Someone earlier brought up violent computer games. I have honestly never seen any evidence put forward to connect computer games with real life violence. Have any of you seen any?

[sunday]

I think Ryan meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

[TonyE]

Breivik killed 69 (+60 wounded) with a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock, + 8 with a truck bomb earlier the same day.

[Jeff]

One shooter, the one getting all of the detailed coverage, hated illegal immigrants so that means conservatives have to own him because we believe in securing the border and enforcing immigration laws or something. That's BS but ok, for the sake of argument put that one on the right side of the ledger. The other shooter,who is all but lost to the media suddenly, was a leftwing Bernie/Warren supporter so for the sake of argument, lets put him on the left side of the ledger. Call it even. Now let's focus on the causes and any changes in law and policy that might realistically lessen the opportunity these nuts have to wreak havoc. There has been some good point/counterpoint here. Too bad it's insanity in the rest of the world.