Mass Shooting

[Paul G.]

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.

Wait are you claiming conservatives are synonymous with white supremacists? No one else is making that comparison.

[NickM]

 

Needs to be broken down into prevention and response.

 

The response part is something I've covered before. Once someone starts shooting at random folks (or at specific folks but in an illegal manner) there's really only one response to stop them. You can return fire or try to not be hit. The former is more satisfactory from the basic efficacy of such. Though, if you're not close, beating feet is possibly also better for you at least.

 

 

The prevention seems to be...tricky.

 

Just spit balling here....feel free to shoot holes in it

 

1. Mental health care has focused on prevention and failed to deal with treatment. (The US shifted from Mental Health Institutions decades ago to mental health wellness which fails to deal with those who are manifesting mental illness).

2. Identifying folks about to have such an imminent break.

3. Reasonable steps to both deal with such an imminent break AND deal with the necessary false positives in a lawful and rights insuring manner (red flag laws with no response or appeal are a BAD idea).

4. Treatment of such individuals that are true positives if identified prior to such breaks.

5. Treatment of the mentally ill in such a way that deals with the realities of their needs.

 

 

We have a VERY large problem with mentally ill in the US. The system shifted over the past 30 years or so from a containment and treatment system to a release and prevention system. The end result is that people who are mentally ill tend not to get treatment unless they're aware they have a problem and can do so OR if they're such a danger they're committed against their will.

Otherwise they present in three forms.

1. Mentally ill homeless, at least 25% based on some surveys.

2. Mentally ill prison inmates, about 15-20% based on surveys.

3. Mentally ill who have a violent break and which a very small number manifest as mass murderers.

These are of import for largely two reasons. They're a danger to others or to themselves (arguably someone who is mentally ill and can only live as a homeless person probably is a modest danger to themselves).

 

 

Here's Aydin Paladin's post that is rather relevant to at least PART of the problem.

 

Well said.

 

It will be a tricky thing to identify those who are a threat to themselves and others and need strong intervention while not allowing that to be used to deny innocent people of their rights. What kind of due process can we set up to achieve both ends?

 

 

Yeah this whole Arkham-light stuff makes me nervous RE: who decides you're not in the right mind...in the wrong hands this can become the old USSR mental hospital for refusniks again--and from the few occasions I've read something from the American Psych Association, I already know THEY got plenty of 'wrong hands'.

[Harold Jones]

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?

I don't think there's been a reputable study that found a connection. I do sometimes wonder if the reason a lot of school shooters kill themselves is because the reality of shooting someone is so different than it appears in games and films.

[rmgill]

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

Wasn't he on an island with a captive population?

[rmgill]

 

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?

I don't think there's been a reputable study that found a connection. I do sometimes wonder if the reason a lot of school shooters kill themselves is because the reality of shooting someone is so different than it appears in games and films.

 

 

They're ending themselves. They're just also taking a bunch of other folks with them because they're mad at the world and mad at god. So they take the innocent as their preferred victims.

 

I think it's easily summed up as nihilism and rage at the gods.

[rmgill]

Yes. What Sunday notes, the Nice, France attacker used a truck and succeeded in a VERY large body count.

 

Here's a by no means complete list of attacks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of_terrorist_attacks

 

Chris you have more than 1 attack with a car in the UK, not all resulted in fatalities or were mass casualty events. The Fusilier Rigby attack STARTED with a ramming attack. Mind you it really depends on the size of vehicle used and the speed with which trauma teams can get there. Vehicle mass is a key factor. Vehicle height is another. Cars get hung up on people's bodies. Trucks don't. They tend to squish bodies and cause much more severe injuries.

[Mobius]

Cory Brooker said he said he wanted to punch Trump in the face. Is he responsible for enciting violence against those who disagree with him?

[rmgill]

Funny that.

 

The left is NEVER responsible for it's rhetoric. The right is always responsible for it. This is a pattern.

 

It's almost as if the rules are only there to go after one's right leaning enemies.

[Panzermann]

 

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

Wasn't he on an island with a captive population?

 

 

Yes. there was a convention (or sonmething like that) of the youth organisation of the norwegian socialdemocrat party, so not only trapped on the island, there were a lot of people crowded together.

[Burncycle360]

Funny that.

 

The left is NEVER responsible for it's rhetoric. The right is always responsible for it. This is a pattern.

 

It's almost as if the rules are only there to go after one's right leaning enemies.

 

Righteous indignation, punching someone is okay as long as you call them a nazi first!

Edited August 6, 2019 by Burncycle360

[Mr King]

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Mr King

[Mr King]

[Murph]

Absolutely

[rmgill]

John Lott digs into some data.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

 

Executive Summary

 

A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.

 

Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.

 

It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.

 

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

 

Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

 

Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.

[Stuart Galbraith]

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?

 

The two I can think of were the guy who drove from South Wales and ran into a crowd outside a Mosque. He succeeded in killing a man who was already having a heart attack, and was saved from being beaten to death by the local mullah.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/19/north-london-van-incident-finsbury-park-casualties-collides-pedestrians-live-updates

 

There was also a guy who drove a van around cardiff in various hit and run attacks, and killed 1 and injured 17.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-22789299

 

The worst one was Westminster Bridge which killed 6 and injured 49.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack

 

 

Its probably worth including the Glasgow Bin Lorry crash for contrast, 6 killed, 15 injured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Glasgow_bin_lorry_crash

 

The following year someone tried again outside Westminster, and it didnt work because we put bollards up. There was only a few injuries, none of them particularly serious afaik.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/car-crashes-barrier-outside-parliament-armed-police-surround/

 

Its just a personal view, but the reason why it isnt more popular in london is the narrow streets. Its probably impossible to get up enough speed except in a few locations, like bridges, to create fatal injuries. You could do it at night of course, but then there arent as many people around. Londons Medieval Layout might actually be a good thing in this context.

 

 

 

The President says there is a connection between violent computer games and real life. So I guess if he said it, it must be true. Right?

[Rick]

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

That's all that NPR is saying.

[Murph]

John Lott digs into some data.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

 

Executive Summary

 

A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.

 

Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.

 

It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.

 

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

 

Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

 

Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.

Typical Lefty academic, throw sh*t out there, but never allow anyone else to see your bogus data, and then be lionized by the communist left.

[Murph]

 

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

That's all that NPR is saying.

 

He fits the Narrative. But I think that his leftist cred will come out RSN.

[Jeff]

The President says there is a connection between violent computer games and real life. So I guess if he said it, it must be true. Right?

That's an unserious statement.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Indeed. So why did he say it? Why pretend there is an easy solution when quite clearly, I think we are all in agreement, there isnt. Its almost as dumb an observation as that claim during the Columbine shootings that the shooters must have been desensitized by playing computer wargames.

[Panzermann]

 

John Lott digs into some data.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

 

Executive Summary

 

A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.

 

Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.

 

It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.

 

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

 

Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

 

Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.

Typical Lefty academic, throw sh*t out there, but never allow anyone else to see your bogus data, and then be lionized by the communist left.

 

 

Reminds me of Crowder and his (big divisive statement) - change my mind! routine. For comedy this works, but for academics it is silly to throw out some big conclusion and then call for others to disprove it without testing the idea themselves first. And when no disproval comes, assume that it is a true fidning.

[Martin M]

Hi Panzerman

may I use this (schamlos) in the future ?

 

Reminds me of Crowder and his (big divisive statement) - change my mind! routine. For comedy this works, but for academics it is silly to throw out some big conclusion and then call for others to disprove it without testing the idea themselves first. And when no disproval comes, assume that it is a true fidning.

 

 

I fix " fidning " to " finding " however.

[Wobbly Head]

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.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Wobbly Head

[Stuart Galbraith]

I remember someone once saying about the number of people killed by strategic bombing in Britain in WW2, was eclipsed by the number of people being killed by car crashes in the 1960's over a similar period.

[rmgill]

Its just a personal view, but the reason why it isnt more popular in london is the narrow streets. Its probably impossible to get up enough speed except in a few locations, like bridges, to create fatal injuries. You could do it at night of course, but then there arent as many people around. Londons Medieval Layout might actually be a good thing in this context.

I think it's a matter of lack of attempts. How narrow was that road in nice?

 

The President says there is a connection between violent computer games and real life. So I guess if he said it, it must be true. Right?

 

That's been a shibboleth for a long time. It's an easy out. It's lacking in data.