Mass shootings

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 03:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I was deliberately being a wiseass, just to butt into the conversation.


But mental health practice is generally reactive rather than proactive. A diagnosis is not a prognostication. You can draw certain reasonable assumptions, such as this person is diagnosed with pre-frontal deficit, therefore they are more likely to commit a violent act in the future than someone who does not have that condition. But there is no way anyone could ever say with certainty that that person will pick up a gun and go on a spree until the act is underway.

Which is exactly why I think that tying mental health and gun violence together is not a productive thing.

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is exactly why I think that tying mental health and gun violence together is not a productive thing.

So.... we agree?

And you don't want to argue with me?


Dagnabit!!!

I guess I probably should have read more of what you were writing before I butted in!

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 04:44 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: So.... we agree?

And you don't want to argue with me?


Dagnabit!!!

I guess I probably should have read more of what you were writing before I butted in!

These things happen, lol! The number of times I have agreed with someone on here but it looked like we disagreed because we approached it differently is astonishing.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-22-2018, 03:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is the root of the problem. The answer to your question is no. There are quite a few mental and emotional conditions that could lead someone down that path, and in 99.99999% of the cases they don't. What leads someone down that path is a cocktail of conditions and circumstances that combine in a way which is unique in every incident.

Not all people with mental illnesses were born with them. Many (most?) are the result of various events happening in one's lives like a trauma or a set of circumstances.

I get the rest of your post and I don't necessarily disagree when it comes to linking mental illnesses with gun control legislation. But, I have a hard time thinking anyone who commits or wants to commit mass murder is of sound mind.

[Dill]

(03-22-2018, 03:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is the root of the problem. The answer to your question is no. There are quite a few mental and emotional conditions that could lead someone down that path, and in 99.99999% of the cases they don't. What leads someone down that path is a cocktail of conditions and circumstances that combine in a way which is unique in every incident.

Looking for the silver bullet diagnosis that will stop all or most these types of incidents is like looking for the cure for cancer. Which type of cancer? There are thousands of types and some are radically different than others....

But that wasn't exactly what the research showed. First, it showed a "general" difference in pre-frontal lobes. Not an "overall" difference. Second, the study was limited to inmates only. Further research showed that there are people with the condition living in society who never commit a crime, violent or otherwise. It was just an indicator of a propensity to act a certain way (i.e. risk negligent, impaired decision making, etc.), not an indicator that they would turn to a life of violence and crime (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1737651/ ) .

Well said. The cocktail metaphor is right.  Social factors, like alienation, exposure to the right ideology during the right life crisis, and more, can I think be better predictors, to the degree that prediction, or identification of propensities and likelihoods, is possible.  

It is wrong to suppose we can eventually produce a list of factors to check off, because societies and ideologies change, and when they do so do the triggers.  

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 05:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not all people with mental illnesses were born with them. Many (most?) are the result of various events happening in one's lives like a trauma or a set of circumstances.

I get the rest of your post and I don't necessarily disagree when it comes to linking mental illnesses with gun control legislation. But, I have a hard time thinking anyone who commits or wants to commit mass murder is of sound mind.

(03-22-2018, 05:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Well said. The cocktail metaphor is right.  Social factors, like alienation, exposure to the right ideology during the right life crisis, and more, can I think be better predictors, to the degree that prediction, or identification of propensities and likelihoods, is possible.  

It is wrong to suppose we can eventually produce a list of factors to check off, because societies and ideologies change, and when they do so do the triggers.  

There are a couple of other factors that I feel don't get much attention: emotional wellness and moral wellness.

Men, in general, don't like to think about or discuss emotions outside of happy or mad. They exist anyway. Emotional wellness is not so much a matter of expressing them (or over expressing as the case may be). Rather, it is a matter of recognizing them and accepting them. Not doing so causes a backlash which can impact the psyche. Most of us here don't have a problem with this. But there are some, especially younger men, who do have a problem with this. Humans generally aren't designed to be antisocial. Trying to make yourself into a sociopath can actually create something far worse, as most actual sociopaths actually don't have a problem living by society's rules and interacting in society. I always think of this when I see some fool with a "no fear" sticker plastered on his car.

Moral wellness may even have a bigger impact on potential shooters. We don't discuss moral wellness much in this society, outside of the religious Far Right which (unfortunately) uses as a hammer to bang people over the head with. But moral wellness isn't necessarily about Christianity. It isn't even necessarily about organized religion. It is about what your personal ethos is and how much you adhere to it. That ethos may have been based upon an organized religion. But it doesn't have to be. Most people I have met in churches have portions of their personal ethos which are from outside that church's established doctrine. And almost all of the agnostics and atheists I know (yes, I still insist on seeing and calling them as different entities despite neo-atheist recruitment language) have their own personal ethos. And most adhere to that religiously (no pun intended).

Ethos is from the Greek word for 'character'. It is a combination of what you believe and how you act in relation to that. Most of us here have well-developed ethos. This is why we come to P&R and argue based upon our personal beliefs. Others do not have a well-developed ethos. Or they have an ethos that is based upon something not well-established or fantastical (bear in mind that I'm talking personal ethos here and not religious beliefs). Consider someone who draws their ethos from a movie character.

[BmorePat87]

So we had one of the largest single day demonstrations in the US this past Saturday. I personally was not in attendance as I had family obligations, but it would have been nice to get down to DC and check it out.

[GMDino]

An old article that popped up:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

Still pretty interesting.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2018, 02:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So we had one of the largest single day demonstrations in the US this past Saturday. I personally was not in attendance as I had family obligations, but it would have been nice to get down to DC and check it out.

They'll have to protest on a Trump owned golf course for him to see it though.

That said he did tweet about Greek Independence Day.  

“President Donald J. Trump Proclaims March 25, 2018, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy” https://t.co/GwSJ2UK2xD pic.twitter.com/GltMwxINA2

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2018

And to sell a book about...him.

.@HowieCarrShow just wrote a book which everyone is talking about. He was a great help. He is a veteran journalist who had a great influence in NH and beyond. He calls it the most amazing political campaign of modern times. The book is called, “What Really Happened.” Enjoy! #MAGA pic.twitter.com/jYhjpoJKHe

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 26, 2018

You know...the important stuff.

[Bengalzona]

A good radio article on research on predicting potential gun violence:

https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/can-we-predict-urban-gun-homicides/

IMO, this type of research is critical to being able to prognosticate potential gun violence such as school shootings and can do far more than any proposed bans.

Rather than casting stones at the Evil NRA, I would rather have them get onboard as an ally in supporting this type of research. I believe it would actually help their position on 2A rather than hurt it.

[THE Bigzoman]

Can someone do a quick rundown on the age of mass shooters? I'm not going to set any parameters on your sample because i'm asking you to do the legwork for me.

Raising the age requirement to 21 just seems like a shitty idea to me. For every mass shooter under 21, I can name a few more 21 and over. Vegas, Steve Scalise shooting, Gabby Giffords, Aurora, etc.

[THE Bigzoman]

(03-08-2018, 11:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: In my opinion, it is a constitutional right by de facto (i.e. enough Americans believe and want it to be a right that, in effect it is). Be that as it may, there are other constitutional rights which have restrictions.

Freedom of Speech has some conditions upon it. If someone holds a BLM rally in the middle of a KKK convention, local authorities are probably going to step in and "repress" one or both groups' right to state their opinion at that particular place and time before someone gets hurt.

Similarly, Freedom of the Press can get stifled during wartime. The government generally tries to handle this with "kid gloves". But there was the famous episode in 1942 where the Chicago Tribune decided to leak secret information about how we broke Japanese codes in order to win the Battle of Midway. Uncle Sam was less than happy about that and that story got pulled schnell machen (sorry, my German grammar ain't too hot).

The list could go on. We like having these rights. But over the years there have been people who have abused these rights to criminal levels (i.e. hey infringed upon other people's rights). As a result, it has been necessary to sometimes restrict rights. The question becomes, "At what point has someone abused the rights?"

I have yet to see someone provide actual proof that voting rights have been abused enough to require I.D.s. If someone did provide actual proof that this was a widespread problem, then I think most people would see the need for this.

Gun rights are a bit different in that most of the restrictions I would find reasonable already exist in many places across the country, meaning that a lot of people have already come to the conclusion at some point that they were necessary.



A think a national classification system could be accomplished. Some differences between firearms are pretty obvious (such as the difference between a hunting rifle and M-2 Browning). But just because other classifications may be more difficult or contentious shouldn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water (even though that seems to be the current way of conducting politics nationally).




Amen. I think people may be washing over these facts in the rush to take political sides on the issue. And local officials trying to avoid their own culpability and avoid responsibility aren't helping the issue.



Universal standards will fix many, but not all problems. Many is good enough for me. But that requires an agreement, which requires give-and-take, which seems to be something that people have forgotten how to do.



I've come to the conclusion that wondering if the screwball standing in line with me is packing is a better situation than actually seeing that he is packing.

But this is Arizona and open carry will probably never go away here.

At best they'd serperate the two groups from one another to avoid conflict.  Both groups will still be able to say what they wanted, just not where they wanted. Hardly stepping on their right to speak.

Minor objection though.

[*bfine32*]

Another mass shooting today at YouTube HQ. The most unusual aspect of this one is that it appears the shooter is a female.

[Dill]

The YouTube shooting suspect was a woman. That's unusual in the history of mass shootings
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/youtube-shooting-suspect-joins-short-list-female-mass-shooters-n862551

But the shooting at YouTube headquarters in California on Tuesday afternoon appeared different in at least one respect: The suspected shooter was a woman. The suspect, who was in her 30s, opened fire on an outdoor dining area at lunchtime, motivated by what authorities believe was a domestic dispute, multiple senior law enforcement officials told NBC News. She died of a gunshot wound.

It's uncommon for a mass shooter to be female: There were only three cases in the past three decades, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones. And research conducted by the New York Police Department found that only eight of 230 "active shooter" cases in the United States from 1966 to 2012 involved female attackers.

And in the broader category of mass killings — including other methods of execution, such as arson — only 6 percent of perpetrators are women, according to a database compiled by USA Today.

[*michaelsean*]

So was this a mass shooting, like shoot at anything that moves, or was she targeting someone specific?

[THE Bigzoman]

A domestic dispute? Is that under the same umbrella as workplace violence? That's what I last heard before I left the office.


Loved the part in Dills article that mentioned that when men do this, it stems from entitlement, but for women, oh..it's just likely a domestic incident. I wanna see how they figure that.
Update: shooter was an active YouTuber who express disdain towards their new algroithm in recent monthes.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2018, 12:44 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: A domestic dispute? Is that under the same umbrella as workplace violence? That's what I last heard before I left the office.


Loved the part in Dills article that mentioned that when men do this, it stems from entitlement, but for women, oh..it's just likely a domestic incident. I wanna see how they figure that.
Update: shooter was an active YouTuber who express disdain towards their new algroithm in recent monthes.

Yeah no domestic dispute here.  A crazy person who was mad not enough people were getting to hear her rants due to youtube filtering.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2018, 09:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah no domestic dispute here.  A crazy person who was mad not enough people were getting to hear her rants due to youtube filtering.

So just another unstable person with access to guns?  Welp:

1) Too soon to talk about it.
2) Nothing we can do.
3) Why do you want to take my guns?!?!

And.....turn the page.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2018, 09:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: So just another unstable person with access to guns?  Welp:

1) Too soon to talk about it.
2) Nothing we can do.
3) Why do you want to take my guns?!?!

And.....turn the page.

Nope talk about it.  Which current or proposed law stops her?  If she bought it in a gun shop, they did a background check.  If she bought it illegally there's obviously already a law against that.  Hence the term.  It wasn't a rifle.  Did she have previously known psychiatric issues?   How do you even find out?

[GMDino]

(04-04-2018, 09:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nope talk about it.  Which current or proposed law stops her?  If she bought it in a gun shop, they did a background check.  If she bought it illegally there's obviously already a law against that.  Hence the term.  It wasn't a rifle.  Did she have previously known psychiatric issues?   How do you even find out?

It doesn't matter.  What I posted will be the narrative.

Sane people like you (maybe even me) realize you can't stop every crime or every shooting...but there can be no discussion at all about any shootings on a national level because of the loud mouths with their own agendas.