Mass shootings

[george burns]

I do believe that a qualified professional can pick up on things that the untrained eye can not. Also these people who commit these crimes usually have a long history of mental illness, "but no one ever checked" to see if they did or didn't.
A 30 minute interview with someone who has been in the head shrinking business can see things pretty quickly that we don't pick up on, especially if they have their records in front of them. It ain't perfect but something has to be done and until someone comes up with something better, armed guards and psychological testing, "even if it's just for those with a violent history in middle school, is better than nothing.

 

[barnbwt]

We desperately need a position "C" and we need to figure out what it is FAST because at best the public merely views us as obstructionists after each of these killings when we desperately need to be viewed as part of the solution.

A position "C" is what we've been largely doing after the recent shootings; realize that there is no course of action that could stop these attacks, that they are still far below the threshold of a substantial threat deserving large scale intervention, and take the position as rational adults that no action is necessary. It is not 'toleration' of the attacks; that would be saying they are the will of God or something. It is acceptance that our powers are limited at present and the best course of action is to resist the shrill cries for results while emotions are high. Yes, doing nothing is a hard sell when people are in the mood for slaying imaginary dragons and tearing their clothes. But it is sometimes the best course of action (in governance, often the best course of action, but you can't build a career on it)

TCB

 

[R.W.Dale]

^ that is still position A

Mark my words it will get harder and harder to sell and will keep the hounds at bay only for so long.

As you allude to the folks in power didn't get there by ignoring a shrieking ever growing majority.

 

[barnbwt]

So you're saying doing the right thing will go out of fashion?;

 

[Billy Shears]

So you're saying doing the right thing will go out of fashion?

Since when was it ever in fashion? History is chock full of examples of the electorate being persuaded by slick-talking demagogues to do all kinds of things that were wrong, stupid, ineffective, backward, or counter to their own interests. What makes you imagine for an instant that gun rights is an issue immune from this?

 

[R.W.Dale]

Since when was it ever in fashion? History is chock full of examples of the electorate being persuaded by slick-talking demagogues to do all kinds of things that were wrong, stupid, ineffective, backward, or counter to their own interests. What makes you imagine for an instant that gun rights is an issue immune from this?

THANK YOU!


It's like the entire gun community all of a sudden got a nice trial pair of rose colored shooting glasses they refuse to remove.

I mean c'mon the .gov would NEVER EVER promote an unconstitutional policy at the behest of a uninformed electorate demanding action. Why there's no such prescient in US history that would lead us to believe that could EVER happen.

Well except for just about EVERYTHING our government has done since "old hickory" was president

 

[barnbwt]

Mark my words it will get harder and harder to sell and will keep the hounds at bay only for so long.

As you allude to the folks in power didn't get there by ignoring a shrieking ever growing majority.

So your point is it's hopeless? What is your point? My point is it doesn't matter what the rest are doing or falling for if we remain centered and focused. The current won't always be in our favor, but remaining focused will get us to our destination.

If anything, if we hold the line and nothing is done for the .3 mass shootings per year (or whatever the number is on average) long enough, the focus will eventually shift elsewhere. In fact, it already has, to mental health screening. The anti's threw up an AWB after Newtown for the hell of it, but they never expected traction. They know there's no appetite, and believe it or not, they have learned that the bans don't stop shootings, either (they still hate guns though, hence the halfhearted ban attempt). The mental health measures being peddled, while still incredibly likely to be a very poor means of reducing shootings, are a fundamentally different tactic than we've seen for decades (or longer).

Since the topic still effects us shooters by way of our threatened prohibition, we are still tangentially connected to the issue; but it is plain it is no longer such a gun-centric issue as these shootings used to be back during the days of political assassinations (were there any mental health laws passed after those, or was it just the infamous gun laws?)

TCB

 

[45_auto]

psychological testing, "even if it's just for those with a violent history in middle school, is better than nothing.

So to keep them away from guns, are you proposing to lock them up if they fail the psychological testing, or just make it against the law for them to get a gun?

If they're not locked up and are willing to commit mass murder, you really believe a law against them having a gun is going to make any difference?

That should help a lot. So in your world, instead of "only" being charged with 6 murders with the death sentence and/or life in prison for each one, they would now be charged with 6 murders AND having an unlawful gun - that oughta scare them straight!

 

[george burns]

Crimes of opportunity are just that, the harder you make it the less opportunity they have to commit them. Mental testing and armed guards are a better deterrent than just complaining about it and waiting for the next one to happen.
Otherwise it just continues.
In order to find solutions you need to try things to see what works and what doesn't, the harder you make it for someone to do something, the less likely they are to do it. Perhaps if a few guards were around, some of these shootings would not have occurred.
We won't know unless we try putting some of them in these targeted schools and see what happens over time, there is no short term answer.

 

[45_auto]

Crimes of opportunity are just that, the harder you make it the less opportunity they have to commit them.

You believe that these mass murders are "crimes of opportunity"?

Crime of opportunity definition:

A crime of opportunity is a crime that is committed without planning when the perpetrator sees s/he has the chance to commit the act at that moment and seizes it. Such acts have little or no premeditation.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...me+of+opportunity+definition&revid=1458612940

The one in Santa Barbara left a 140 page manifesto. How long do you believe that it takes to write a 140 page manifesto? Hard to believe ANYONE can think that no planning goes into these crimes.

 

[Malamute]

Originally posted by george burns
I do believe that a qualified professional can pick up on things that the untrained eye can not. Also these people who commit these crimes usually have a long history of mental illness, "but no one ever checked" to see if they did or didn't.
A 30 minute interview with someone who has been in the head shrinking business can see things pretty quickly that we don't pick up on, especially if they have their records in front of them. It ain't perfect but something has to be done and until someone comes up with something better, armed guards and psychological testing, "even if it's just for those with a violent history in middle school, is better than nothing.

I don't share your confidence in mental health professionals abilities to divine the future of people they talk to. To many "mental health professionals" simply desiring to own a gun is a sign of a serious mental problem. The accepted outlook of any given time changes. There isn't much about mental health that's hard science as far as understanding what people will do, given any particular past. How credible the professionals are could easily end up being a political football dependent on whos in power at the time. Theres certainly some good that can come from competent mental health care, but its not really an exact science as many want it to be.

The hand wringing "We HAVE to DO something!!" seems to be the standard emotional response of people that don't really understand the specifics of the situation they propose doing something about, not to mention pretty much the rally call of gun control advocates. I guess they feel that doing something that doesn't actually help, and may be harmful in the long run is better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing makes more sense in the strictly analytical sense.

We won't know unless we try putting some of them in these targeted schools and see what happens over time, there is no short term answer

Wait, we have targeted schools now? So far as I know, theres been little forewarning of any schools being "targeted", and once something has happened, its a bit late to take measures at specific places. I havent heard of any repeats of locations, so the "targeted" again seems not to bring much to the discussion.

I think many folks would like to see "something done", but knee jerk feel good reactions aren't the answer. They are generally grandstanding gestures, not answers.

This was an interesting perspective on the mass murder situation in modern society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

 

[barnbwt]

Crimes of opportunity are just that, the harder you make it the less opportunity they have to commit them.

You advocate tyranny. Just saying. Yes; without opportunity, there will be no crime. And nothing worth living for.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

waiting for the next one to happen.
Otherwise it just continues.

You also presuppose an end to the problem, with not one shred of evidence or even logic to suggest such a thing is plausible. I've given evidence going back however far Malaysia's culture goes to show the problem has always existed (and even Alexander the Great supposedly had PTSD/amok flip outs in which he would slaughter animals in a rage). If it cannot be ended, of course it will happen again. The acceptance of it is not the same as condoning it, which is somehow lost on people who would deign to control the inevitable.

TCB

 

[george burns]

You are so intent on making your point, "whatever that is" instead of trying to actually do something and see if it helps". It's easy to sit back and criticize everything brought up, but I don't hear any solutions?
Instead of complaining about it, try something, if it doesn't work you try something else. Guards with guns are a very good deterrent.
The only way to move forward is to try different things and evaluate them, not sit back and knock everyone's idea when you have no idea that you put forward that is any better. We learn from our mistakes, but first you have to be willing to try.
Not just sit on a soap box and knock every idea that comes along because you assume it interferes with your vision of what society should be like, although you haven't explained what that is yet

 

[JRH6856]

The anti's threw up an AWB after Newtown for the hell of it, but they never expected traction. They know there's no appetite, and believe it or not, they have learned that the bans don't stop shootings, either (they still hate guns though, hence the halfhearted ban attempt). The mental health measures being peddled, while still incredibly likely to be a very poor means of reducing shootings, are a fundamentally different tactic than we've seen for decades (or longer).

And that is all it is, a change in tactics. The purpose is not to treat mental health issues, but create grounds for the restriction of fundamental rights because of mental incapacitation. It is just greasing the slippery slope. They can't ban guns, but they can restrict the dangerously mentally ill from having guns. Once that is in place, they just broaden the definition of dangerously mentally ill. CDC will be all over that.

The reason it is so hard for us to find a solution for the problem of mass killings is that there is no problem to solve. But the lack of a problem does not stop anyone from peddling a solution. The first rule of making a sale is to create a need in the mind of the mark...er, customer.

 

[barnbwt]

It's easy to sit back and criticize everything brought up, but I don't hear any solutions?

Once more; is there any logical or evidence basis for believing there is a solution to be found? Or, taken further, that it is even a problem deserving of our focus above all others. BTW, armed guards aren't a deterrent so much as a means of limiting the scale of impact of these attacks (and a very effective one, which is why I think limiting the impact and dealing with the aftermath is far more useful place to exert our anxieties and efforts than trying to get out in front of an indecipherable phenomenon) since many of these attacks are ended by on-site police or guards, already. But since these shooters are both likely to die in the assault and are observed to be operating on little rationale beyond fixation on violence, we give their actions too much credit for critical thinking. They choose gun-free zones since most places school-age kids and young adults are familiar with are gun-free zones (precisely because there are lots of young kids present)

TCB

 

[45_auto]

Instead of complaining about it, try something, if it doesn't work you try something else.

What makes you think that we aren't trying something?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990

Mass shootings in America
1900′s:0
1910′s:2
1920′s:2
1930′s:9
1940′s:8
1950′s:1
1960′s:6
1970′s:13
1980′s:32
1990′s:42
2000′s:28
2010-2013:14

Whatever we've been doing in the past 15 years or so appears to have reduced the mass shootings by about 2/3 since the 90's. Taking away basic rights that thousands of Americans have given their lives for because of knee-jerk reactions to the latest rating-grabber on the 24 hour news channels is not the answer.

It appears that up until about the 1960's mass shootings were fairly constant. Many people believe that basic changes in our society since then are responsible for much of the violent behavior. Have you ever asked yourself what about our society has changed with kids born in the 60's and later that has caused them to commit mass murders?

Here's a couple of possibilites. Pay attention to charts 2 and 3. Note how they are flat until the 60's when they start climbing just like the mass murders.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mericas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty

Can you think of any legislation that was tried in this period and has been growing since then (hint: Great Society)? You believe that this is a coincidence? Have you even considered the possibility that REMOVING some laws or programs, rather than making new ones and taking away even more people's rights and personal responsibility, might be the answer?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I do believe that a qualified professional can pick up on things that the untrained eye can not. Also these people who commit these crimes usually have a long history of mental illness, "but no one ever checked" to see if they did or didn't.
A 30 minute interview with someone who has been in the head shrinking business can see things pretty quickly that we don't pick up on, especially if they have their records in front of them. It ain't perfect but something has to be done and until someone comes up with something better, armed guards and psychological testing, "even if it's just for those with a violent history in middle school, is better than nothing.

All you'll get is psychobabble. I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study where psychiatrists have picked out future violent offenders by examining kids in middle school with an accuracy rate of even 5%.

 

[Bruno2]

You want to sue the media for exercising free speech?...WOW!

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't free speech. Editing George Zimmerman's 911 call to demonize him isn't free speech. Anybody that says or writes something which results in somebody being hurt physically or financially is liable for what they caused. End of story. It's not criminal, it's civil.

 

[Jlr2267]

Anybody that says or writes something which results in somebody being hurt physically or financially is liable for what they caused. End of story. It's not criminal, it's civil.

No, actually they are not. There could be a civil case if what was said was actually false and malicious, resulting in damages, otherwise, no. This is America where free speech is given great latitude. Personally, I am glad it is that way. Makes me sad to see others so willing to give up such rights.

 

[george burns]

No one can stop a man with a gun from walking out his front door and killing as many people as he can before someone stops him. The idea of guards may sound simple, but in most cases people go for the path of least resistance.
So you may indeed redirect them from their target of choice, but you can never stop someone bent on killing people from actually doing that.
Testing and guards may sound simple, but it's doable and I don't see or hear any better ideas, only reasons why nothing will work.
It's starting to sound like Congress. You need to try things in order to determine if they work or not, but if you are so worried about offending people then nothing will ever work.
Try placing just 2 gaurds at the entrance to the building that everyone must pass through, and a metal detector. Sometimes that's enough to dissuade a mentally deranged person into not proceeding further, also signs that say students are subject to search for weapons, run your cctv cameras with trained people watching them Do whatever you need to do.

 

[Malamute]

Originally posted by george burns

No one can stop a man with a gun from walking out his front door and killing as many people as he can before someone stops him. The idea of guards may sound simple, but in most cases people go for the path of least resistance.
So you may indeed redirect them from their target of choice, but you can never stop someone bent on killing people from actually doing that.
Testing and guards may sound simple, but it's doable and I don't see or hear any better ideas, only reasons why nothing will work.
It's starting to sound like Congress. You need to try things in order to determine if they work or not, but if you are so worried about offending people then nothing will ever work.
Try placing just 2 gaurds at the entrance to the building that everyone must pass through, and a metal detector. Sometimes that's enough to dissuade a mentally deranged person into not proceeding further, also signs that say students are subject to search for weapons, run your cctv cameras with trained people watching them Do whatever you need to do.

I agree that theres no way to prevent someone from walking out the door with murder in mind. That would be like the thought police and the pre-crime unit, which I would suggest is more in line with what you suggested with mental health professionals.

I agree that armed security people could help. I completely disagree with the latter part of your last paragraph. I don't believe searching for weapons or metal detectors is the answer. I think allowing qualified ordinary people to carry in those environments is a better deterrent, but one that doesn't get much traction in most places. A few states have changed their laws about carrying on school property, or allowing teachers or staff to carry.

The interesting thing is that when nut cases are stopped by carriers, we hear little about it, it isn't much of a story. It happens. LEO's sometimes stop this sort of thing from going very far also, and we hear little about that, it just isn't as sensational enough or feed the media anti gun sentiment.

It isn't that "nobodies doing anything", its that we don't hear much about it, and, in this case, I don't think you're hearing that what you want to be done . Sorry, but many of your comments are straight out of the anti-gun media and activist talking points. "We HAVE to DO something!" and "Do whatever you need to do", even if there isn't much reason to believe what you'd like to do would work. The entire mass shootings "epidemic" is a media circus. It isn't an epidemic of shootings, its an epidemic of media attention and saturation coverage, and loud calls of "We HAVE to DO something!".

 

[DT Guy]

So George, you're advocating guards and metal detectors at the entrance to every building?

I suppose the words 'Police State' aren't ringing a bell here, are they? You're advocating what all gun-grabbers advocate; lowest common denominator legislation. Take the worst among us, write a law to address their actions, and force everyone else to follow it.

So if 'some' people can't handle driving 65 on the highway, make it 35. If 'some' people can't handle their liquor, ban it. If 'some' folks do bad things with guns...

You get the idea. Your entire basic premise is flawed, as is the 'we have to do SOMETHING!!!' mentality djinned up by the mainstream media.


Larry

 

[R.W.Dale]

The entire mass shootings "epidemic" is a media circus. It isn't an epidemic of shootings, its an epidemic of media attention and saturation coverage, and loud calls of "We HAVE to DO something!".

You are absolutely correct in every way with this assertion.

But what you fail to see is even though it's right it also doesn't matter in the slightest.

Unless these shootings just miraculously stop for awhile the media blitz and resultant public opinion arrayed against and call for action will only grow stronger.


Right or wrong, fact or fiction is irrelevant. This is at heart a PR battle waged in the blood of innocents driven by people with a long standing agenda and with each one of these killing sprees their position is strengthened and ours is weakened. THIS is what we have to figure out how to change.

SOMEBODY is going to offer solutions (doesn't matter if they're good or not the public* will want to try something) if it's not us we sure as heck ain't gonna like the ones from "them". If you aren't offering any changes you simply will not have a seat at the table.


* by public I primarily mean urban voters, minorities and especially women.

 

[Billy Shears]

You are absolutely correct in every way with this assertion.

But what you fail to see is even though it's right it also doesn't matter in the slightest.

Unless these shootings just miraculously stop for awhile the media blitz and resultant public opinion arrayed against and call for action will only grow stronger.


Right or wrong, fact or fiction is irrelevant. This is at heart a PR battle waged in the blood of innocents waged by people with a long standing agenda and with each one of these killing sprees their position is strengthened.

Which is why we need to wage an even better PR campaign of our own. I've already pointed out where this needs to focus: mental health screening and involuntary committals. All these mass shooters have one thing in common: they're mentally ill. They're mentally ill in a way that would have got most of them committed to institutions prior to the changes in the law in the 1980s. This is where some of them simply need to be -- they're too dangerous and unstable to have roaming around, and there are plenty of families with horror stories about living in constant fear of a mentally disturbed relative that they can't seem to get the authorities to do anything about.

This is about more than just screening for mental illness and denying purchases of firearms (though that has to be part of it). It's about changing the standards by which people are involuntarily committed and then committing the more severely disturbed cases. The reforms that Reagan signed into law were meant to end the shameful existence of overburdened, understaffed, underfunded mental hospitals where patients were not always treated well, and were sometimes treated abominably. But they went too far, and now you have dangerous people running around loose in society, and even lots of mentally ill people who aren't actually dangerous, but are wandering around homeless and physically unwell, because you can't rely on someone who is mentally ill and thus fundamentally irrational to make rational decisions about his care and scrupulously, voluntarily follow a course of medication and treatment. We need to make this whole issue about mental illness, not firearms. Firearms are just the tools these deranged people grab when they finally snap, and more gun laws will, therefore, maybe prevent a tiny handful of deaths each year from this, while depriving law abiding people by the millions of the means of self-defense. We need to focusing on identifying, treating, and where necessary committing these mentally disturbed individuals.