Mass Shooters have four things in common

[bobhikes]

A new massive study sponsored by the federal government. I was not able to get the data and its Fox News but it looks to be authentic. What are your thoughts will it be helpful.

Mass shooters have four things in common, new study finds

The Database it allows you to get access, but they say they will get back to you. I don't have the data yet.

Mass Shooting Data & Research | The Violence Project

 

[dybmh]

Here's a write-up on it:

Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

The four things are:

• childhood trauma
• a personal crisis or specific grievance
• a “script” or "roadmap" that validates their beliefs
• access to a firearm

 

[bobhikes]

Here's a write-up on it:

Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

The four things are:

• childhood trauma
• a personal crisis or specific grievance
• a “script” or "roadmap" that validates their beliefs
• access to a firearm

My take

Childhood trauma from my own experience and dealing with a psychologist, I have a disassociation with other humans. I have no problems with people dying. My psychologist would say it comes from a human you loved and them claiming they loved you treating you less than human. Other Humans doing nothing about it. Parents need to be taught best practices for raising kids, not just trial by error.

Personal Crisis from my perspective being taught I could over come anything and strong belief in myself plus experience with over coming crisis from early years prevented me from turning but led to a breaking point where I needed psychological help. People can be taught how to see signs of crisis in others and can be taught how to teach self belief better.

Script or Roadmap This is why the mass murders have increased. The internet, it is so easy today to find people who support your beliefs. You want to kill someone, you can find groups that will support and help you plan to do it. It the most scary thing about this study for how can you fix this. I grew up with enough experience that the internet can not influence me but I fear this next generation. People to People interaction gets less and less everyday.

Access to a firearm This is pretty much a Duh reaction. Of course they must have access to a firearm. To take away the right to own a firearm because an extremely small portion of the population may shoot people is not an answer. We should limit access to unnecessary deadly weapons but people should and do have the right to bear arms. I advocate for a similar approach as to driving. You must be licensed, registered and own insurance. Registration and Insurance would be dependent on the type and quantity of weapons you have. Licensing would require a written and hands on test. Safety and reasons for not shooting humans major part of test.

 

[BSM1]

My take

Childhood trauma from my own experience and dealing with a psychologist, I have a disassociation with other humans. I have no problems with people dying. My psychologist would say it comes from a human you loved and them claiming they loved you treating you less than human. Other Humans doing nothing about it. Parents need to be taught best practices for raising kids, not just trial by error.

Personal Crisis from my perspective being taught I could over come anything and strong belief in myself plus experience with over coming crisis from early years prevented me from turning but led to a breaking point where I needed psychological help. People can be taught how to see signs of crisis in others and can be taught how to teach self belief better.

Script or Roadmap This is why the mass murders have increased. The internet, it is so easy today to find people who support your beliefs. You want to kill someone, you can find groups that will support and help you plan to do it. It the most scary thing about this study for how can you fix this. I grew up with enough experience that the internet can not influence me but I fear this next generation. People to People interaction gets less and less everyday.

Access to a firearm This is pretty much a Duh reaction. Of course they must have access to a firearm. To take away the right to own a firearm because an extremely small portion of the population may shoot people is not an answer. We should limit access to unnecessary deadly weapons but people should and do have the right to bear arms. I advocate for a similar approach as to driving. You must be licensed, registered and own insurance. Registration and Insurance would be dependent on the type and quantity of weapons you have. Licensing would require a written and hands on test. Safety and reasons for not shooting humans major part of test.

You almost took the words out of my mouth with number four...Duh!..lol!

 

[shmogie]

My take

Childhood trauma from my own experience and dealing with a psychologist, I have a disassociation with other humans. I have no problems with people dying. My psychologist would say it comes from a human you loved and them claiming they loved you treating you less than human. Other Humans doing nothing about it. Parents need to be taught best practices for raising kids, not just trial by error.

Personal Crisis from my perspective being taught I could over come anything and strong belief in myself plus experience with over coming crisis from early years prevented me from turning but led to a breaking point where I needed psychological help. People can be taught how to see signs of crisis in others and can be taught how to teach self belief better.

Script or Roadmap This is why the mass murders have increased. The internet, it is so easy today to find people who support your beliefs. You want to kill someone, you can find groups that will support and help you plan to do it. It the most scary thing about this study for how can you fix this. I grew up with enough experience that the internet can not influence me but I fear this next generation. People to People interaction gets less and less everyday.

Access to a firearm This is pretty much a Duh reaction. Of course they must have access to a firearm. To take away the right to own a firearm because an extremely small portion of the population may shoot people is not an answer. We should limit access to unnecessary deadly weapons but people should and do have the right to bear arms. I advocate for a similar approach as to driving. You must be licensed, registered and own insurance. Registration and Insurance would be dependent on the type and quantity of weapons you have. Licensing would require a written and hands on test. Safety and reasons for not shooting humans major part of test.

Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, it is a state granted privilege.

Therefore your entire premise fails. Licensing is an infringement on a right. Registering firearms serves one purpose, to create a confiscation list. It is no ones business what weapons I legally have. Reasons for not shooting humans would be part of your test ? How about simply knowing the law that says you may not use deadly force unless you believe your life, or someone elses is under immediate threat ? Simple, huh ?



The overwhelming majority of the shooters studied, had no legal right to own a firearm.


So, once again laws effecting the legal purchase of firearms is touted as a solution.

Yet the failure of laws prompts the shootings in the first place. These proposed laws will also fail. Murderers don't worry too much about breaking the law when obtaining a firearm to kill someone.

These crazed shooters are created by sociological and psychological pressures, apparently relative new ones, since up until the 1960's they didn't happen. They didn't happen when guns were much easier to obtain.

A firearm is an inanimate thing. The killing comes by the desire of the one firing it.

And there is the issue that must be addressed to stop this crazed killing, the person.

 

[LuisDantas]

Parents need to be taught best practices for raising kids, not just trial by error.

So very true.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think public schools and private schools need to be reconstructed from the bottom up. They're based on old models where the students are the children of farmers, and they are based in having children sit in school for a required number of hours, and they are based upon 'Grades' which are antiquated. They are too much like factories, because the child is supposed to have learned certain things by a certain age. The total amount of information is too large to make that assumption. They're not getting the skills they need, and they know it. They're spending hours of their days worrying about this.

 

[bobhikes]

Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, it is a state granted privilege.

Therefore your entire premise fails. Licensing is an infringement on a right. Registering firearms serves one purpose, to create a confiscation list. It is no ones business what weapons I legally have. Reasons for not shooting humans would be part of your test ? How about simply knowing the law that says you may not use deadly force unless you believe your life, or someone elses is under immediate threat ? Simple, huh ?



The overwhelming majority of the shooters studied, had no legal right to own a firearm.


So, once again laws effecting the legal purchase of firearms is touted as a solution.

Yet the failure of laws prompts the shootings in the first place. These proposed laws will also fail. Murderers don't worry too much about breaking the law when obtaining a firearm to kill someone.

These crazed shooters are created by sociological and psychological pressures, apparently relative new ones, since up until the 1960's they didn't happen. They didn't happen when guns were much easier to obtain.

A firearm is an inanimate thing. The killing comes by the desire of the one firing it.

And there is the issue that must be addressed to stop this crazed killing, the person.

It is my opinion and not a premise so can not fail unless enacted. Are you suggesting we try and enact it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here's a write-up on it:

Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

The four things are:

• childhood trauma
• a personal crisis or specific grievance
• a “script” or "roadmap" that validates their beliefs
• access to a firearm

Given the forth bullet point, I'm starting to suspect it's veiled propaganda for anti gun enthusiasts to justify taking away second amendment rights all together.

 

[sun rise]

Here's a write-up on it:

Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

The four things are:

• childhood trauma
• a personal crisis or specific grievance
• a “script” or "roadmap" that validates their beliefs
• access to a firearm

That makes sense to me.

 

[whirlingmerc]

That makes sense to me.

Interesting study.

I wonder if you might add alienation.

 

[dybmh]

Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, it is a state granted privilege.

Therefore your entire premise fails. Licensing is an infringement on a right. Registering firearms serves one purpose, to create a confiscation list. It is no ones business what weapons I legally have. Reasons for not shooting humans would be part of your test ? How about simply knowing the law that says you may not use deadly force unless you believe your life, or someone elses is under immediate threat ? Simple, huh ?



The overwhelming majority of the shooters studied, had no legal right to own a firearm.


So, once again laws effecting the legal purchase of firearms is touted as a solution.

Yet the failure of laws prompts the shootings in the first place. These proposed laws will also fail. Murderers don't worry too much about breaking the law when obtaining a firearm to kill someone.

These crazed shooters are created by sociological and psychological pressures, apparently relative new ones, since up until the 1960's they didn't happen. They didn't happen when guns were much easier to obtain.

A firearm is an inanimate thing. The killing comes by the desire of the one firing it.

And there is the issue that must be addressed to stop this crazed killing, the person.

You make a ton of good points.

Here's my take and I hope you'll offer your feedback:

If a person demonstrates all of the first 3 of the above behaviors, and if ( IF ) they try to purchase a firearm what do you think should happen?

And that assumes that it's even possible to make those sorts of judgments against a person... but...

That's where I think the value lies in this. It's predictive. If some one is showing signs of being "at risk" and then they go to purchase a firearm; shouldn't that be some sort of red flag even if it's just a warning sign to family and friends?

Now, what happens if they already have access to firearms? I don't know. I feel like you've made enough good points to consider that outside of the scope of who I am thinking about if and when i advocate for decreased access to firearms and ammo.

So basically my question is this:

If ( and that's a big IF ) a person can be judged to be 'at risk', do you think it is possible to restrict their access to firearms and ammo or impose a waiting period without compromising the ideals of the Constitution of the United States of America?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

They have another thing in common. They look for gun free zones to commit their crime.

What does a 'gun free zone tell you' . No one in there has a gun but you.

Look at the latest shooting in California. The state with the strictest gun laws in the country. The criminal always will get a gun. And in California he has a large field to work in.

Good-Ole-Rebel.

 

[leov]

A new massive study sponsored by the federal government. I was not able to get the data and its Fox News but it looks to be authentic. What are your thoughts will it be helpful.

Mass shooters have four things in common, new study finds

The Database it allows you to get access, but they say they will get back to you. I don't have the data yet.

Mass Shooting Data & Research | The Violence Project

Operation Himmler - Wikipedia

 

[sun rise]

I think public schools and private schools need to be reconstructed from the bottom up. They're based on old models where the students are the children of farmers, and they are based in having children sit in school for a required number of hours, and they are based upon 'Grades' which are antiquated. They are too much like factories, because the child is supposed to have learned certain things by a certain age. The total amount of information is too large to make that assumption. They're not getting the skills they need, and they know it. They're spending hours of their days worrying about this.

Kids are naturally curious. The current system squashes that curiosity. A better system would channel that in creative ways.

 

[Milton Platt]

Here's a write-up on it:

Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

The four things are:

• childhood trauma
• a personal crisis or specific grievance
• a “script” or "roadmap" that validates their beliefs
• access to a firearm

Interestingly enough, there are probably many people who are not mass shooters who have the same four things in common....so does this data tell us anything?

 

[dybmh]

Interestingly enough, there are probably many people who are not mass shooters who have the same four things in common....so does this data tell us anything?

Yeah, I don't know. I was summarizing the article for those either didn't want to watch the video or read the linked article.

 

[shmogie]

You make a ton of good points.

Here's my take and I hope you'll offer your feedback:

If a person demonstrates all of the first 3 of the above behaviors, and if ( IF ) they try to purchase a firearm what do you think should happen?

And that assumes that it's even possible to make those sorts of judgments against a person... but...

That's where I think the value lies in this. It's predictive. If some one is showing signs of being "at risk" and then they go to purchase a firearm; shouldn't that be some sort of red flag even if it's just a warning sign to family and friends?

Now, what happens if they already have access to firearms? I don't know. I feel like you've made enough good points to consider that outside of the scope of who I am thinking about if and when i advocate for decreased access to firearms and ammo.

So basically my question is this:

If ( and that's a big IF ) a person can be judged to be 'at risk', do you think it is possible to restrict their access to firearms and ammo or impose a waiting period without compromising the ideals of the Constitution of the United States of America?

I agree that people deemed at risk by a mental health practitioner should be restricted from purchasing a firearm. Is this approach Constitutional ? I am not sure.

If government agencies can work together, a big if, intercession and help for this type of person can be provided long before the firearm issue arises.

 

[shmogie]

So very true.

Who should have the responsibility of teaching parents how to raise their children ?

What if a parent disagrees with the certified by whomever methodology ?

 

[dybmh]

I agree that people deemed at risk by a mental health practitioner should be restricted from purchasing a firearm.

Bingo. We're on opposite sides of the issue, but here's the common ground. There needs to be some better proactive mechanism in place.

Really... I think Bob the OP is on to something...

Script or Roadmap This is why the mass murders have increased. The internet

I don't know if the Internet is causing the increase. But, to me, it represents an opportunity to be proactive. Doesn't it seem like all the mass shooters express themselves on the Internet in some manner prior to the event. That's public information. It seems like there should be a way to apply anti-spam anti-spyware AI to recognize the warning signs that someone's online rhetoric is increasing in urgency, vitriol, or hopelessness. Maybe it would be possible to take that data, develop a list of high risk individuals, and then, as soon as one of them tries to buy guns and/or ammunition, there's a red flag?

What happens after the red flag, I don't know. But that's my idea. I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but it seems like it would have public support. Most people do not consider their online identity and activities to be private already. And most folks are on board with the idea that there are some people that should not have firearms even if they are not convicted felons.

But the point is, progress on the mass shooting problem doesn't have to be about the revising the 2nd amendment. But it will require a list, and funding, and I don't know if 2nd amendment advocates will be open to either of those in case either one is a slippery slope. ( not to mention both )

Thoughts?