Mass Shooters have four things in common

[Woberts]

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.

So mass shooters don't have firearms?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

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

Those are difficult questions, but by no means insignificant ones.

 

[bobhikes]

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...



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?

None of this is easy this is a first step. I am still waiting to see the full data and I would like a few more studies. It does point us in a direction and I can see how each can be a problem but I can't see an easy fix for any of them. This list has no low hanging fruit. I am glad the first step was taken as the government has done no studies for decades.

 

[epronovost]

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

That's not exactly true. There has been incidence of mass shootings in areas with armed guards and even police stations where there are multiple people armed, often with body armor and training in the use of firearm for self defense.

 

[epronovost]

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.

Actually there have been incidence of mass shootings and stabbings in pretty much all era though they have become more common. Simultaneously, the number of serial killers has went down over the years. Serial killers and mass shooters share very similar psychological traits. Some have suggested, not without merit, that many people who, a couple decades ago, would have become serial killers/rapists have actually turned into mass shooters.

As for your point on guns, they are of course not without merit. In fact, they are exact, but there is a problem. Dangerous psychological disturbance aren't easy to spot for a layman. Many mass shooters are isolated and thus have very few people around them to either support them in their times of need, push them off the abyss or warn people about such dangers. Controlling people is a lot harder and comes with a lot more liberticide dangers than controlling objects. Of course, controlling guns doesn't remove the desire to kill, but it can help mitigate the damages. No country has the resources to tackle all of its problems at once. Stop gaps aren't elegant and far from perfect, but that might be the best you can do on short term. In the long run, the US needs a lot of reform of its healthcare system, policing practices and gun ownership laws.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

One of those times when our views generally agree. Considering the growth nature of the problem, a means must be found that solve it without infringing on the right. Of course, their are extreme solutions that involve dissolution of the right, but I remain unconvinced that is a viable solution to the problem, as well as closing a means for law abiding people to lawfully maintain a mechanism of personal defence.

The only detail you stated that I reject is your assertion of the recent origin of this type of crime. While there is no single set of criteria for including a shooting event as a mass shooting, the evidence supports a history doing back over 100 years. It is the frequency that has been increasing in more recent times along with the growth in occurrence in schools involving children.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

That's not exactly true. There has been incidence of mass shootings in areas with armed guards and even police stations where there are multiple people armed, often with body armor and training in the use of firearm for self defense.

Gun free zones for the citizens.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[shmogie]

One of those times when our views generally agree. Considering the growth nature of the problem, a means must be found that solve it without infringing on the right. Of course, their are extreme solutions that involve dissolution of the right, but I remain unconvinced that is a viable solution to the problem, as well as closing a means for law abiding people to lawfully maintain a mechanism of personal defence.

The only detail you stated that I reject is your assertion of the recent origin of this type of crime. While there is no single set of criteria for including a shooting event as a mass shooting, the evidence supports a history doing back over 100 years. It is the frequency that has been increasing in more recent times along with the growth in occurrence in schools involving children.

There have been killings in the distant past that do not meet the current criteria as mass shootings. Though some do. Usually the first shooting considered a modern mass shooting is that by a guy named, I believe Wittman, who barricaded himself in a tower at UT Austin and started shooting people in the square below. He was killed by the police. This occurred in the late 50's or early 60's. I simply don't recall the details, it has been 50 years since I studied it.

You are certainly correct in that these shootings have increased in frequency, concurrent with other significant changes. In my view, those concurrent societal changes are the drivers in the increased mass shootings. Why do young, primarily white, men seemingly driven to this evil. Therein lies the cause, and more gun laws are worthless in curing the cause.

 

[shmogie]

Actually there have been incidence of mass shootings and stabbings in pretty much all era though they have become more common. Simultaneously, the number of serial killers has went down over the years. Serial killers and mass shooters share very similar psychological traits. Some have suggested, not without merit, that many people who, a couple decades ago, would have become serial killers/rapists have actually turned into mass shooters.

As for your point on guns, they are of course not without merit. In fact, they are exact, but there is a problem. Dangerous psychological disturbance aren't easy to spot for a layman. Many mass shooters are isolated and thus have very few people around them to either support them in their times of need, push them off the abyss or warn people about such dangers. Controlling people is a lot harder and comes with a lot more liberticide dangers than controlling objects. Of course, controlling guns doesn't remove the desire to kill, but it can help mitigate the damages. No country has the resources to tackle all of its problems at once. Stop gaps aren't elegant and far from perfect, but that might be the best you can do on short term. In the long run, the US needs a lot of reform of its healthcare system, policing practices and gun ownership laws.

If various agencies both government and private communicated with one another, these folk could be identified and be given help before they start shooting people. How many times have we heard after one of these shootings that a social worker, or a pastor, or even the police knew the shooter was disturbed, or the neighbor who says everybody knew he was dangerous.

As a LEO, I had the option of taking someone into custody and transporting them to a mental unit for 72 hours of evaluation. In my experience, we were only called when someone was already acting out. We weren't called in a proactive way to intercede for the person that "everybody" knew was going to go off.

If information was pooled , and a response was mounted in a timely fashion, a mass shooting could be avoided.

 

[epronovost]

If various agencies both government and private communicated with one another, these folk could be identified and be given help before they start shooting people.

This is also an interesting solution which could certainly help. I remember the case of a shooter who managed to arm himself legally because of a failure in the background check system as he shouldn't have been able to. Solving those problems of communication and improving inter-agency communication should be the first step before increasing any legislation on gun control. Even with perfect communication between agencies, I doubt they will be able to stem the growing number of mass shooters. I don't believe in placing all your eggs in the same basket and I do think that an increase level of gun control will be necessary at some point as well as investment from police forces to disturb the weapons black market which is abundant in the US.

 

[epronovost]

Gun free zones for the citizens.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I don't see how this help your argument. It's also false. There were shootings at private parties, in bars, on the roads, etc in States where un ownership is common and legal in all those places.

 

[shmogie]

This is also an interesting solution which could certainly help. I remember the case of a shooter who managed to arm himself legally because of a failure in the background check system as he shouldn't have been able to. Solving those problems of communication and improving inter-agency communication should be the first step before increasing any legislation on gun control. Even with perfect communication between agencies, I doubt they will be able to stem the growing number of mass shooters. I don't believe in placing all your eggs in the same basket and I do think that an increase level of gun control will be necessary at some point as well as investment from police forces to disturb the weapons black market which is abundant in the US.

Yes. The peoples republic of kalifornia has the most draconian gun control laws on the books. The law abiding citizen follows these laws, the crooks do not. We know the results of those laws in crime, and mass shootings, extremely marginal.

In any California city, one can buy a firearm illegally in a very short period of time. A law abiding citizen would never do this, crooks do it all the time.

There seems to be a synapse disconnect when it comes to gun control laws. The reasoning seems to be that the more laws promulgated, the more success in stopping the use of firearms in crime. The facts show this to be an absolute fallacy. It is as if the intuitive reasoning of another reality magically becomes fact in this reality.

Chicago has strict gun control laws, yet people are slaughtered there every day with illegal firearms. Chicago officials say it is because surrounding states have less strict gun laws, yet no Chicago citizen can legally buy a firearm in another state.

The firearms black market is thriving. It is expensive though. Guns are expensive to buy on the black market because the seller has to assume risks that the local gun dealer does not. Yet crooks gladly meet the price, because they could never buy a gun legally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. The peoples republic of kalifornia has the most draconian gun control laws on the books. The law abiding citizen follows these laws, the crooks do not. We know the results of those laws in crime, and mass shootings, extremely marginal.

In any California city, one can buy a firearm illegally in a very short period of time. A law abiding citizen would never do this, crooks do it all the time.

They can also drive to Nevada where the laws are much more lax.

You do realize that all those illegal firearms started out as legal guns, right? The legal gun market is the only source of firearms used in crime.

 

[epronovost]

The firearms black market is thriving. It is expensive though. Guns are expensive to buy on the black market because the seller has to assume risks that the local gun dealer does not. Yet crooks gladly meet the price, because they could never buy a gun legally.

It's actally not that expensive in the US. There are over 200 000 guns stolen each year in the US, these guns all end up on the black market making it very well provisionned and lower cost than let's say the Canadian firearm black market. A high level of weapon proliferation is correlated strongly with a large black market and more firearm crimes.

 

[shmogie]

They can also drive to Nevada where the laws are much more lax.

You do realize that all those illegal firearms started out as legal guns, right? The legal gun market is the only source of firearms used in crime.

A California resident cannot legally purchase a firearm in Nevada. So Nevada gun laws are irrelevant to the point.

There are actually modified, or made firearms that are not legal. A firearm in situ is neither illegal or legal. It depends upon who has it, and where they are. In other words, the law relates to who uses the firearm and for what purpose, not to the fact it exists.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I don't see how this help your argument. It's also false. There were shootings at private parties, in bars, on the roads, etc in States where un ownership is common and legal in all those places.

Please...you can say there are shootings in every kind of places. That is not my point. The mass shooter singles out places where he can have the greatest effect. And that is 'gun free zones'. Why? Because all those idiots believe the mass shooter won't bring a gun to a 'gun free zone'.

And, I don't know of any place where you can carry in a bar. Perhaps I'm wrong. Do you?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A California resident cannot legally purchase a firearm in Nevada. So Nevada gun laws are irrelevant to the point.

From what I've read, they could buy a gun in Nevada if they assert that they'll keep it in Nevada. They could also get a Nevada resident to buy the gun on their behalf, or buy one from a private seller who doesn't care too much about following the rules.

There are actually modified, or made firearms that are not legal.

Modified firearms started as unmodified firearms.

Homemade guns are so rare that they aren't a factor in policy. Maybe they will be some day, but not now.

A firearm in situ is neither illegal or legal. It depends upon who has it, and where they are. In other words, the law relates to who uses the firearm and for what purpose, not to the fact it exists.

Some firearms are outright prohibited in the place where they happen to be, or are owned by someone who doesn't have the legal right to own it.

None of this matters, though, since by "illegal firearm," I meant "firearm acquired illegally."

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It's actally not that expensive in the US. There are over 200 000 guns stolen each year in the US, these guns all end up on the black market making it very well provisionned and lower cost than let's say the Canadian firearm black market. A high level of weapon proliferation is correlated strongly with a large black market and more firearm crimes.

Let's see...'over 200,000 guns stolen'. I guess those who stole them are interested in obeying the laws concerning guns?

So, if you have criminals stealing guns...the answer is don't make guns for them to steal. What a solution!

One could say we have a lot of money counterfeiter's today. Perhaps the answer is , don't make money and you won't have counterfeiter's.

If you just quit providing the criminal the things he wants to steal, then you solve the problem? Sorry, let me empty my boots as I am wading knee deep in it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[epronovost]

="Good-Ole-Rebel, post: 6434376, member: 67315]And, I don't know of any place where you can carry a gun in a bar. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You are apparently wrong about it (or someone didn't respect the rules of the establishment in question) since there has been such incident in Illinois and Montana in recent years. One of them even happened in a biker bar/restaurent, so more like a private club which might abide by different rules, in Texas.