What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

[dualstow]

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Right. You don’t have to be drooling and seeing visions to be mentally ill. I agree. About 100% of these shooters are disturbed.

[Mountaineer]

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Right. You don’t have to be drooling and seeing visions to be mentally ill. I agree. About 100% of these shooters are disturbed.

.

This might be of interest: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substac ... =email&s=r

Introduction paragraphs:
"In the aftermath of mass violence and the furor of the 24-hour news cycle, the words “mental illness” are often used to try to explain a perpetrator’s actions. In many cases, the assumption that mental illness had to be involved in these incidents drives the public debate about solutions.

"This kind of coverage might raise awareness of how important mental health care is, but it is ultimately problematic because it too often it spreads inaccurate definitions of “mental illness,” it imposes further stigma on those who suffer from mental health conditions, and the limited scope solutions proposed will not achieve the intended results—to reduce mass shootings."

Summary paragraph:
"Bottom line
It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

.

[vnatale]

I find it interesting that the mental health interest community strenuously objects to the idea that these shooters are probably mentally ill. They say such talk stigmatizes the mentally ill. What the hell.

No, don’t look into that.

I heard today that only 4% of the shooters are mentally ill. A valid stat?

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Are sociopaths mentally ill? Are those who act in an evil way mentally ill? What percent of the certified mentally ill engage in violence towards others? What percent of the NOT mentally ill engage in violence towards others?

[vnatale]

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Right. You don’t have to be drooling and seeing visions to be mentally ill. I agree. About 100% of these shooters are disturbed.

.

This might be of interest: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substac ... =email&s=r

Introduction paragraphs:
"In the aftermath of mass violence and the furor of the 24-hour news cycle, the words “mental illness” are often used to try to explain a perpetrator’s actions. In many cases, the assumption that mental illness had to be involved in these incidents drives the public debate about solutions.

"This kind of coverage might raise awareness of how important mental health care is, but it is ultimately problematic because it too often it spreads inaccurate definitions of “mental illness,” it imposes further stigma on those who suffer from mental health conditions, and the limited scope solutions proposed will not achieve the intended results—to reduce mass shootings."

Summary paragraph:
"Bottom line
It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

.

Thank you! That says it all much better than what I had been trying to convey.

[dualstow]

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Right. You don’t have to be drooling and seeing visions to be mentally ill. I agree. About 100% of these shooters are disturbed.

.

This might be of interest: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substac ... =email&s=r

Introduction paragraphs:
"In the aftermath of mass violence and the furor of the 24-hour news cycle, the words “mental illness” are often used to try to explain a perpetrator’s actions. In many cases, the assumption that mental illness had to be involved in these incidents drives the public debate about solutions.

"This kind of coverage might raise awareness of how important mental health care is, but it is ultimately problematic because it too often it spreads inaccurate definitions of “mental illness,” it imposes further stigma on those who suffer from mental health conditions, and the limited scope solutions proposed will not achieve the intended results—to reduce mass shootings."

Summary paragraph:
"Bottom line
It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

.

Isn’t that what I_Shrugged said?

I don’t think we should focus solely on mental illness, nor write off all cases of shootings as having a mental health cause any more than we should write off other forms of terrorism as mental illness based. But, if getting some people some mental health care leads to less people getting shot, it seems like something we should explore.

As for the stigma, that seems like a slippery way to avoid the issue. It’s like saying we’re stigmatizing Islam when we note that an international terrorist was an islamist. It doesn’t mean that the whole religion is necessarily bad. But, it’s also not something we should look away from for fear of offending people.

And, paraphrasing Xan, maybe the definition of mental illness is or should be a work in progress.

[Jack Jones]

In 1966, Charles Whitman killed 14 people from the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin.

Whitman, who had exhibited headaches and feelings of hostility prior to the shooting, wrote in a note that he wanted his body autopsied.

He was found to have a small brain tumor in his autopsy, according to reports.

A commission convened by the Texas governor to investigate the shooting determined that the virulent form of brain cancer called glioblastoma multiforme may have contributed to Whitman’s ability to “control his actions and emotions” but that “the relationship between the brain tumor and his actions were unclear.”

Prior to the autopsy, you'd say this guy is evil. After the autopsy, maybe not so much. Is evil a useful concept?

It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

Indeed, the causes are complicated. Ultimately the cause of an event like this is unknowable because we exist at the tip of a long chain of causes and conditions and there is more interdependence than we realize.

[vnatale]

My first response is that if it isn't 100%, then our definition of "mentally ill" needs to change. Surely anybody doing something like that is some kind of crazy. Not the kind that excuses them from punishment, though. Maybe that's the 4% number.

Right. You don’t have to be drooling and seeing visions to be mentally ill. I agree. About 100% of these shooters are disturbed.

.

This might be of interest: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substac ... =email&s=r

Introduction paragraphs:
"In the aftermath of mass violence and the furor of the 24-hour news cycle, the words “mental illness” are often used to try to explain a perpetrator’s actions. In many cases, the assumption that mental illness had to be involved in these incidents drives the public debate about solutions.

"This kind of coverage might raise awareness of how important mental health care is, but it is ultimately problematic because it too often it spreads inaccurate definitions of “mental illness,” it imposes further stigma on those who suffer from mental health conditions, and the limited scope solutions proposed will not achieve the intended results—to reduce mass shootings."

Summary paragraph:
"Bottom line
It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

.

Isn’t that what I_Shrugged said?

I don’t think we should focus solely on mental illness, nor write off all cases of shootings as having a mental health cause any more than we should write off other forms of terrorism as mental illness based. But, if getting some people some mental health care leads to less people getting shot, it seems like something we should explore.

As for the stigma, that seems like a slippery way to avoid the issue. It’s like saying we’re stigmatizing Islam when we note that an international terrorist was an islamist. It doesn’t mean that the whole religion is necessarily bad. But, it’s also not something we should look away from for fear of offending people.

And, paraphrasing Xan, maybe the definition of mental illness is or should be a work in progress.

Maybe. But the proportion of the population who are these shooters is almost infinitesimally small. Good chance that a not insignificant portion of them would either be classified as being mentally ill or if the proper classification was made that then there would be no successful outcomes from any treatments.

[vnatale]

In 1966, Charles Whitman killed 14 people from the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin.

Whitman, who had exhibited headaches and feelings of hostility prior to the shooting, wrote in a note that he wanted his body autopsied.

He was found to have a small brain tumor in his autopsy, according to reports.

A commission convened by the Texas governor to investigate the shooting determined that the virulent form of brain cancer called glioblastoma multiforme may have contributed to Whitman’s ability to “control his actions and emotions” but that “the relationship between the brain tumor and his actions were unclear.”

Prior to the autopsy, you'd say this guy is evil. After the autopsy, maybe not so much. Is evil a useful concept?

It’s hard and complex to explain evil. Focusing solely on mental illness as a way to make sense of mass shootings largely avoids confronting the real, more complicated causes."

Indeed, the causes are complicated. Ultimately the cause of an event like this is unknowable because we exist at the tip of a long chain of causes and conditions and there is more interdependence than we realize.

in other words....no easy answers. And, in the words of President Obama .... if all the problems that came to me were easily solvable then they would not have come to me in the first place.

This is definitely a problem that clearly need a multi-faceted approach that does not, as Xan stated way above, have the unwanted consequence of upending the lives of a lot of innocent people who somehow get cast as being part of the solution (i.e., getting certain unwarranted restrictions on their freedoms).

[glennds]

This is definitely a problem that clearly need a multi-faceted approach that does not, as Xan stated way above, have the unwanted consequence of upending the lives of a lot of innocent people who somehow get cast as being part of the solution (i.e., getting certain unwarranted restrictions on their freedoms).

Upending the lives of a lot of innocent people would not be good at all. But if the stats show an increase in the number and severity of shootings, would there be any level of inconvenience that people would tolerate to try and improve things?
Overreacting is not good, but neither is sticking our heads in the sand. At some point we need to try some steps, at least if gun violence continues to worsen.
It's pretty clear that what citizens want and what politics will permit are not the same, which is a whole other obstacle.

[Xan]

Is gun violence worsening? High-profile events like this make it feel that way, but our feelings could easily be incorrect.

[vnatale]

Is gun violence worsening? High-profile events like this make it feel that way, but our feelings could easily be incorrect.

Absolutely. Perceptions often widely vary from the actual stats / reality.

[I Shrugged]

It has been alleged that a lot of the mass shooters had been prescribed psychiatric drugs. I have no source to cite. But, it wouldn’t surprise me. Even if it’s actually only a quarter or third of them, it would be significant.

It’d be great to see a study on that question.

[Xan]

It has been alleged that a lot of the mass shooters had been prescribed psychiatric drugs. I have no source to cite. But, it wouldn’t surprise me. Even if it’s actually only a quarter or third of them, it would be significant.

It’d be great to see a study on that question.

It would seem that the emphasis on getting everyone into "mental health" would lead to more people being prescribed psychiatric drugs.

The trouble is that the direction of causality of something like that is really hard to determine. You can't really do a randomized, controlled study.

[glennds]

Is gun violence worsening? High-profile events like this make it feel that way, but our feelings could easily be incorrect.

Good question. A couple of graphics say yes:

The first one bundles suicides into the deaths total, the second separates homicides from suicides and provides more current data.

[boglerdude]

A vestibule security entrance would help, for districts with wealthy wine-moms.

Fortunately communism couldnt possibly come to US or CA. Our citizens know better than to vote for free money

[Kbg]

I'm pro second amendment but not strident or absolutist.

The above post from boglerdude is pure crap on multiple levels. What you should learn from your post isn't the power provided by guns, but the pure ruthlessness of the dictators who had pretty much zero appreciation for the value of human life and particularly if it got in their way.

Afghanistan probably has more high powered rifles per capita than any place on the planet...not exactly a beacon of democracy.

Finally, Ukraine's problem isn't lack of rifles. Its problem is lack of artillery and air defense forces.

A band of bubbas with AR-15s isn't going to do jack when the black boots show up and slaughter, grandpa, grandma, mom and the kids because there's a band of bubbas with AR-15 taking pot shots, even automatic pot shots.

I've seen a lot of drone launched PGMs fly through the roof of a house when it was determined there was a band of jihadi bubbas with automatic rifles sleeping overnight in it. Trust me, the guns did nothing for them.

[boglerdude]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

[glennds]

The above post from boglerdude is pure crap on multiple levels. What you should learn from your post isn't the power provided by guns, but the pure ruthlessness of the dictators who had pretty much zero appreciation for the value of human life and particularly if it got in their way.

This^^^
If the equation is as simple as banning guns = totalitarian dictator = millions ruthlessly killed, then we should all be watching Jacinda Ardern of NZ very closely.
/s

[I Shrugged]

Is gun violence worsening? High-profile events like this make it feel that way, but our feelings could easily be incorrect.

Good question. A couple of graphics say yes:

The first one bundles suicides into the deaths total, the second separates homicides from suicides and provides more current data.

Did anything unusual happen in 2020 that could affect mental health? Hmmm, let’s think about that….

[glennds]

Is gun violence worsening? High-profile events like this make it feel that way, but our feelings could easily be incorrect.

Good question. A couple of graphics say yes:

The first one bundles suicides into the deaths total, the second separates homicides from suicides and provides more current data.

Did anything unusual happen in 2020 that could affect mental health? Hmmm, let’s think about that….

[drumminj]

I'm wary to engage on this topic, but going to wade in and see how it goes

Two questions for those seeking to "nibble at the edges" or in any other way curtail the right to bear arms (or any other right the government is explicitly forbidden from encroaching on):

1) Apply any limitations that already exist, or you're currently thinking, to other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Would you be okay with that? I would think most likely wouldn't (limiting the right of free speech/association only to those 21+, same with 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, 5th amendment against double jeopardy, ability to face one's accuser, etc).

Nothing in the constitution/bill of rights says the 2nd is to be treated differently. So I would argue it's patently wrong to do so - any limitation being applied via legislative process or EOs and NOT via amendment to the constitution is incorrect and a violation of those rights. If you can do so for one, it basically invalidates all of them. I believe principles matter here.

2) If the British prohibited "weapons of war" from being owned by the colonists, would our country exist? I'd argue likely not -- and that's exactly why it's enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Do folks here really believe that we've outgrown oppressive governments? That the people should no longer have the means to overthrow a government, or fight for their lives and independence?

The USA is an experiment in individual freedom, and freedom comes with a price. Life is about trade-offs. I think it's wrong to dismiss boglerdude's examples - they show the value of the ability of the populace to defend themselves against oppressive governments, which is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

All that said, if the people of this constitutation republic (notably different from a democracy, which is often left out of discussions of this nature) want change, there is a well-defined process to do so. Amend the constituttion. It's possible, but hard on purpose.

To the original topic of preventing violence - I agree with Mountaineer and (I believe) KBG. We've lost our morality, and really our manners and norms from interacting in person. You see it in how people drive, how they conduct business, etc - people are no longer shamed or cast out for behaving in anti-social or selfish ways. So many are focused on "Getting ahead" and "I've got mine", rather than on building community, being honest and respectable, building relationships. I say all this as a non-religious person, but it's clear each time I see someone coming to a dead stop on the highway in the left lane because they want to cut across 4 lanes to make the exit, or turning right from the left hand lane because "screw y'all, I'm not going around".

[drumminj]

This^^^
If the equation is as simple as banning guns = totalitarian dictator = millions ruthlessly killed, then we should all be watching Jacinda Ardern of NZ very closely.
/s

I assume "/s" means "end sarcasm".

I'm not boglerdude, but I'll counter that banning guns may not be done by a totalitarian dictator, and may even be done with good intentions.

HOWEVER.

Once you let your guns be banned, you have no means to fight back against/overthrow a totalitarian dictator.

I would argue that's the point. Once that means is lost, it's highly unlikely you get it back, and the cost to do so is FAR FAR higher than if you had never given up/lost the means in the first place.

[glennds]

2) If the British prohibited "weapons of war" from being owned by the colonists, would our country exist? I'd argue likely not -- and that's exactly why it's enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Do folks here really believe that we've outgrown oppressive governments? That the people should no longer have the means to overthrow a government, or fight for their lives and independence?

You're in good company with your opinions. I hear the same argument often articulated.

Count me in the camp that thinks 1776 was a radically different world and time. The idea that a group of citizens would be capable of defeating the US military in a confrontation is a ludicrous fantasy. Not the least of the reasons would be the sheer sophistication of the military's weaponry, but also the difference between professionally trained soldiers and enthusiastic lay gun owners, however passionate they might be.

The right to bear arms probably has more practical application for recreation and American citizens defending themselves against each other.
But as far as taking on the power of the government, the voting booth is more effective than any militia of two handed gun owners.

On the subject of the Revolutionary War, the conversation about gun rights always seems to leave out the fact that war of independence would have failed were it not for the assistance of France, and to a lesser degree Spain.
And what did the French contribute? Arms, equipment, uniforms, but most importantly, a professional military, both Army and Navy. And the military leadership to go with it.
In fact, many of the Revolutionary War battles didn't even involve Americans, but were fought exclusively between the British and French (on behalf of the Americans). The romantic idea that the Continental Army was on a path to victory against the British all on their own with their personal guns is simply not the case.
Even Washington's victory at Yorktown could not have happened were it not for Comte de Rochambeau and Comte de Grasse who led the French land and sea forces that paved the way.


EDIT: No disrespect toward the Continental Army and the founding fathers, and other Revolutionary war protagonists. Their achievements, and more importantly their ideologies stand for themselves. It's just that the myth that a citizenry took up their personal arms and overthrew the British as an underpinning to the right to bear arms argument is just that, a myth.

[glennds]

This^^^
If the equation is as simple as banning guns = totalitarian dictator = millions ruthlessly killed, then we should all be watching Jacinda Ardern of NZ very closely.
/s

I assume "/s" means "end sarcasm".

I'm not boglerdude, but I'll counter that banning guns may not be done by a totalitarian dictator, and may even be done with good intentions.

HOWEVER.

Once you let your guns be banned, you have no means to fight back against/overthrow a totalitarian dictator.

I would argue that's the point. Once that means is lost, it's highly unlikely you get it back, and the cost to do so is FAR FAR higher than if you had never given up/lost the means in the first place.

Bingo. The /s meant end sarcasm because I wanted to make it clear that I was not sincerely suggesting Jacinda Ardern might be aspiring to join Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Hirohito.

[boglerdude]

ofc it wouldnt be traditional war. Surveillance tech improved enough for state-wide house arrest eg China/NK. Those who value liberty might eventually move to FL/TX and be reserve State Guard. I dont expect this to happen, but it's been a long two weeks

https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/commen ... k_mandate/