What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post Reply
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Thu May 26, 2022 9:28 am

Based on my conversation with Vinny, I thought I'd throw out the question. And more of a what the fuck can actually be done to reduce the acts of mass violence?

On my own premise, we might as well assume that the banning of "assault style" weapons are off the table. There are too many people and politicians who are against this idea. The same with high capacity mags.

David French renewed calls for widespread adoption of red-flag laws, which he discusses with Stephen Gutowski on the weekly reload.
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/p ... ws-now?s=r
https://thereload.fireside.fm/david-fre ... o-massacre

Better training for cops? Both about red flag laws and also for active shooter situations? It seems that the cops were impotent in this situation.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/us/uvald ... index.html

Everyone claims they want better mental health services, but will anyone dare raise taxes for it? I've been told that our local mental health nurse could get better paying jobs at Starbucks (and not be assulted by their clients). It might be a slight exaggeration but it is by someone knowledgable.

At least more funding for CDC studies on gun violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rs-behind/

I heard someone on either the Dispatch or Commentary podcast throw up an idea for algorithmic content observation on Social Media for such announcements. Its scary big brother-ish, but if the private corps keep letting these people broacast these opinions on their platforms before going off to cause mayhem it will soon become required by the government.

Or do we just consider this the cost of living in the uniquely beautiful society we call the United States of America, even though no other democratic liberal society experiences these mass shootings on a regular basis?
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am

One huge problem with "doing something" is the issue of false positives. For every person who would actually carry out some awful attack, there's a huge number of other people presenting all the same indicators of problem. Lots of people don't graduate and are upset. Lots of people turn 18 and buy a gun. And those are just two things that this one guy did, there are any number of circumstances that could add up to it.

So you have a signal to noise ratio of say 100,000 to 1. Or a million to one. Basically whatever you do, even if you target people who are "likely" problems, you will inconvenience/hassle/ruin the life of hundreds of thousands of people for every actual attack prevented. That's without even getting into the society-wide solutions like banning guns, heavy police presence in schools, metal detectors in schools, etc. That affects the lives of everyone regardless of how likely they are to be a shooter, and so has an even worse false positive rate.

It's really the same issue with airport security: for every 100,000 people who give every indicator of being a terrorist that an actual terrorist would, only 1 is an actual terrorist. (I'm making up numbers but you get the idea.)

I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Thu May 26, 2022 9:43 am

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am
One huge problem with "doing something" is the issue of false positives.
For sure. That's where controls need to be strictly proscribed so that the damage from such false positives would be minimized. The way David French presents it, he's proposing something similar to Domestic Violence red flag laws with similar controls.

If we keep doing nothing, at some point a dam will burst and draconian restrictions will get enacted as an overreaction. (My personal politics would be fine with it, but I suspect most folks on this forum would hate such a development).
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Thu May 26, 2022 9:46 am

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am
I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.
I agree it won't help prevent a shooter or terrorist dead set on creating the act. But at least it would remove the public pre-announcement aspect of their emotional buildup. My thinking is that a publishing platform forum with an active content-based algorithm (beyond chronological order) would be the target of such responsibilities.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu May 26, 2022 9:54 am

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:46 am
Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am
I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.
I agree it won't help prevent a shooter or terrorist dead set on creating the act. But at least it would remove the public pre-announcement aspect of their emotional buildup. My thinking is that a publishing platform forum with an active content-based algorithm (beyond chronological order) would be the target of such responsibilities.
Yes, there could be some element of "Now I've publicly declared; I HAVE to do it" if they've made such a post.

I'm not sure how you'd write the rule to exempt forums like this one. I suppose we don't have an "active content-based algorithm", but why is that the bright line? SHOULD forums like this be exempted? If not we'd have to shut down, probably. Are Internet forums worth keeping around?
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Thu May 26, 2022 10:17 am

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:54 am
joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:46 am
Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am
I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.
I agree it won't help prevent a shooter or terrorist dead set on creating the act. But at least it would remove the public pre-announcement aspect of their emotional buildup. My thinking is that a publishing platform forum with an active content-based algorithm (beyond chronological order) would be the target of such responsibilities.
Yes, there could be some element of "Now I've publicly declared; I HAVE to do it" if they've made such a post.

I'm not sure how you'd write the rule to exempt forums like this one. I suppose we don't have an "active content-based algorithm", but why is that the bright line? SHOULD forums like this be exempted? If not we'd have to shut down, probably. Are Internet forums worth keeping around?
Yeah I know...I'm quite worried that the cure may be worse than the disease....and I wouldn't be shocked at all if FB would prefer such regulations being placed in order to decrease such indy competition for eyeballs. For damn sure they'll have the regulators in pocket when such rules are being drafted up.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu May 26, 2022 12:02 pm

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 10:17 am
Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:54 am
joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:46 am
Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am
I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.
I agree it won't help prevent a shooter or terrorist dead set on creating the act. But at least it would remove the public pre-announcement aspect of their emotional buildup. My thinking is that a publishing platform forum with an active content-based algorithm (beyond chronological order) would be the target of such responsibilities.
Yes, there could be some element of "Now I've publicly declared; I HAVE to do it" if they've made such a post.

I'm not sure how you'd write the rule to exempt forums like this one. I suppose we don't have an "active content-based algorithm", but why is that the bright line? SHOULD forums like this be exempted? If not we'd have to shut down, probably. Are Internet forums worth keeping around?
Yeah I know...I'm quite worried that the cure may be worse than the disease....and I wouldn't be shocked at all if FB would prefer such regulations being placed in order to decrease such indy competition for eyeballs. For damn sure they'll have the regulators in pocket when such rules are being drafted up.

The bigger threat to Facebook probably isn't indy competition so much as what might try to take on. When they started, they put something out there, and then kept refining and growing, refining and growing. If content moderation had been a requirement from the start, they may not have been able to start in the first place. So it's definitely to Facebook's advantage as the incumbent to have plenty of regulations.

Back on the main topic: I think virtually everyone would agree with these two points:
* The ideal number of these senseless mass killings is zero.
* We do not want to live in the kind of society that makes them completely impossible.

So at some point we do have to consider it the "cost of living". The question is where. Answering that question in a way that gets broad support would take some real statesmanship, and a kind of collective decision-making which has been getting rarer and harder. So I don't think it's likely to happen.

joypog, I really appreciate your approach to this: you're acknowledging your own policy preferences/biases, and then digging into a productive conversation in an attempt to understand other perspectives and find common ground. That's the kind of thing that getting rarer and which we need.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Mountaineer » Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm

This likely won't be very popular, even with the libertarians and conservatives on this forum, but my personal opinion is mass shootings, smash and grabs, one-on-one shootings, stabbings, and assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places. I think most sane people would be reluctant to engage in violent crime if they thought they would likely get shot. As for the relatively small number of "insane" people, likely they are going to do whatever pops into their head regardless of laws or thinking they will get shot; not sure about returning to the mental hospitals of yesteryear but it might work better than the current "medicate to placate and turn 'em loose" strategy we currently seem to practice. I also think the odds of this happening are near zero until anarchy blooms, which it may if our politicians don't start caring for us all and recognize they are our servants who are expected to be competent and not act like demigods.

I personally also think that until our culture/worldviews are once again based on Judeo/Christian ethics or something similar (regardless of whether or not one is a believer) there is little hope of creating peace on earth. I know that as a Christian I have a lot of hope for the future of believers; we know where we are going and it all going to be okay, even if life on this planet is short, tragic, or a struggle for reasons beyond our control. I know that God is in charge and I am thankful for that. If I were in charge things would really be a mess. ;)

Let the flames begin!
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu May 26, 2022 12:55 pm

Schools do seem to be one of the rare places (at least in Texas) where you can be pretty sure that almost nobody is armed.

Mountaineer, even if 100% of the population were believing and practicing Christians I don't think we have any shot at "creating peace on earth". We just have to live with each other as best we can, with the line in your signature about forgiveness being extremely important.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Mountaineer » Thu May 26, 2022 1:05 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:55 pm
Schools do seem to be one of the rare places (at least in Texas) where you can be pretty sure that almost nobody is armed.

Mountaineer, even if 100% of the population were believing and practicing Christians I don't think we have any shot at "creating peace on earth". We just have to live with each other as best we can, with the line in your signature about forgiveness being extremely important.
Xan, I 100% agree with you re. peace on earth due to consequences of original sin. I do think we could move slightly closer to an asymptote if we were all believing and practicing orthodox (small o) confessional Christians. :)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by vnatale » Thu May 26, 2022 3:23 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:02 pm

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 10:17 am

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:54 am

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:46 am

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am

I suppose monitoring Facebook posts for "I'm going to shoot up an elementary school" would have had a chance at preventing this one. But that's not without false positives either, I'm sure, and if there were a monitoring system in place it's now monitoring EVERYONE, and also a real shooter would probably not make that post.

I agree it won't help prevent a shooter or terrorist dead set on creating the act. But at least it would remove the public pre-announcement aspect of their emotional buildup. My thinking is that a publishing platform forum with an active content-based algorithm (beyond chronological order) would be the target of such responsibilities.


Yes, there could be some element of "Now I've publicly declared; I HAVE to do it" if they've made such a post.

I'm not sure how you'd write the rule to exempt forums like this one. I suppose we don't have an "active content-based algorithm", but why is that the bright line? SHOULD forums like this be exempted? If not we'd have to shut down, probably. Are Internet forums worth keeping around?

Yeah I know...I'm quite worried that the cure may be worse than the disease....and I wouldn't be shocked at all if FB would prefer such regulations being placed in order to decrease such indy competition for eyeballs. For damn sure they'll have the regulators in pocket when such rules are being drafted up.



The bigger threat to Facebook probably isn't indy competition so much as what might try to take on. When they started, they put something out there, and then kept refining and growing, refining and growing. If content moderation had been a requirement from the start, they may not have been able to start in the first place. So it's definitely to Facebook's advantage as the incumbent to have plenty of regulations.

Back on the main topic: I think virtually everyone would agree with these two points:
* The ideal number of these senseless mass killings is zero.
* We do not want to live in the kind of society that makes them completely impossible.

So at some point we do have to consider it the "cost of living". The question is where. Answering that question in a way that gets broad support would take some real statesmanship, and a kind of collective decision-making which has been getting rarer and harder. So I don't think it's likely to happen.

joypog, I really appreciate your approach to this: you're acknowledging your own policy preferences/biases, and then digging into a productive conversation in an attempt to understand other perspectives and find common ground. That's the kind of thing that getting rarer and which we need.


Xan, from reading all you have specifically written on this topic (on top of all else I have read from you over the last three years) you'd definitely get my vote if YOU were running for our country's president.

But, unfortunately, you'd never get elected because for the general populace you are way too logical with almost no emotion in what you propose and advocate for. The populace does not want to hear appeals to logic: They generally will only react to what hits their emotions (whether it be logical or not).
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Thu May 26, 2022 4:51 pm

lol, well thanks Vinny! It's one thing to say that statesmanship is required and it's another thing to actually find a way to do it. I seem to be qualified for the former, and have no clue how to do the latter.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by vnatale » Thu May 26, 2022 4:57 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 4:51 pm

lol, well thanks Vinny! It's one thing to say that statesmanship is required and it's another thing to actually find a way to do it. I seem to be qualified for the former, and have no clue how to do the latter.


I think you don't have any less of any idea of any of the ones whose job it is to do so.

I vote for someone based upon their capabilities / qualifications for the job .... not what kind of speeches they give.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Kbg » Thu May 26, 2022 5:40 pm

We don't like to admit this as a society and it was discussed a lot in the early 1990s when people had first hand knowledge of the differences being seen with the advent of significant time spent in front of a screen and living a "real" life...I think a huge part phenomenon of this does have to do with screen time and associated interpersonal alienation/self-imposed isolation.

It would never happen in the US but maybe China didn't have such a bad idea outlawing video games from Mon - Fri for those younger than age 18.

The MO here for the most part is pretty much getting routine. It's not like people didn't have screwed up families/personal situations before...but most dealt with it.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by vnatale » Thu May 26, 2022 7:29 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm

This likely won't be very popular, even with the libertarians and conservatives on this forum, but my personal opinion is mass shootings, smash and grabs, one-on-one shootings, stabbings, and assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places. I think most sane people would be reluctant to engage in violent crime if they thought they would likely get shot. As for the relatively small number of "insane" people, likely they are going to do whatever pops into their head regardless of laws or thinking they will get shot; not sure about returning to the mental hospitals of yesteryear but it might work better than the current "medicate to placate and turn 'em loose" strategy we currently seem to practice. I also think the odds of this happening are near zero until anarchy blooms, which it may if our politicians don't start caring for us all and recognize they are our servants who are expected to be competent and not act like demigods.

I personally also think that until our culture/worldviews are once again based on Judeo/Christian ethics or something similar (regardless of whether or not one is a believer) there is little hope of creating peace on earth. I know that as a Christian I have a lot of hope for the future of believers; we know where we are going and it all going to be okay, even if life on this planet is short, tragic, or a struggle for reasons beyond our control. I know that God is in charge and I am thankful for that. If I were in charge things would really be a mess. ;)

Let the flames begin!


So everyone would be aware of what was going on and we'd not see multiple instances of the following?

"A white man in Cumming, Georgia, made national news in 2014 when he circled a parking lot overlooking a youth baseball game at a county park and menacingly displayed his holstered weapon—eerily presaging a shooting that would occur in Alexandria, Virginia, three years later at a practice for the 2017 Congressional Baseball Game. A number of parents asked the man to stop acting in a frightening manner, but instead, he allegedly pointed to his firearm and shouted, “See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there’s nothing you can do about it!” Terrorized parents and players barricaded themselves in a dugout, and local 911 operators received twenty-two calls over the next twenty minutes. However, when police arrived at the scene, parents were startled to learn that the gun-toting man was wholly within his rights because of new legislation in the state that expanded so-called stand-your-ground rights and eliminated many gun-free zones, such as at county parks. “We support the constitutional right to bear arms,” Forsyth sheriff Duane Piper told the media while explaining that the man did nothing illegal. “A park is one of those places where you can openly carry a weapon,” added Deputy Doug Rainwater. “A lot of parents with their kids at Forysth Park don’t understand that in Georgia you do have that right.”22"
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Thu May 26, 2022 7:47 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:02 pm
Back on the main topic: I think virtually everyone would agree with these two points:
* The ideal number of these senseless mass killings is zero.
* We do not want to live in the kind of society that makes them completely impossible.


So at some point we do have to consider it the "cost of living". The question is where. Answering that question in a way that gets broad support would take some real statesmanship, and a kind of collective decision-making which has been getting rarer and harder. So I don't think it's likely to happen.
Ahh yes, thank you for this (and the nice compliment =). This basic paradox makes a lot of sense. I need to ponder it a bit.

We're not in a good place with these things, but we can certainly make things worse when rashly trying to make things better.

And yes, I think your assessment of the political situation is quite sadly true.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by vnatale » Thu May 26, 2022 8:17 pm

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 7:47 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:02 pm

Back on the main topic: I think virtually everyone would agree with these two points:
* The ideal number of these senseless mass killings is zero.
* We do not want to live in the kind of society that makes them completely impossible.


So at some point we do have to consider it the "cost of living". The question is where. Answering that question in a way that gets broad support would take some real statesmanship, and a kind of collective decision-making which has been getting rarer and harder. So I don't think it's likely to happen.

Ahh yes, thank you for this (and the nice compliment =). This basic paradox makes a lot of sense. I need to ponder it a bit.

We're not in a good place with these things, but we can certainly make things worse when rashly trying to make things better.

And yes, I think your assessment of the political situation is quite sadly true.


I have an add on to that from an excellent book I am reading:

"Of course, in some other universe, coming up with better formulations of gun risk in places like Missouri would be entirely possible and even desired. Moreover, risk calculation is largely straightforward for pretty much any other topic except guns. Risk is an algorithm, a formula, a recipe. Risk is an exposed nail, unsecured scaffolding, a toxic vapor in the air. Risk is something people want to avoid.

Statisticians often calculate risk by multiplying probability times loss, or the likelihood of occurrence of an unwanted event by the consequence of that event. Such calculations help nervous investors, for instance, who can then compute the impact of adding particular stocks to their portfolios using economic frameworks of risk versus reward. Epidemiologists and practitioners of evidence-based medicine learn to calculate statistics of relative risk, a term used to describe the likelihood of developing a particular disease after exposure to a pathogen. Researchers who want to assess the impact of a new medication, vaccine, or surgery divide risk in an experimental group by risk in a control group to calculate what they call risk ratio. In these ways and others, risk becomes quantified, material, and known.1

But risk becomes exceedingly difficult to evaluate when the variables blink on and off, seemingly vital facts are painted into the primer, and usual ways of building consensus disappear from view. Without a firm set of findings on which to base best practices, risk becomes an abstraction onto which people project anxieties, biases, and fears. One person looks at the canvas and sees the Mona Lisa, another sees The Scream, yet another sees nothing but empty whiteness.

Politicians and lobbyists then manipulate the knowledge vacuum surrounding risk to balkanize everyday people on matters of life, death, and mundane daily routine—matters about which, if left to their own devices, people could probably forge consensus. All the while, scientific assurances that might help people feel mastery over events unforeseen or appliances untested function instead as variables left up for grabs. The forces that promote (and indeed, often gain financially from) polarization grow ever-more powerful, while hardworking people who live at various points along the oft-manufactured pro-gun–anti-gun continuum are left to fend for themselves.

Polarization then leads to an often-absurd state of affairs. Calculations of risk produce ever-safer cars, medications, bike lanes, and building codes. Yet the very idea of even studying risk becomes a risk itself when the conversation turns to guns, laying the groundwork for decisions that seem at odds with individual and national well-being. Gun-industry trade organizations fund leading gun suicide–prevention programs—and then force them to restrict mention of the potential risks posed by firearms. So, too, in December 2017, newspapers carried stories suggesting the profound failure of gun policies (or lack thereof) in Missouri. “Kansas City’s Terrifying Year of Homicides—the Worst in 24 Years,” read a headline in the Kansas City Star. That same month, the New York Times reported that homicide in New York plunged “to a level not seen since the 1950s.” Yet instead of asking the seemingly obvious questions—Did the fact that New York restricted gun ownership relate to its success? How can we model these strategies elsewhere?—GOP politicians in the US Congress championed a so-called concealed-carry reciprocity bill that would allow guns from places like Missouri to flow more freely into cities like New York.2

The absurdity is furthered by another reality, one that will be our focus for much of the remainder of the Missouri section of this book: research that even attempts to use established statistical methods to assess the relative risk of firearms is roundly critiqued as unscientific by the same people who try to block funding for gun science."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Thu May 26, 2022 11:39 pm

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:28 am

Or do we just consider this the cost of living in the uniquely beautiful society we call the United States of America, even though no other democratic liberal society experiences these mass shootings on a regular basis?
Pretty much this ^^^ IMO.

Disclaimer: I live in a fairly red state so the feedback I hear may not be representative of some other parts of the country, but mostly the sentiment seems to be that loss of life, even children, is worth the price of the freedom many attach to their gun rights. There's also the sidecar argument that loss of life is the lesser evil when compared to the evil of government encroachment of a sacred constitutional right. I'm not saying I agree with these positions, because actually I don't, but I'm repeating what I observe as a common sentiment.

If I may add a second observation - at first I thought the above position was callous toward the lives lost.
But the pandemic revealed that for many (most?) people, major issues become more real only once they hit home in some way. For example in the early stages of the pandemic, I cannot count the number of people I knew who thought Covid was either a hoax or totally overblown, resented the inconveniences, but later changed their tune once a loved one or they themselves suffered a bad case. I'm talking hospitalization, or serious illness. Then it became real. Then the inconveniences were not quite as objectionable.

So how does this relate to shootings? As many as there have been, I personally don't know a single victim, or even a family member of a victim. I'm sure this is the case for most people. So outrage and sympathy for victims notwithstanding, until the volume of mass shootings affects more people more directly, it may not be "real" enough to measure up to the perceived loss of liberty (or threat of government encroachment depending on how you look at it). I don't necessarily fault people for this, I think it may just be the way our brains work.

Last comment, the special interests that are invested in the status quo have a pretty strong hold on political party leadership and Congress these days. There are times when I wonder if special interests hold more de facto power than the voting public, at least with regard to certain powerful and organized industries. And anyone who does better under status quo and is powerful enough to put up a fight, will put up a fight. This phenomenon I'm sure was not contemplated in the framing of the Constitution, at least the way it functions today.

All this speaks to why this is not an easily solved problem, as tragic as it is.
Last edited by glennds on Fri May 27, 2022 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
barrett
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by barrett » Fri May 27, 2022 6:05 am

joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:28 am
On my own premise, we might as well assume that the banning of "assault style" weapons are off the table. There are too many people and politicians who are against this idea. The same with high capacity mags.
I don't see that anyone has questioned this "opening statement" by joypog. Is the battle against "assault weapons" & high-capacity mags really already lost? I mean, by comparison, everything else seems to be trying to fix stuff around the edges. And don't a large percentage of Americans support the banning of both? I realize that there are already a LOT of existing "assault weapons" and high-capacity mags in circulation, and that it's probably near impossible to claw those back, but we have to start somewhere.

I realized when reading through this thread last night that I had no idea how many members the NRA actually has and was surprised that it's "only" about five million. A big number, for sure, but for some reason I thought it would be higher still. And they have money and a lot of political influence but their reach is not unlimited.

I have seriously doubts that "addressing mental health" is going to make much of a difference. Yes, it's good to keep guns out of the hands of people who have serious mental problems but most of us "sane" people are capable of doing terrible things under certain conditions. For example, every couple of years I get angry enough that I will start kicking a garbage can, slamming a door or whatever. It's totally irrational and yet it's been a part of who I am for decades. And that's just one reason that both my wife and I are wary of having a gun in the house. And lest everyone think that I am some kind of aberration, I would wager that if we are being honest with ourselves, others on here could be pushed to a breaking point given the right/wrong conditions.
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by joypog » Fri May 27, 2022 7:05 am

barrett wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 6:05 am
joypog wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:28 am
On my own premise, we might as well assume that the banning of "assault style" weapons are off the table. There are too many people and politicians who are against this idea. The same with high capacity mags.
I don't see that anyone has questioned this "opening statement" by joypog. Is the battle against "assault weapons" & high-capacity mags really already lost? I mean, by comparison, everything else seems to be trying to fix stuff around the edges. And don't a large percentage of Americans support the banning of both? I realize that there are already a LOT of existing "assault weapons" and high-capacity mags in circulation, and that it's probably near impossible to claw those back, but we have to start somewhere.
It might not be fully lost, after all a ban was enacted 30 years ago...and the polling is almost 2:1 in favor of bans of both items...but it seems like a complete impossibility poitically at this ultra-polarized time.

If this chaos continues, the fear of a slippery slope by anti-gun control maximalists might result in a cliff. Right now the gun maximalists have outsized power because care much more about the issue than the general populace. But if that changes, they are quite outnumbbered.

But I don't really want things to get so bad that we overract. Can't we find some sort of compromise?

Could we nibble at the edges? Drinking is not a constitutional right, but I believe they tried 18 for a while before it got shifted back up to 21 due to chaos on the roads.

How about as a states rights issue? Let each state figure out what is a "well regulated militia" in their border. Maybe add a federal reg that requires sellers of guns to verify the legality of their sale to people from other states - not sure about the legal structure, but it's doable in this internet age. And then, after that, if Texans wants more mayhem in their borders then so be it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... f56cc31564
Pew found in April 2021 that 87% favor preventing people with mental illness from purchasing guns, 81% support expanding background checks to include private gun sales, 64% back banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and 63% want to ban all assault-style weapons.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm
assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places.
What does required open carry and required concealed carry mean?
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Mountaineer » Fri May 27, 2022 9:49 am

glennds wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm
assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places.
What does required open carry and required concealed carry mean?
.

DuckDuckGo is your friend. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carr ... ted_States

I assume you know what required means in the stated context.

Here is another interesting article that is relevant to open carry.
http://davidgalbraith.org/myth-busting/ ... fest/1722/

.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by glennds » Fri May 27, 2022 11:14 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:49 am
glennds wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm
assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places.
What does required open carry and required concealed carry mean?
.

DuckDuckGo is your friend. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carr ... ted_States

I assume you know what required means in the stated context.

Here is another interesting article that is relevant to open carry.
http://davidgalbraith.org/myth-busting/ ... fest/1722/

.
To clarify; I know what open carry means. I know what concealed carry means. In my state and many other states both are legal.
What I had not heard before was the idea that either could be "required" and I still don't know what that means. Does it mean that a person would be required (i.e. compelled) to open carry or conceal carry whether they wanted to or not? I have heard people propose that teachers should be required to carry. Is this an example of what you're driving at?
Not being a wiseguy, just trying to understand your post.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Mountaineer » Fri May 27, 2022 11:49 am

glennds wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 11:14 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:49 am
glennds wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:48 pm
assaults would be reduced, probably greatly reduced, if open carry and concealed carry were permissible, and possibly even required, everywhere (almost?) along with "red-flag" measures that are currently in place in a few places.
What does required open carry and required concealed carry mean?
.

DuckDuckGo is your friend. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carr ... ted_States

I assume you know what required means in the stated context.

Here is another interesting article that is relevant to open carry.
http://davidgalbraith.org/myth-busting/ ... fest/1722/

.
To clarify; I know what open carry means. I know what concealed carry means. In my state and many other states both are legal.
What I had not heard before was the idea that either could be "required" and I still don't know what that means. Does it mean that a person would be required (i.e. compelled) to open carry or conceal carry whether they wanted to or not? I have heard people propose that teachers should be required to carry. Is this an example of what you're driving at?
Not being a wiseguy, just trying to understand your post.
I’m not trying to be a wise guy either but I’m not sure how to make “and possibly even required” more clear. Think of requiring people to assume responsibility for their own protection. Think of other things our various government agencies actually require: seat belts, adherence to speed limits, being x-rayed at airports, allowing boys in girls bathrooms, welcoming illegals and shipping them all over the country on the taxpayers’ dime. The list is long. If the thought of requiring guns for self defense is repulsive, how about swords? Just kidding.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: What polcies can be done to prevent mass shootings

Post by Xan » Fri May 27, 2022 11:59 am

C'mon, Mountaineer, there's a bit of a wise guy in there, no?

I do believe that at the time of, say, the Three Musketeers, it was considered unseemly for a man to not have his sword at his side. An abdication of responsibility for his own safety.
Post Reply