Gun Control

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

A list of 62 mass murders since 1982

I don't know the exact information, but it seems like many of these were private businesses which had no laws preventing citizens from carrying guns into them.

...and?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

...and?

The claim that all but one attack took place where citizens weren't allowed to carry guns appears to be false.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

The claim that all but one attack took place where citizens weren't allowed to carry guns appears to be false.

I though I saw the word "public" in there somewhere. In any case, many private establishments have rules against armed employees, at least.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I though I saw the word "public" in there somewhere. In any case, many private establishments have rules against armed employees, at least.

I used private to indicate that they were privately owned, not that they weren't public places.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

If you know your history of the Old West you know there was no shortage of disaffected loner weirdos out there. Why didn't they gun down crowds of people like weirdos do today? Could it be maybe that...they'd probably find themselves getting shot back at by the time they got their third round off?

I'm not sure written history really accounts much for loner weirdos (who tend to be ignored in both life and death, and not leave much in the way of historical record), so I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion. You may be thinking of Clint Eastwood movies there, but those arent real. Also, given that many of these shooters expect to die or take their own lives, I doubt that enters much into the psychology of people inclined to do these things.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'm not sure written history really accounts much for loner weirdos (who tend to be ignored in both life and death, and not leave much in the way of historical record), so I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion. You may be thinking of Clint Eastwood movies there, but those arent real. Also, given that many of these shooters expect to die or take their own lives, I doubt that enters much into the psychology of people inclined to do these things.

So there weren't psycho killers in the old west?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

The claim that all but one attack took place where citizens weren't allowed to carry guns appears to be false.

Specifically, the claim was this:

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Apparently Mr. Lott was referring to the so-called "public shootings" that took place in open public spaces or places as opposed to within private businesses, most of which were disgruntled employee situations.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Specifically, the claim was this:

Apparently Mr. Lott was referring to the so-called "public shootings" that took place in open public spaces or places as opposed to within private businesses, most of which were disgruntled employee situations.

Well, yes, if we limit the scope of our analysis to only shootings which occurred in places where guns were not allowed, all of the shootings took place in places where guns were not allowed, which means that we should have fewer places where guns are not allowed.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'm not sure written history really accounts much for loner weirdos (who tend to be ignored in both life and death, and not leave much in the way of historical record), so I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion. You may be thinking of Clint Eastwood movies there, but those arent real. Also, given that many of these shooters expect to die or take their own lives, I doubt that enters much into the psychology of people inclined to do these things.

No, I didn't get it from Clint Eastwood movies. I got it from reading about the history of the settlement of the American West. Even took a history class specifically about that period at UF, although was disappointed that the professor chose to focus most of the course on the Mormon contribution to westward expansion. Which was a lot more significant than most people know, by the way, but I wanted to learn about Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson and stuff. Anyway, point being, the free-for-all nature of the Wild West made it the destination of choice for "disaffected loner weirdos" from all over America, and from lots of other countries as well.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Well, yes, if we limit the scope of our analysis to only shootings which occurred in places where guns were not allowed, all of the shootings took place in places where guns were not allowed, which means that we should have fewer places where guns are not allowed.

Public places are not necessarily, by definition, places where guns are not allowed. I do believe the distinction Lott was making was between targeted shootings like disgruntled employee situations where the shooter goes after specific people vs. "public shootings" where the shooter randomly kills total strangers without rhyme or reason. In the case of the former, the shooter is targeting certain people and/or places so it doesn't matter whether guns are allowed there or not. But when it's the latter, it seems that the shooters tend to go after their random victims in places where they are least likely to encounter armed resistance.

The most telling example was the Batman movie shooter. Out of seven theaters in the vicinity that were showing that movie, he specifically chose the only one where there were signs prohibiting handguns.

[Tebowism0823]

Originally Posted by phatGator

We've created a narcissistic society. People think life is all about them. It's incomprehensible that reality television is so popular. Nothing more than watching the banal actions of self-absorbed idiots.

We've created people who feel that their pain is the center of the universe. Everyone needs to respond to their pain. Any pain they themselves cause is to them inconsequential.

Throw in constant depictions of violence all around in movies, television, music, and video games. Those same media also preach instant gratification. But we've removed all teaching of morality and ethics from schools for fear it might sound like religion.

Is it really any surprise we get people who feel they have been wronged snapping and making others to "pay the price" for their pain?

Nicely said.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Public places are not necessarily, by definition, places where guns are not allowed. I do believe the distinction Lott was making was between targeted shootings like disgruntled employee situations where the shooter goes after specific people vs. "public shootings" where the shooter randomly kills total strangers without rhyme or reason. In the case of the former, the shooter is targeting certain people and/or places so it doesn't matter whether guns are allowed there or not. But when it's the latter, it seems that the shooters tend to go after their random victims in places where they are least likely to encounter armed resistance.

Which school shootings have involved people who weren't associated with the school? The Connecticut shooter was a former student of Sandy Hook. The Oikos University shooting also involved a student of that institution. The Northern Illinois shooting involved a former student. And the Virginia Tech shooter was a student of that institution as well. Which almost makes it seem like the shooters were targeting certain people and/or places, so it doesn't matter whether guns are allowed there or not.

The most telling example was the Batman movie shooter. Out of seven theaters in the vicinity that were showing that movie, he specifically chose the only one where there were signs prohibiting handguns.

Yes, we know that the one he chose had signs prohibiting handguns. Do we know why he specifically choose that one?

[Tebowism0823]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

And when the ban is implemented, men with guns, will come to take yours away.

Touché

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Tebowism0823

Having a mental disorder, although not saying anything negative, isn't really what my point was about being a responsible citizen. In most cases, people who do these types of things have a history of some sort. Our gun laws are strict enough and a ban would not decrease gun violence. If convicted can get their hands on weapons now, nothing's going to change that. To my knowledge, and I have studied this pretty intensively, a gun ban is not going to eliminate crime nor would it make that big of a dent. Guns will always be available whether legally or illegally.

Having a history depends on what history you mean. History of mental illness? Violence? Both? One of the problems is that we can't predict who will go on to engage in such actions, especially since many with mental illness (as distinguished from anti-social personalities) don't actually pose a danger to society, and certainly not a danger in committing mass slaughter of others.

I don't know whether our gun laws are strict enough or not, that depends more on perception and perhaps the particular laws, but I do know that the empirical evidence suggests that most are largely ineffective, particularly measures such as one-gun-a-month, buyback programs, or sentencing laws (Project Exile, 10-20-Life) etc... But that doesn't mean there aren't effective measures that could be developed--particularly as it relates to technology. And besides, effectiveness is not the same as constitutionality/legality; it is not unconstitutional to place limits on personal gun possession either relating to either the number or type of guns someone owns.

But if history is prologue, without an outright ban (which won't happen) or some very severe restrictions on certain types of guns, or better use of technology (e.g that which makes guns unfireable except by the owner), there is little chance that any new laws that follow the same mold of old laws will be much help. Of course there would still be a black market--but it could curb much of the gun violence--particularly if that ban restricted access to ammunition. Like I've said earlier, don't read this as my advocating a ban, I am not. Just laying out what I see as the most likely scenarios (and not only have I studied this pretty deeply, I teach and have done research about it).

[gator996]

Remember when the candidates spoke about gun control for 3 minutes?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Having a history depends on what history you mean. History of mental illness? Violence? Both? One of the problems is that we can't predict who will go on to engage in such actions, especially since many with mental illness (as distinguished from anti-social personalities) don't actually pose a danger to society, and certainly not a danger in committing mass slaughter of others.

I don't know whether our gun laws are strict enough or not, that depends more on perception and perhaps the particular laws, but I do know that the empirical evidence suggests that most are largely ineffective, particularly measures such as one-gun-a-month, buyback programs, or sentencing laws (Project Exile, 10-20-Life) etc... But that doesn't mean there aren't effective measures that could be developed--particularly as it relates to technology. And besides, effectiveness is not the same as constitutionality/legality. Besides, it is not unconstitutional to place controls/limits on personal gun possession either relating to the number or type of guns someone owns. I know a lot of pro-gun folk try to argue otherwise, but the fact is there are limits that can be e placed on gun ownership.

But if history is prologue, without an outright ban (which won't happen) or some very severe restrictions on certain types of guns, or better use of technology (e.g that which makes guns unfireable except by the owner), there is little chance that any new laws that follow the same mold of old laws will be much help. Of course there would still be a black market--but it could curb much of the gun violence--particularly if that ban restricted access to ammunition. Like I've said earlier, don't read this as my advocating a ban, I am not. Just laying out what I see as the most likely scenarios (and not only have I studied this pretty deeply, I teach and have done research about it).

I for one question whether it is important to find traits that distinguish the shooters so much as it is important to describe traits that unify them behaviorally. If the thought is that the inclusion of a wider group of non-shooters in a set labelled as needing mental health intervention is an undesirable outcome, I think there is a strong possibility that that supposition is incorrect.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

So there weren't psycho killers in the old west?

I'm sure there were distubed, violent and destructive people, and perhaps more of them. But their deviance likely manifested in other crimes and attrocities typical of the time, not lone-gunman mass spree killings in public spaces. If you look at the records of these things, it really a 20th-21st century phenomenon.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'm sure there were distubed, violent and destructive people, and perhaps more of them. But their deviance likely manifested in other crimes and attrocities typical of the time, not lone-gunman mass spree killings in public spaces. If you look at the records of these things, it really a 20th-21st century phenomenon.

I wanted to agree. Read Blood Meridian.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I wanted to agree. Read Blood Meridian.

I have, but Judge Holden is the creation of a 20th century author, depsite whatever historical basis the character might have. Also, should be noted that most of the attrocities that happen in the book are the doing of a group, which seems rather typical. Not one person spree killings.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I have, but Judge Holden is the creation of a 20th century author, depsite whatever historical basis the character might have.

I wasn't really talking about him, more about the phenomenology of violence itself. The realization that the novel was based in fact is an indelible moment of literary horror. I want to believe that you're correct, but I don't know that I will without examining the history itself. No doubt the current trend has modern features, but is it truly unique phenomenalistically to this age?