• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

US Murders - Two conflicting charts

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
50,469
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, in our crazy American world we are witnessing a couple of things.

1) Historically low levels of murders

asher-ucr-2016-0922-1-corrected.png


2) Historically high levels of mass murder




I know what you are thinking. It is too early to talk about the tragedy at Parkland. But maybe after over a year, we can finally come to grips of the oddity that is murder in the US and mass murder in the US.

Crime overall in the US is at low levels. Despite all the talk and fear mongering by the right-wing regarding MS-13 and dangerous illegals, Americans are suffering from lower levels of crime in generations. So why in the heck are we seeing an alarming increase of mass murders. Now, we do need to keep in mind that mass murders don't occur often. They typically account for 2% of gun related deaths each year. So if you died from a gun, you are about 30 times more likely pulling the trigger than dying beside a lot of strangers because some guy was pissed off for whatever stupid reason (typically either insanity or just hates a particular type of person, though religion does pop up here and there).

But despite the whole emotionless argument CATO makes that many people aren't dying in such attacks, I would think we'd be best off pondering how we can prevent these mass killings, because honestly, things are better without them. We are certainly well past the point of DC doing anything to help with guns. Sure registration and whatnot can be shown to help reduce trafficking, but ultimately, it can only go so far before 2nd Amendment proponents shit their pants because they think Clinton is still coming for their guns.

So then we move and ponder other areas, primarily social media. A solid argument can made that the Internet, Social Media, and the Media itself help propagate these senseless acts of violence. The Internet and Social Media allows racist fuckwads, religious zealots, and misogynistic maniacs to normalize their thinking in a tightly confined echo chamber, and provides them an easy way to propel their bullshit messages into the world prior to committing a wholly unnecessary act. All the while getting a thumbs up from their dumbass buddies online. But is there any way to monitor that stuff? All of it? Without sacrificing some Civil Rights? Of course, you can also monitor them, but then you'd need to track purchasing. And how many incels have guns, but won't kill someone? How many false positives? How can you tell who is going to snap?

The simple answer is, you can't.

The invention of the Internet and Social Media, in conjunction with America's wonderfully easy access to weapons that can provide lots of death even with only a minute or two to work with, has provided a few Americans with the tools that they need in order to cause so much harm and tasks law enforcement with too much to oversee with too little to do so with. So we seem to be at a point in American history where we suffer from the least amount of crime, but the highest possible amount of random carnage, with a record number of people who lack the empathy to do anything about it.
 
So, in our crazy American world we are witnessing a couple of things.

1) Historically low levels of murders


2) Historically high levels of mass murder




I know what you are thinking. It is too early to talk about the tragedy at Parkland. But maybe after over a year, we can finally come to grips of the oddity that is murder in the US and mass murder in the US.

Crime overall in the US is at low levels. Despite all the talk and fear mongering by the right-wing regarding MS-13 and dangerous illegals, Americans are suffering from lower levels of crime in generations. So why in the heck are we seeing an alarming increase of mass murders. Now, we do need to keep in mind that mass murders don't occur often. They typically account for 2% of gun related deaths each year. So if you died from a gun, you are about 30 times more likely pulling the trigger than dying beside a lot of strangers because some guy was pissed off for whatever stupid reason (typically either insanity or just hates a particular type of person, though religion does pop up here and there).

There's one thing we should be doing: Looking a lot more carefully at the link between antidepressants and mass shootings.
 
OH GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. There is NOTHING indicating that anti-depressants are leading to mass murder. All you are doing is further STIGMATIZING those with depression, anxiety or other mental illnesses.
So, in our crazy American world we are witnessing a couple of things.

1) Historically low levels of murders


2) Historically high levels of mass murder




I know what you are thinking. It is too early to talk about the tragedy at Parkland. But maybe after over a year, we can finally come to grips of the oddity that is murder in the US and mass murder in the US.

Crime overall in the US is at low levels. Despite all the talk and fear mongering by the right-wing regarding MS-13 and dangerous illegals, Americans are suffering from lower levels of crime in generations. So why in the heck are we seeing an alarming increase of mass murders. Now, we do need to keep in mind that mass murders don't occur often. They typically account for 2% of gun related deaths each year. So if you died from a gun, you are about 30 times more likely pulling the trigger than dying beside a lot of strangers because some guy was pissed off for whatever stupid reason (typically either insanity or just hates a particular type of person, though religion does pop up here and there).

There's one thing we should be doing: Looking a lot more carefully at the link between antidepressants and mass shootings.
 
So, in our crazy American world we are witnessing a couple of things.

1) Historically low levels of murders


2) Historically high levels of mass murder




I know what you are thinking. It is too early to talk about the tragedy at Parkland. But maybe after over a year, we can finally come to grips of the oddity that is murder in the US and mass murder in the US.

Crime overall in the US is at low levels. Despite all the talk and fear mongering by the right-wing regarding MS-13 and dangerous illegals, Americans are suffering from lower levels of crime in generations. So why in the heck are we seeing an alarming increase of mass murders. Now, we do need to keep in mind that mass murders don't occur often. They typically account for 2% of gun related deaths each year. So if you died from a gun, you are about 30 times more likely pulling the trigger than dying beside a lot of strangers because some guy was pissed off for whatever stupid reason (typically either insanity or just hates a particular type of person, though religion does pop up here and there).

There's one thing we should be doing: Looking a lot more carefully at the link between antidepressants and mass shootings.

We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness:

As mass shootings have become more common in recent years, their connection to mental health has been increasingly investigated by FBI, police departments, forensic psychiatrists, mental illness experts and epidemiologists.

In a 2018 report of active shooters, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that 25 percent of active shooters had been diagnosed with a mental illness. And of those diagnosed, only three shooters had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. In a 2015 study that examined 235 people who committed or tried to commit mass killings, only 22 percent could be considered mentally ill.

So it ain't just that. What is it?

[M]ost studies of mass shooters have found only a fraction have any mental health issues. Researchers have noted a host of other factors that are stronger predictors of someone becoming a mass shooter: a strong sense of resentment, desire for infamy, copycat study of other shooters, narcissism and access to firearms.

“It’s tempting to try to find one simple solution and point the finger at that,” said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. “The fact that somebody would go out and massacre a bunch of strangers, that’s not the act of a healthy mind, but that doesn’t mean they have a mental illness.”
...
[M]ental stress and emotional disturbance can play a role in driving shooters. The 2018 FBI study found that shooters typically experienced several stressors in the year before they attack — financial pressures, fights with classmates or co-workers, and substance abuse. And on average, shooters displayed four to five concerning behaviors that those around them could notice — the most frequent being behavior related to mental health, interpersonal conflicts or some sign of violent intent.

“These may be angry, alienated, troubled young men who are marinating in hate for some other group, for example, and have access to this extremely lethal technology,” Swanson said. “So to me, saying it’s mental illness is a big dodge to not talk about guns.”
 
So, in our crazy American world we are witnessing a couple of things.

1) Historically low levels of murders


2) Historically high levels of mass murder




I know what you are thinking. It is too early to talk about the tragedy at Parkland. But maybe after over a year, we can finally come to grips of the oddity that is murder in the US and mass murder in the US.

Crime overall in the US is at low levels. Despite all the talk and fear mongering by the right-wing regarding MS-13 and dangerous illegals, Americans are suffering from lower levels of crime in generations. So why in the heck are we seeing an alarming increase of mass murders. Now, we do need to keep in mind that mass murders don't occur often. They typically account for 2% of gun related deaths each year. So if you died from a gun, you are about 30 times more likely pulling the trigger than dying beside a lot of strangers because some guy was pissed off for whatever stupid reason (typically either insanity or just hates a particular type of person, though religion does pop up here and there).

There's one thing we should be doing: Looking a lot more carefully at the link between antidepressants and mass shootings.
Based on a quick study the number of people on anti-depressants that didn't murder over a dozen people seems to greatly overwhelm those on anti-depressants that did kill over a dozen people.
 
Last edited:
We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness....
So it ain't just that. ... What is it?

It's one of two things... Failure to diagnose and treat... OR... shooting up a gathering of people is totally a normal thing to do and we should all just get over it already.

I think it may be more of the former and totally not at all the latter.
 
Please define 'mental illness'.

We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness....
So it ain't just that. ... What is it?

It's one of two things... Failure to diagnose and treat... OR... shooting up a gathering of people is totally a normal thing to do and we should all just get over it already.

I think it may be more of the former and totally not at all the latter.
 
We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness....
So it ain't just that. ... What is it?

It's one of two things... Failure to diagnose and treat... OR... shooting up a gathering of people is totally a normal thing to do and we should all just get over it already.

I think it may be more of the former and totally not at all the latter.

Even if it were established that 100% of all mass shootings were a direct result of mental illness, then so what?

Why on earth leave easily accessible weapons on store shelves? Or the internet?

A temporary emotional crisis could lead to tragedy. To me, it's not worth the risk.

Yes, there are other ways to kill a bunch of people. But guns are the easiest and quickest and most accessible.

Why not make them less accessible?
 
Please define 'mental illness'.

We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness....
So it ain't just that. ... What is it?

It's one of two things... Failure to diagnose and treat... OR... shooting up a gathering of people is totally a normal thing to do and we should all just get over it already.

I think it may be more of the former and totally not at all the latter.

The term used was "clinical mental illness", not just "mental illness".
Clinical mental illness is well defined in the DSM-5: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-dsm-2795758

Is it your intent to lead us to the dead end path of, "if you can't describe a part of it, then you must discard all of it"?

It is undisputed that access to mental health programs in the US is far more lacking than, for example, medical health programs. That up to 78% of people that do crazy things have not previously been evaluated is far from surprising... If one were to look at the statistics on people seeking evaluations / treatment, I would wager they are inline with what we see as a percentage of diagnoses to mass shootings.
 
We have. Only something on the order of 22% of mass shootings are the result of clinical mental illness....
So it ain't just that. ... What is it?

It's one of two things... Failure to diagnose and treat... OR... shooting up a gathering of people is totally a normal thing to do and we should all just get over it already.

I think it may be more of the former and totally not at all the latter.

Even if it were established that 100% of all mass shootings were a direct result of mental illness, then so what?

Why on earth leave easily accessible weapons on store shelves? Or the internet?

A temporary emotional crisis could lead to tragedy. To me, it's not worth the risk.

Yes, there are other ways to kill a bunch of people. But guns are the easiest and quickest and most accessible.

Why not make them less accessible?

Because that would not treat the root cause of the problem. If banning the instrument would be effective, then start with the pen. That is the "weapon" of choice for the spread of hate and violence against other people.
Take down Twitter and remove free speech rights, if taking rights away from individuals is an acceptable answer to violence.

Even if it were established that 100% of all mass shootings were a direct result of mental illness, then so what?
Then we would have even more data to support that it is mental illness that causes that level of violence... not video games, not bowling, not religion...
Why on earth leave easily accessible weapons on store shelves? Or the internet?
easy for you to access, maybe.. but then I suspect you wouldn't shoot up a school.. easy for a diagnosed schizophrenic, or convicted criminal - not at all.. and I totally agree it should be even harder / impossible through sane, fact-based regulations.. not emotional knee jerk reactions like:
A temporary emotional crisis could lead to tragedy.
babies drown in buckets... but all the government has done about it is put stickers on the side with a warning... helllllooooo!?! babies can't fucking read!
To me, it's not worth the risk.
To ISIS, allowing women to speak "is not worth the risk"... allowing men to drink alcohol "is not worth the risk"... why do you hate America too?
just kidding about hating America.... but your risk assessment is not inline with the majority. Allowing our government exclusive rights to effective weaponry is NOT WORTH THE RISK... especially with today's threat of dictatorship emerging.

Why not make them less accessible?

To me and you (assuming you are sane enough to dismiss a fleeting thought of murder like all sane people)? Because that will not even address the problem. Again, I agree they should be NOT available (not just "less" available) to people that are known to be a threat... and the solution is identifying those people for the purpose of HELPING THEM. Just taking things away from them is not helping anything.
 
Please define 'mental illness'.

The term used was "clinical mental illness", not just "mental illness".
Clinical mental illness is well defined in the DSM-5: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-dsm-2795758

Is it your intent to lead us to the dead end path of, "if you can't describe a part of it, then you must discard all of it"?

It is undisputed that access to mental health programs in the US is far more lacking than, for example, medical health programs. That up to 78% of people that do crazy things have not previously been evaluated is far from surprising... If one were to look at the statistics on people seeking evaluations / treatment, I would wager they are inline with what we see as a percentage of diagnoses to mass shootings.

So what?

You think access to mental health treatment in the US should be vastly improved? I'm sure everybody here will agree. I'm sure almost everybody on the street that you care to stop would agree.

You think that mental health care and treatment should be vastly improved? I'm sure everybody here will agree. I'm sure almost everybody on the street that you care to stop would agree.

I doubt that there is any correlation between people seeking treatment and evaluations and the percentage of diagnosis of serious mental illness to the increase in mass shootings.

Correlation is not causation.

Even if there were 100% correlation, that still would not be a reason to not enact sensible gun control legislation.
 
Wanting to shoot a bunch of people is perfectly normal. Rage, anger and desperation are normal and commonplace human emotions.

They usually pass after a fairly short time. And in the civilised world, the necessary equipment to act on this anger isn't readily available, so another outlet for it must be found. But in the USA, finding the means to act on your rage is easy. So inevitably, some do it.

Writing it off as 'mental illness' isn't helpful (unless your objective is to protect the US market for guns and ammo).

You can call it normal, or you can call it temporary insanity - but whichever it is, it is commonplace, and so the only effective way to prevent it from becoming disastrous, and limit the damage, is to limit access to the tools that enable acts of rage to rapidly lead to a high body-count.

Sure, people will still 'snap' and attack others. But fists, or even knives, don't allow them to kill the numbers of victims that shotguns, rifles, and pistols do.

It's just possible that, given huge effort and expense, you might be able to slightly reduce the incidence of such crises of rage, and thereby fractionally lower the death toll from shooting sprees. But it's demonstrably certain that with far less effort or expense, you can regulate firearms sufficiently to eliminate the vast majority of such incidents.

America isn't special - the ONLY consistent difference between the USA and the civilised world, is the US reluctance to regulate access to firearms.
 
Even if there were 100% correlation, that still would not be a reason to not enact sensible gun control legislation.

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.
 
Even if there were 100% correlation, that still would not be a reason to not enact sensible gun control legislation.

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.
The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.
 
Wanting to shoot a bunch of people is perfectly normal. Rage, anger and desperation are normal and commonplace human emotions.

They usually pass after a fairly short time. And in the civilised world, the necessary equipment to act on this anger isn't readily available, so another outlet for it must be found. But in the USA, finding the means to act on your rage is easy. So inevitably, some do it.

Writing it off as 'mental illness' isn't helpful (unless your objective is to protect the US market for guns and ammo).
.. and.. AGAIN... no one is making that argument (Strawman?). I clearly worded in one of my posts that it is HOW one deals with their emotions, not just HAVING emotions.
You can call it normal, or you can call it temporary insanity - but whichever it is, it is commonplace, and so the only effective way to prevent it from becoming disastrous, and limit the damage, is to limit access to the tools that enable acts of rage to rapidly lead to a high body-count.

I find that "solution" ridiculous. Prohibition will not solve the problem, but instead add to it, just like every other case of prohibition of a popularly desired thing throughout history. What do we call doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over again, expecting different results? Insanity.

Sure, people will still 'snap' and attack others. But fists, or even knives, don't allow them to kill the numbers of victims that shotguns, rifles, and pistols do.

It's just possible that, given huge effort and expense, you might be able to slightly reduce the incidence of such crises of rage, and thereby fractionally lower the death toll from shooting sprees. But it's demonstrably certain that with far less effort or expense, you can regulate firearms sufficiently to eliminate the vast majority of such incidents.

America isn't special - the ONLY consistent difference between the USA and the civilised world, is the US reluctance to regulate access to firearms.

I think America is quite a bit more differentiated from other countries than that.
I also am of the opinion that crazy is as crazy does... and crazy is going to do harm with or without guns. The reason you don;t hear about mass stabbings in the US (and DO hear about them in Asian and other countries) is because guns are available. Take the guns away, and we will immediately be talking about how we now have to regulate kitchen knives.

It is beyond my comprehension why anyone is so actively ignoring the actual problem. Is it too hard to invest in making people better? We have to just take things away, and then the next thing and the next thing, until finally there are no freedoms left and we STILL have crazy epople walking around doing harm in whatever way is available? that, in my opinion is just so stupid.
 
Please define 'mental illness'.

The term used was "clinical mental illness", not just "mental illness".
Clinical mental illness is well defined in the DSM-5: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-dsm-2795758

Is it your intent to lead us to the dead end path of, "if you can't describe a part of it, then you must discard all of it"?

It is undisputed that access to mental health programs in the US is far more lacking than, for example, medical health programs. That up to 78% of people that do crazy things have not previously been evaluated is far from surprising... If one were to look at the statistics on people seeking evaluations / treatment, I would wager they are inline with what we see as a percentage of diagnoses to mass shootings.
Your loose description of "crazy things" is NOT a symptom of a clinical mental illness. One, it's subjective. Who decides what is 'crazy'? And two, your decision that killing is 'crazy' doesn't default to 'they must have had an undiagnosed 'mental illness'. In fact, I would venture to say you are wrong and to continue to push that narrative does NOTHING to actually help those that really are battling mental illness and in fact, HARMS them by stigmatizing and classifying them in with racist assholes.
 
Even if there were 100% correlation, that still would not be a reason to not enact sensible gun control legislation.

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.
The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.
 
.. and.. AGAIN... no one is making that argument (Strawman?). I clearly worded in one of my posts that it is HOW one deals with their emotions, not just HAVING emotions.


I find that "solution" ridiculous. Prohibition will not solve the problem, but instead add to it, just like every other case of prohibition of a popularly desired thing throughout history. What do we call doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over again, expecting different results? Insanity.

Sure, people will still 'snap' and attack others. But fists, or even knives, don't allow them to kill the numbers of victims that shotguns, rifles, and pistols do.

It's just possible that, given huge effort and expense, you might be able to slightly reduce the incidence of such crises of rage, and thereby fractionally lower the death toll from shooting sprees. But it's demonstrably certain that with far less effort or expense, you can regulate firearms sufficiently to eliminate the vast majority of such incidents.

America isn't special - the ONLY consistent difference between the USA and the civilised world, is the US reluctance to regulate access to firearms.

I think America is quite a bit more differentiated from other countries than that.
I also am of the opinion that crazy is as crazy does... and crazy is going to do harm with or without guns. The reason you don;t hear about mass stabbings in the US (and DO hear about them in Asian and other countries) is because guns are available. Take the guns away, and we will immediately be talking about how we now have to regulate kitchen knives.

It is beyond my comprehension why anyone is so actively ignoring the actual problem. Is it too hard to invest in making people better? We have to just take things away, and then the next thing and the next thing, until finally there are no freedoms left and we STILL have crazy epople walking around doing harm in whatever way is available? that, in my opinion is just so stupid.
Nonsense. You have always and will always have people that hate and will do harm to others (isn't that the definition of war), but to try to equate guns to knives is laughable, disingenuous and outright asinine. Will people be killed by knives? Undoubtedly. Will it be to the level of guns? NO POSSIBLE WAY
 
Please define 'mental illness'.

The term used was "clinical mental illness", not just "mental illness".
Clinical mental illness is well defined in the DSM-5: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-dsm-2795758

Is it your intent to lead us to the dead end path of, "if you can't describe a part of it, then you must discard all of it"?

It is undisputed that access to mental health programs in the US is far more lacking than, for example, medical health programs. That up to 78% of people that do crazy things have not previously been evaluated is far from surprising... If one were to look at the statistics on people seeking evaluations / treatment, I would wager they are inline with what we see as a percentage of diagnoses to mass shootings.
Your loose description of "crazy things" is NOT a symptom of a clinical mental illness. One, it's subjective. Who decides what is 'crazy'? And two, your decision that killing is 'crazy' doesn't default to 'they must have had an undiagnosed 'mental illness'. In fact, I would venture to say you are wrong and to continue to push that narrative does NOTHING to actually help those that really are battling mental illness and in fact, HARMS them by stigmatizing and classifying them in with racist assholes.

Your argument here is pinned to the notion that all gun murders are racist and none are related to mental illness (and perhaps that mental illness isn't even a "thing"). I can't even... "MY" definition of "crazy"? No. That would be the mental health professionals of the world working together to make the soft science more quantitative. Try reading about it. It ain't Astrology.
 
The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.
See, exactly that... you were the first to use the word "ban" in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom