Interesting Article About Mass Shooters

[ZiprHead]

I think the news media plays a major role. We didn't used to hear about distant things nearly as much.



I'll definitely agree on the loners / social media aspect.

I think the age of gun ownership should be at least 21. While there isn't enough support to ban military grade weapons, I think it's outrageous that they are legal. Who in their right mind needs such a weapon? And please don't tell me that semi assault weapons aren't military grade weapons. With the right type of ammunition and high capacity magazines, the type of damage that can be done is exactly like that of a military weapon. Just ask an ER doctor and he will 'splain it to you.

I'm not very hopeful, but at least some people are starting to take this growing problem more seriously. I guess that's a start.

I wouldn't be opposed to an age 21 requirement.

However, there are some big differences between military weapons and civilian: Military weapons normally have select fire options that civilian weapons do not and they have better heat dissipation to handle sustained fire. "Assault weapons" are merely light hunting rifles that are built to look military.

If you use an AR 15 for hunting, you must be hunting hamburger.

 

[Patooka]

I think the news media plays a major role. We didn't used to hear about distant things nearly as much.



I'll definitely agree on the loners / social media aspect.

I think the age of gun ownership should be at least 21. While there isn't enough support to ban military grade weapons, I think it's outrageous that they are legal. Who in their right mind needs such a weapon? And please don't tell me that semi assault weapons aren't military grade weapons. With the right type of ammunition and high capacity magazines, the type of damage that can be done is exactly like that of a military weapon. Just ask an ER doctor and he will 'splain it to you.

I'm not very hopeful, but at least some people are starting to take this growing problem more seriously. I guess that's a start.

I wouldn't be opposed to an age 21 requirement.

However, there are some big differences between military weapons and civilian: Military weapons normally have select fire options that civilian weapons do not and they have better heat dissipation to handle sustained fire. "Assault weapons" are merely light hunting rifles that are built to look military.

If you use an AR 15 for hunting, you must be hunting hamburger.

You need a 20 round magazine to go after deer? Whilst we're at it, it's fucking absurd to have semi auto 12 gauge shotguns available in the civilian market. I'd even say 20 gauge.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you use an AR 15 for hunting, you must be hunting hamburger.

You need a 20 round magazine to go after deer? Whilst we're at it, it's fucking absurd to have semi auto 12 gauge shotguns available in the civilian market. I'd even say 20 gauge.

Well, to be fair, a 5.56 rifle IS pretty nice for hunting and as ironsights go, the M16/AR-15/HK416 style in a 7.62 chamber is really nice; it completely resolves the need for advanced optics at most reasonable ranges.

That said, yah, no need for semi-auto, pistol grip (a pistol grip is WORSE for hunting; it's a battlefield technology), or large magazines. And if we're talking 5.56, that's just a straight up man killer.

Apparently some dipshits don't understand the specific utility of certain weapon features.

As to the claim that select fire and heat dissipation is really significant to assault weapon function or classification, it isn't. That particular feature set (be it auto or burst) is ONLY relevant in cover fire situations when employing squad tactics, so as to keep sustained cover fire between 2-3 shooters while a second group flanks. When a single shooter is involved, the only function full auto has is wasting bullets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be opposed to an age 21 requirement.

However, there are some big differences between military weapons and civilian: Military weapons normally have select fire options that civilian weapons do not and they have better heat dissipation to handle sustained fire. "Assault weapons" are merely light hunting rifles that are built to look military.

If you use an AR 15 for hunting, you must be hunting hamburger.

Huh? Note that I described it as a light hunting rifle. Most hunting rifles shoot a bigger bullet even faster.

If you use an AR 15 for hunting, you must be hunting hamburger.

You need a 20 round magazine to go after deer? Whilst we're at it, it's fucking absurd to have semi auto 12 gauge shotguns available in the civilian market. I'd even say 20 gauge.

You don't need 20 rounds to go after deer. It won't keep you from going after deer, though, unless you're in a state that limits your magazine capacity when hunting.

 

[lpetrich]

A Common Trait Among Mass Killers: Hatred Toward Women - The New York Times

The motivations of men who commit mass shootings are often muddled, complex or unknown. But one common thread that connects many of them — other than access to powerful firearms — is a history of hating women, assaulting wives, girlfriends and female family members, or sharing misogynistic views online, researchers say.

...
Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, cited a statistic that belies the sense that mass shootings are usually random: In more than half of all mass shootings in the United States from 2009 to 2017, an intimate partner or family member of the perpetrator was among the victims.

...
“Most mass shootings are rooted in domestic violence,” Ms. Watts said. “Most mass shooters have a history of domestic or family violence in their background. It’s an important red flag.”

Then discussing incels, starting with "A professed hatred of women is frequent among suspects in the long history of mass shootings in America."

In recent years, a number of these men have identified as so-called incels, short for involuntary celibates, an online subculture of men who express rage at women for denying them sex, and who frequently fantasize about violence and celebrate mass shooters in their online discussion groups.

Special reverence is reserved on these websites for Elliot O. Rodger, who killed six people in 2014 in Isla Vista, Calif., a day after posting a video titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution.” In it, he describes himself as being tortured by sexual deprivation and promises to punish women for rejecting him.

Some mass killers have cited Elliot Rodger as an inspiration.

The next question is what sorts of interventions to do for a man like that, and the article did not get into that. But one that has been gaining ground is "red flag laws", revoking the gun rights of people with a history of being dangerous or threatening - What Are ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws, and How Do They Work? - The New York Times

 

[Elixir]

People who want to have those weapons can choose to buy them. Just because you don't want them doesn't mean anyone else wouldn't want them. You can make the same argument about anything you don't like:

"Who in their right mind would need to play video games?" Maybe not you, but others choose to play them.

"Who in their right mind would need to buy the whole blu-ray box set of Bonanza?" Maybe not you, but others choose to buy it.

Excellent. I'm off to buy some sarin gas. Buy your logic that should be completely fine.

Get me some while you are there.

And pick me up some MPAD SAMs; this is a pristine area and I'm getting damn sick of airliners fucking up my skies.

 

[ronburgundy]

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.

This one seems to be at the "no shit Sherlock" level of tautology.

"All the mass shooters we studied had the means to become mass shooters".

Meanwhile, in sports science, all the sub 10 second 100 meter sprinters we studied had the physical ability to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds.

I'm sure the rest of it is insightful though.

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

 

[ronburgundy]

• "First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. "

Here is a bit more detail on this:
"The nature of their exposure [to trauma and violence] included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying."

I don't reject that such events could impact the likelhood of violent behavior. But the specific details of these events are critical. Did it only include these things and exactly how were each of these defined? Is corporal punishment sufficient to qualify? Is seeing an act of violence once sufficient? Would death of a family member qualify? etc.
IOW, to show that this "exposure to trauma and violence" was even correlated with mass shootings you would need to take a complete list of everything they counted as such trauma and violence and show that list to a sample of random non-shooters and ask them "Did anything similar to any one of these things ever happen to you during childhood?" Only if a small minority of that sample said "yes", would there be evidence of a correlation.

This is important, because most of these events were only noted by the shooter, or their friends and family after the shooting, when asked to go on a fishing expedition to think of anything from the person's childhood that might have led them down this path.
Unless the researcher only counted events that were clearly extreme and rare in the general population, then it's likely that most people could find one such thing in their past, especially when primed and biased by trying to account for an already known violent outcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.

This one seems to be at the "no shit Sherlock" level of tautology.

"All the mass shooters we studied had the means to become mass shooters".

Meanwhile, in sports science, all the sub 10 second 100 meter sprinters we studied had the physical ability to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds.

I'm sure the rest of it is insightful though.

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

But not necessary to mass killings. Off the top of my head we have cases with knives, trucks and explosives.

 

[dismal]

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.

This one seems to be at the "no shit Sherlock" level of tautology.

"All the mass shooters we studied had the means to become mass shooters".

Meanwhile, in sports science, all the sub 10 second 100 meter sprinters we studied had the physical ability to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds.

I'm sure the rest of it is insightful though.

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

I'm not sure it's a "cause" because hundreds of millions of people have access to guns and do not commit mass shootings. Perhaps you meant to say it's a necessary element. But I hope you didn't need a "scientific study" to tell you a gun is necessary element for there to be a shooting, Captain Obvious.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

But not necessary to mass killings. Off the top of my head we have cases with knives, trucks and explosives.

Not neccessary, but a major causal factor that makes mass killings far more likely. Even in the US, knives and trucks are far far more readily available to every mass killer. Yet, in 90% of mass killings, especially of strangers rather than wife and kid type deals, the killer goes to the extra effort to obtain guns. This shows that most mass killers do not want to engage in mass killing using other methods, and therefore a good % of them would likely not even attempt mass killings without guns, and almost none that did would be as successful in killing as many people as they do.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

I'm not sure it's a "cause" because hundreds of millions of people have access to guns and do not commit mass shootings. Perhaps you meant to say it's a necessary element. But I hope you didn't need a "scientific study" to tell you a gun is necessary element for there to be a shooting, Captain Obvious.

IOW, you don't actually understand what causality means. Anything that is a neccessary element is a cause, in fact, it is by definition, a neccessary cause, just not a sufficient cause.

I don't need a study to tell me that gun access is a neccessary condition (and therefore cause) of mass shootings. But sadly virtually every single person who opposes gun control does, b/c they are too stupid to grasp this fact and the logical corollary fact than reducing gun access will necessarily reduce all forms of gun violence, and there no study that can refute this logical certainty.

 

[dismal]

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

I'm not sure it's a "cause" because hundreds of millions of people have access to guns and do not commit mass shootings. Perhaps you meant to say it's a necessary element. But I hope you didn't need a "scientific study" to tell you a gun is necessary element for there to be a shooting, Captain Obvious.

IOW, you don't actually understand what causality means. Anything that is a neccessary element is a cause, in fact, it is by definition, a neccessary cause, just not a sufficient cause.

As worldly and expert as you are in the meanings of the word "cause" I'm surprised you have not been able to observe there are people who have access to guns and it hasn't caused them to shoot people. Yet, anyway.

 

[Patooka]

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

But not necessary to mass killings. Off the top of my head we have cases with knives, trucks and explosives.

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

 

[dismal]

Your right, it as obvious to anyone with at least one neuron as the fact that all mass shooters had access to guns, and thus such access is a critical neccessary cause of all mass shootings.

But not necessary to mass killings. Off the top of my head we have cases with knives, trucks and explosives.

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

I dunno my study of mass stabbings suggests they are caused by access to knives.

Many people have knives in their kitchen!

 

[Patooka]

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

I dunno my study of mass stabbings suggests they are caused by access to knives.

Many people have knives in their kitchen!

Many mass stabbings don't lead to twenty to thirty deaths. It's amazing this has to be pointed out.

 

[dismal]

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

I dunno my study of mass stabbings suggests they are caused by access to knives.

Many people have knives in their kitchen!

Many mass stabbings don't lead to twenty to thirty deaths. It's amazing this has to be pointed out.

Well, that depends. If you define "mass stabbing" as "a stabbing that leads to 20 or more deaths" then they all do.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

I dunno my study of mass stabbings suggests they are caused by access to knives.

Many people have knives in their kitchen!

Many things beyond killing and practicing to kill can only be accomplished with knives. Many of these things are vital to human existence.

I have yet to see a gun for which the same may be said.

 

[ZiprHead]

I fixed the mis-spelling in the title. It was kinda' driving me nuts.

 

[Gun Nut]

You can perform open heart surgery with a set of steak knives and a spanner. It is in now way effective as using the proper tools. Same with mass killings. I seriously doubt there would be a rash of drive bys or stabbings with a death toll of double figures if suddenly guns were sensibly regulated.

I dunno my study of mass stabbings suggests they are caused by access to knives.

Many people have knives in their kitchen!

Many mass stabbings don't lead to twenty to thirty deaths. It's amazing this has to be pointed out.

The tens of thousands of times a gun has been picked up since I started typing this, not one of those times has anyone been shot... It's amazing this has to be pointed out.