Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:32 AM
StraightTalk StraightTalk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 21
What is the real problem?

Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
  #2  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:38 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,136
Most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. If you define wanting to commit suicide as a mental health issue, then that is more the issue than mentally ill people shooting someone else.

Regards,
Shodan
  #3  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:51 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,089
If you're talking about gun violence, does blaming it on our ways of dealing with mental health issues unnecessarily stigmatize the mentally ill?
  #4  
Old 11-07-2017, 02:36 PM
StraightTalk StraightTalk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you're talking about gun violence, does blaming it on our ways of dealing with mental health issues unnecessarily stigmatize the mentally ill?
So we just ignore it?
  #5  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:07 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Which one of them is the more capable of a quick, effective solution that is easier to maintain into the future?
  #6  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:16 AM
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. If you define wanting to commit suicide as a mental health issue, then that is more the issue than mentally ill people shooting someone else.
How about the suicidal people who might not have acted on their (often drunken) impulse if they did not have the quick and easy means to do so?
  #7  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:56 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Important to not only see mental health as only a continuum. Plenty of people drop into despair and then find a way out, even hours later, often with help.

That's why the 'gun solution' is so sad. Hell of a lot more determination goes into hanging yourself, by which time you have likely regained some perspective.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #8  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:56 AM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
One point that is not raised in the media after mass shootings.

They address issues around whatever current shooting has occurred, diligently noting that screening for mental disease wouldn't have helped in this or that situation (shooter wasn't diagnosed, shooter "borrowed" guns from someone else, etc).

They don't address the issue of the shooter who acquires guns while sane, then goes off the deep end (which is my pet theory for Las Vegas shooter).

Given that our government has accepted our current chronic level of gun death, punctuated by occasional mass shootings, as the "cost" of protecting our Second Amendment rights, when combined with its laissez-faire attitude toward the public health in general (with mental health still the red-haired stepchild), I think the best you can hope for is a government program to distribute guns to every man, woman, and child in hopes of killing shooters before they wreak too much mayhem.
  #9  
Old 11-12-2017, 10:02 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 8,857
I think the real problem is gun culture and its promotion by Republicans, ever since Second Amendment rights groups were identified by Grover Norquist and his think tank as one of the special interest groups vulnerable to being coopted into their voter coalition. Guns kill their owners more than they kill anybody else, even more than self defense. The gun industry, the NRA, and the Republicans are the problem.

The Second Amendment is unique in stating its purpose. It's to maintain that militia. Supposedly an improper government can't become tyrannical over a population if the population is armed. Which was well and good when technology was similar for armies and private citizens. But what good are assault rifles in fending off a military that has ICBMs and nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines? All that is left of the Second Amendment is this shameful killing machine, political money derived from the profits it is designed to protect, and that voting block.
  #10  
Old 11-12-2017, 10:11 AM
Icarus Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Once again an argument is framed as "either/or".

I have used this response in many threads - why not both?

There is nothing inherently mutually exclusive in either of these options.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #11  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:53 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
How about the suicidal people who might not have acted on their (often drunken) impulse if they did not have the quick and easy means to do so?
So they jump in front of train, causing the engineers to have trauma and nitemares all his life. So they drive into oncoming traffic, taking several others with them. Etc, etc.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #12  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:04 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So they jump in front of train, causing the engineers to have trauma and nitemares all his life. So they drive into oncoming traffic, taking several others with them. Etc, etc.
Is that what happens in countries where guns are not readily available? Terrible epidemic of PTSD among train engineers in France and the UK then?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #13  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:11 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So they jump in front of train, causing the engineers to have trauma and nitemares all his life. So they drive into oncoming traffic, taking several others with them. Etc, etc.
I don't think you're getting it.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #14  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:36 PM
igor frankensteen igor frankensteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Your question is in error, because you ask as though these are answers or concerns about a SINGLE PROBLEM.

There are TWO problems, which in the event, have some overlap.

It's similar in a way to the problem of killings using vehicles. There is a problem of allowing too easy access of unqualified or incompetent people to powerful vehicles, AND there are problems with crazy people getting behind the wheel.

Only one thing is certain: anyone who proclaims that we should only address ONE of the problems, is by that decision, on the side of the murderers.
  #15  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:40 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. If you define wanting to commit suicide as a mental health issue, then that is more the issue than mentally ill people shooting someone else.
This is true and certainly getting more help to those suffering from depression is a worthwhile effort. We will never stop all suicides but we can try harder in this arena I think.

That said I think when it comes to guns people worry more about someone else shooting them than shooting themself (theirself?). As such others with guns is likely to get more attention as a political matter.
  #16  
Old 11-12-2017, 02:25 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Is that what happens in countries where guns are not readily available? Terrible epidemic of PTSD among train engineers in France and the UK then?
I dont know, why not ask the Belgians, the Japanese, Swedish, Finns, South Korea etc, all of whom have a higher suicide rate than the USA? In Japan, at least it certainly isnt availability of guns.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #17  
Old 11-12-2017, 02:42 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont know, why not ask the Belgians, the Japanese, Swedish, Finns, South Korea etc, all of whom have a higher suicide rate than the USA? In Japan, at least it certainly isnt availability of guns.
YOU implied that lack of guns makes for a more traumatized society due to the remaining public options left to the person wishing to take his or her life. So why don't YOU provide the evidence for that argument? I'll wait.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #18  
Old 11-12-2017, 02:42 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont know, why not ask the Belgians, the Japanese, Swedish, Finns, South Korea etc, all of whom have a higher suicide rate than the USA? In Japan, at least it certainly isnt availability of guns.
I think we have two things at work here.

1) Why do people commit suicide? There are many reasons and the culture you come from can play a big factor. This has nothing to do with the means of suicide and everything to do with why people choose suicide. For instance in the US men are more than three times as likely to die from suicide as women.

2) The means of suicide can have an effect. Some means of suicide are a more reliably lethal than others. Guns being near the top of the list. For those who choose suicide, but might not want to die given a further chance at life, the reliably lethal means of suicide are a problem. The person will (probably) not get a second chance at life. IIRC men are more "successful" at committing suicide in the US than women since they more often choose the more reliably lethal means of suicide.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 11-12-2017 at 02:47 PM.
  #19  
Old 11-12-2017, 03:19 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
There's a lot of complicated questions wrapped up in that apparently simple one.

Mental health is an ill-defined status, and furthermore, is subject to unpredictable transient influences. Even someone who can be assessed as the epitome of mental stability can crack under the influence of sufficient adverse events and pressures:
"If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. "This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
For that reason alone, control of basically unregulated gun proliferation can be judged to be a higher priority in controlling gun violence than mental health issues, although certainly preventing access to guns by those who are clearly chronically mentally ill is crucial. But when guns are about as ubiquitous as chocolate bars, it's almost impossible to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring them just as easily, or acquisition by individuals temporarily in an emotionally altered state of mind, whether through theft, private sales, or -- as in the case of the Newtown shooter -- just given them by his mother, because guns are so ingrained in the culture they're regarded as patriotic virtues.

The other data point on this is that, sadly, mental health issues aren't treated much more effectively in other countries than they are in the US, in part because they can be hard to detect and diagnose, and traditionally have not been regarded as a serious medical problem except in the most extreme cases. And yet, none of those countries -- not one -- has anywhere near the rate of gun violence as the US. The difference is gun regulation, gun culture, and the extent of general gun availability, which tends to be defined by need and by function, not as some cultural icon or intrinsic right.

ETA: On the issue of gun suicide, someone mentioned in another thread that it's quite different in terms of potential remedies than gun homicides. True, suicides, homicides, and gun accidents are all different. But what they all have in common is "things that were enabled by guns, and either would not have happened or would have happened less frequently and with much lower incidence of lethal consequences if guns had not been involved". So they do deserve to be lumped together, statistically, in assessing gun violence overall.

Last edited by wolfpup; 11-12-2017 at 03:24 PM.
  #20  
Old 11-12-2017, 03:41 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 146
It turns out the ready availability of guns IS a factor in suicides:

Quote:
[W]hile some people feeling suicidal impulses will choose another method if a gun is not at hand, public health researchers cite two reasons guns are particularly dangerous: 1) Guns are more lethal than most other methods people try, so someone who attempts suicide another way is more likely to survive; 2) Studies suggest that suicide attempts often occur shortly after people decide to kill themselves, so people with deadly means at hand when the impulse strikes are more likely to use them than those who have to wait or plan.

That means that strategies that make suicide more inconvenient or difficult can save lives. Guns, when they are in the home, can make self-harm both easy and deadly.

There are a few classic studies that look at these factors. One is historical: In England in the first half of the 20th century, many people died after intentionally inhaling lethal fumes in coal gas ovens. When oven technology changed to less dangerous natural gas, fewer people had an easy means of suicide in their home. Only some people found another suicide method, and the suicide rate fell substantially.

Another occurred in Israel, where members of the military had a high suicide rate. In 2006, the army stopped letting soldiers take their service weapons home on weekends. The suicide rate fell there, too, by 40 percent.
Cite
  #21  
Old 11-12-2017, 04:23 PM
crucible crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
I think the real problem is gun culture and its promotion by Republicans, ever since Second Amendment rights groups were identified by Grover Norquist and his think tank as one of the special interest groups vulnerable to being coopted into their voter coalition. Guns kill their owners more than they kill anybody else, even more than self defense. The gun industry, the NRA, and the Republicans are the problem.

The Second Amendment is unique in stating its purpose. It's to maintain that militia. Supposedly an improper government can't become tyrannical over a population if the population is armed. Which was well and good when technology was similar for armies and private citizens. But what good are assault rifles in fending off a military that has ICBMs and nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines? All that is left of the Second Amendment is this shameful killing machine, political money derived from the profits it is designed to protect, and that voting block.
agreed. REmember, the army, more or less, was the armed citizenry, called out to defend the country from threats, often using their own weapons, balls and powder. Having, even requiring, citizens to have weapons was very reasonable. Guns also were far more necessary for acquiring food and protecting against wild animals than today. The Founders could not have anticipated the development of weaponry and the nature of our modern 'civilized' way of living. We don't need weapons in our homes if no one has weapons. By 2045, another million Americans will have been killed by guns. We don't seem to realize how many more Americans die by domestic violence than by 'war'.
  #22  
Old 11-12-2017, 04:55 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
I'd say that, realistically, the problem is the Nirvana Fallacy.

It's like people complaining about us losing 4 soldiers in battle, today, when in the 1940s we were losing reasonable chunks of the population.

Murder is down. Mental illness is down. The world is becoming a better place.

Guns are a right because they're a counter to genocide and tyranny, and those are both worse things than the occasional mass shooting by a lone nutball. Despite the media press, you're more likely to be killed by a cow.

If people really wanted to save lives from guns, they'd be looking at adding childproof guards to the things, not trying to ban them. They're reacting to the fact that the world isn't perfect and the media is telling them to be angry and indignant. None of this has anything to do with reason, numbers, or reality.

There is no perfect solution. Every choice you make will have negative consequences that mean death, disease, tragedy, and horror. Pretending like that's not the case is just being dishonest, because it's funner to pretend like banning guns will save lives and feel like you're accomplishing something.

Tell people to drive five miles per hour slower if you want to save thousands of lives every year.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-12-2017 at 04:58 PM.
  #23  
Old 11-12-2017, 05:27 PM
ThisIsTheEnd ThisIsTheEnd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Despite the media press, you're more likely to be killed by a cow.
I fuckin' KNEW it!
  #24  
Old 11-12-2017, 10:05 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
It turns out the ready availability of guns IS a factor in suicides:



Cite
It is not nearly that simple unfortunately.

First a few points.

1) Suicide in the US is primarily an epidemic among Caucasians, American Indian, or Alaskan Native men; white men are about 7 out of 10 suicides. In the US the rates of mortality in white men haven't even come close to matching other developed nations, and in fact mortality rates are rising. This is not just due to deaths from rising rates of drug overdoses, suicides and chronic alcoholism.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...casedeaton.pdf

2) Coal gas ovens killed by CO poisoning, and was fairly "low trauma" from the perspective of someone idealizing suicide. With high CO sources, a person who may have pointed a gun at their head but not pulled the trigger would have resulted in a fatality with coal gas. Basically if you put your head in the oven for 5 minutes and decided to halt the attempt it was already too late. Even though you wouldn't see the initial symptoms for 10-20min later you were still going to be dead in another 2.

Obviously the chosen method of attempted death matters. Hangings and firearms are clearly more effective tools of suicide, but the damages are much more difficult to reverse in the case of coal gas.

3) The above article oversimplifies the importance of intent while ignoring the impact of that intent on finding alternative methods. If you look at "Beck's suicidal intention scale" and consider that an attempt with coal gas requires a lower score than firearms it will demonstrate this.
9. Alleged purpose of attempt
1. To manipulate environment, get attention, get revenge
2. Components of above and below
3. To escape, surcease, solve problems
10. Expectations of fatality
1. Thought that death was unlikely
2. Thought that death was possible but not probable
3. Thought that death was probable or certain
11. Conception of method's lethality
1. Did less to self than s/he thought would be lethal
2. Wasn't sure if what s/he did would be lethal
3. Equaled or exceeded what s/he thought would be lethal
12. Seriousness of attempt
1. Did no seriously attempt to end life
2. Uncertain about seriousness to end life
3. Seriously attempted to end life
13. Attitude toward living/dying
1. Did not want to die
2. Components of above and below
3. Wanted to die
While outcome are not the best measure of intent, intention does have a tendency to drive method selection. Note that women in the US tend to have more attempts but less completions, and while not fully understood the evidence points to this being related to cultural gender norms.

Quote:
"Males who opt to behave according to traditional masculinity are not able to tolerate loss of mastery and control. Thus, suicide as a stress response is a last documentation of self-control to ultimatively change the situation."

"As a number of studies in the U. S. have shown, surviving a suicidal act is culturally perceived as an inappropriate behaviour for males."



Quote:
"Findings support that men may be at greater risk for death by suicide because they are socialized to adhere to masculine gender norms that encourage them to engage in painful and provocative life events and, as a result, experience greater acquired capability"



Male Gender Role Stressor Inventory


While reducing access to firearms will most likely reduce the number of successful suicides, it is not as clear cut as some articles make it out to be.
Untreated mental illness
Alchohol abuse
Opioid epidemic and overdose
Men's reluctance to reach out for help.
Many of these issue will require cultural changes like reframing help-seeking as masculine, and modifying other behaviors which reduce connectedness or perceived values.

I am not sure how move forward with this, but the increases in male mass shootings, suicides, mortality etc... are probably also connected to the rise of the alt-right and other groups.

Unfortunately, as the concept of the cost of the patriarchy on men is most likely lost for several decades the most realistic tool for change as probably been lost.

Social isolation is a strong predictor of the rates of violence, and while firearms may be one of many proximal risk factors. Usually, people who attempt suicide have a combination of the many possible distal and proximal suicide risk factors.

I do need to call out the difference between proximal and distal risks compared to proximate causes as the meaning seems to be tripping up a lot of people making cites or reporting on them in articles.

While the proximal risk factors may be the final straw, the event is built off of years of development, including distal risk factors.

Rarely would a firearm be considered a proximate cause, which will typically carry a causal definition. (the source of the "guns don't kill people" retort)
Unfortunately, outside of our own personal efforts to help improve this I fear that the isolationist policies and increasing political divides will not provide an opportunity to change the course of these trends anytime soon. Especially as mental health is once again being leveraged as a pejorative term on both sides.

That said the core problems are cultural.

Last edited by rat avatar; 11-12-2017 at 10:06 PM.
  #25  
Old 11-13-2017, 06:25 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsTheEnd View Post
I fuckin' KNEW it!
Well, somewhere between bees and cows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c529b8a02ddc
  #26  
Old 11-13-2017, 06:55 AM
ThisIsTheEnd ThisIsTheEnd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Well, somewhere between bees and cows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c529b8a02ddc
Well. When you say you're more likely to be killed by a cow than in a mass shooting, how are you calculating the probability?

I mean if you want to go back hundreds of years to when guns were invented and include the whole world, then cows I'm sure are ahead.

Since I live in the US I don't care about pissed off cows elsewhere, I'd say the gun nuts have the edge over cows at least recently. The 3 biggest ones alone in the last 18 months total 133, which is about 6 years' worth of US cow. Seems to be becoming more common too. Cows are gonna have to step up their game or else they're gonna end up like MySpace.
  #27  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:13 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,185
With regards to mass murders, I think the issue is the availability of guns. If you put many restrictions on guns, then in order to commit a mass murder with guns you not only have to be willing to do so but be connected enough to buy on the underground market or to jump through the bureaucratic hoops, and from looking at other country's lone-nut-style mass murders, the number of people who can satisfy both criteria is small.

Others may argue that this reduction in mass gun violence is not worth whatever might have to be given up for it but that's a separate issue. It seems pretty clear to me that gun control = less lone nut mass murder casualties.
  #28  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:41 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsTheEnd View Post
Well. When you say you're more likely to be killed by a cow than in a mass shooting, how are you calculating the probability?

I mean if you want to go back hundreds of years to when guns were invented and include the whole world, then cows I'm sure are ahead.

Since I live in the US I don't care about pissed off cows elsewhere, I'd say the gun nuts have the edge over cows at least recently. The 3 biggest ones alone in the last 18 months total 133, which is about 6 years' worth of US cow. Seems to be becoming more common too. Cows are gonna have to step up their game or else they're gonna end up like MySpace.
Based on these numbers, the average number of people murdered by gun by a homocidal maniac, per year, is about 37. (9,915 victims over a 115 year period, with 43% dying by gun.)

And I would suggest that if that number is going up, it's either due to ISIS actively scouring the internet for crazy people and talking them into it or increased media coverage, helping to make it a bigger, cooler way for a crazy egotist to make a big splash.

I would also note that the population was a lot smaller 115 years ago, so to hit 37 a year is actually fairly impressive when you consider the curve of population growth. It makes me think that the number, possibly, isn't going up as a per capita calculation.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-13-2017 at 07:45 AM.
  #29  
Old 11-13-2017, 08:50 AM
Backcountry Medic Backcountry Medic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 186
The link above is regarding a study done on 115 years of serial killers. It has almost nothing to add to the discussion of being killed by random acts of gun violence performed by spree killers. While I will readily admit that the statistical likelihood of a single person being killed in one of these acts is vanishingly small, it is disingenuous to argue they pose less of a risk than "cows". Sure, while overall more people were killed by cows than spree killers in the entirety of the 20th century, here in the real world over the last decade we have seen the threat posed to the average citizen by cows fall to an all time low while the frequency and severity of spree shootings are increasing every year.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  #30  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:34 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backcountry Medic View Post
The link above is regarding a study done on 115 years of serial killers. It has almost nothing to add to the discussion of being killed by random acts of gun violence performed by spree killers. While I will readily admit that the statistical likelihood of a single person being killed in one of these acts is vanishingly small, it is disingenuous to argue they pose less of a risk than "cows". Sure, while overall more people were killed by cows than spree killers in the entirety of the 20th century, here in the real world over the last decade we have seen the threat posed to the average citizen by cows fall to an all time low while the frequency and severity of spree shootings are increasing every year.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
So, my data is wrong, but probably not wrong to any large amount nor in any significant way - to paraphrase?

I missed that the definition of killer for the purpose of the article excluded people who killed all their victims in a single go. But the definition is far more inclusive than the popular definition of "serial killer", as evinced by the high rate of gun usage.

But here's an article on "rampage killers" that goes back to 1863:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ers_(Americas)

I don't currently have the time to add up the row, but it looks to me like the yearly average would be less than 10.

Are the numbers going up? Well in 1964, a man killed 43 people. A few years before that, there's a 10, and a 13 a few before that. But until that point, it was all just single digits. Clearly, everything was on the upswing! ...Except then it's all single digits again for 20 years.

Simply put: The numbers are too small and random to make any sort of inference. More than that, they're too small for us to even really bother debating.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-13-2017 at 10:36 AM.
  #31  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:25 PM
Grey Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'd say that, realistically, the problem is the Nirvana Fallacy.
Can it really be a Nirvana fallacy when other countries actual show that the end state is possible?
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #32  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:25 PM
Backcountry Medic Backcountry Medic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
So, my data is wrong, but probably not wrong to any large amount nor in any significant way - to paraphrase?
No, it's the completely wrong data in a very significant way for the theory that you posed. Serial killers are nothing like the threat posed by spree killers, ("A lone nut with a gun" is the phrase I think you used). This is a little dated (2013) but you are welcome to present any evidence that things have gotten any better since then if you can find it.

2013 FBI Active Shooter Study:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014...and-2013<br />

This is an article that has a broader overview of mass shooter incidents and references for much more data showing these incidents are increasing in frequency.
https://journalistsresource.org/stud...search-roundup

If you have some evidence that these studies lack statistical rigor to support these claims, please produce it. Also please show us the trends for bovine-cide over the last couple decades so we can see how they compare.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  #33  
Old 11-13-2017, 03:57 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Can it really be a Nirvana fallacy when other countries actual show that the end state is possible?
Which country has no crazy people killing people?
  #34  
Old 11-13-2017, 04:03 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backcountry Medic View Post
No, it's the completely wrong data in a very significant way for the theory that you posed. Serial killers are nothing like the threat posed by spree killers, ("A lone nut with a gun" is the phrase I think you used). This is a little dated (2013) but you are welcome to present any evidence that things have gotten any better since then if you can find it.

2013 FBI Active Shooter Study:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014...and-2013<br />

This is an article that has a broader overview of mass shooter incidents and references for much more data showing these incidents are increasing in frequency.
https://journalistsresource.org/stud...search-roundup

If you have some evidence that these studies lack statistical rigor to support these claims, please produce it. Also please show us the trends for bovine-cide over the last couple decades so we can see how they compare.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Your cites would seem to support the supposition (based on the "spike" it mentions) that the cause would be ISIS, as I had proposed.

But let's say that you quadruple the average number of spree shooter deaths per year, compared to the historical average. Well so, you've gone from ~10 deaths per year to ~40 deaths per year.

OH

MY

GOD

!!!

Is this really the biggest issue on the table? Are you really certain that there aren't bigger fish to fry?
  #35  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:29 AM
UY Scuti UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 731
I've always found this picture relevant: gun ownership by country.
  #36  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:35 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
Supposedly an improper government can't become tyrannical over a population if the population is armed.
How do those who think their Constitution so defective that it could produce such a government square that with the notion that the Second Amendment to it cannot possibly be defective? If the one is necessary because of the potential defects of the other, isn't that an argument for dealing with those defects first?
  #37  
Old 11-14-2017, 10:12 AM
Backcountry Medic Backcountry Medic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Your cites would seem to support the supposition (based on the "spike" it mentions) that the cause would be ISIS, as I had proposed.
I literally cannot find the word "spike" in either link. Can you please show what you are talking about? Both speak about a significant and ongoing rise over the last 14 years. These arent ISIS deep cover agents. If you look up each event most of the guns are bought legally. It's almost entirely men, mostly young, angry and isolated. Often there were signs beforehand that maybe giving them weapons was a bad idea.

The last three killers on the FBI report; Alan Frazier, 41 / Karl Pierson, 18 / Paul Ciancia, 23. People mad at their bosses, wives or families who had a quick and easy way to kill 2, 5 or 9 people.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
  #38  
Old 11-15-2017, 11:12 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 8,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
How do those who think their Constitution so defective that it could produce such a government square that with the notion that the Second Amendment to it cannot possibly be defective? If the one is necessary because of the potential defects of the other, isn't that an argument for dealing with those defects first?
Beats me! Of course that's an argument for dealing with the defects first!

But I'm the wrong person to ask; I think the Second Amendment has been a disaster for at least half a century.
  #39  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:21 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by UY Scuti View Post
I've always found this picture relevant: gun ownership by country.
I've always found the "guns per 100 people" metric to be a dumb one. Far more relevant and useful would be the % of households with guns.
  #40  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:39 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightTalk View Post
Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?

I'm sure the answer is "both" but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Gun control is not a problem. Never has been, never will be. It's a strawman issue raised by liberals to increase the reach of Big Government.

If "weapon" control were truly an issue, then anything that could be used as a club or that has a sharp side or pointy end would be in the control list. Far more people have been killed with clubs and knives than by firearms.
  #41  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:41 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Gun control is not a problem. Never has been, never will be. It's a strawman issue raised by liberals to increase the reach of Big Government.

If "weapon" control were truly an issue, then anything that could be used as a club or that has a sharp side or pointy end would be in the control list. Far more people have been killed with clubs and knives than by firearms.
While the merits of gun control can be debated, I don't think any of the advocates are doing it "to increase the reach of Big Government." That's crazy talk.
  #42  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:55 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon
How do those who think their Constitution so defective that it could produce such a government square that with the notion that the Second Amendment to it cannot possibly be defective?
The Founding Fathers did not think it was impossible that any of the Constitution was defective. If they did, they would not have provided for a process to amend it.
Quote:
If the one is necessary because of the potential defects of the other, isn't that an argument for dealing with those defects first?
Of course you should deal with the defects, or attempt to, without shooting anyone. Hence the guarantee of the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Second Amendment is there, in part, for when the government ignores your petition, even though you are in the majority. Or at least to raise the opportunity costs of oppression - make it harder, more expensive, and harder to sweep under the rug.

Regards,
Shodan
  #43  
Old 11-15-2017, 02:04 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
he Second Amendment is there, in part, for when the government ignores your petition, even though you are in the majority. Or at least to raise the opportunity costs of oppression - make it harder, more expensive, and harder to sweep under the rug.
That statement is not supported by history or even the rest of the Constitution. Rather, the military is established, in part, to suppress insurrections by people who are disgruntled with their failures in the democratic process. Those who think the system just stinks and needs replacing, if they do indeed have the majority, can call for a convention and do just that.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 11-15-2017 at 02:05 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017