ISTM you’re moving the goalposts away from what I was talking about. Of course being vigilant about bullying and other issues that are just part of human nature – especially juvenile human nature – is important. That’s not my argument.
My central argument, which you’re either missing or are choosing to ignore, is that in a nation flooded with guns and beset by gun violence to an extent far, far beyond the bounds of anything experienced in any other first-world democracy, there is necessarily going to be a greater degree of paranoia than in more peaceful countries. It’s already being seen, for instance, in the much heightened degree of (mostly ineffective) security around schools, or the understandable propensity of police to draw their guns at a traffic stop (something that would be almost inconceivable in most other countries). When you might get shot at any time, paranoia is the rule of the day. And, in the typical fashion of feedback loops, results in more shootings.
I’m hardly moving goalposts… I’m discussing the US Secret Service report which is precisely about helping communities build behavioral threat assessments (to be vigilant about bullying and other issues that are just part of human nature). Which report you characterized, in post #2 (I assume “This” in post #2 shares the same referent as the “Which” it quoted - the article’s summary of the USSS report), as trying “either to do nothing, or to turn the public into a mob of paranoid informers”.
But the real world is not a Twilight Zone episode.
I also note that you didn;t even do a Emily Litella about being so completely wrong about gun laws.
How can we trust your opinions that it is all guns, guns, guns, when you are so clearly unaware of what the laws are? And where you confuse a fantasy Sfy/Fy show with reality?
For the purposes of this thread, let’s focus on the Secret Service report and keep everything relevant to that.
Obviously this is going to involve some discussion of guns and gun laws, but let’s not turn this into yet another thread about gun control. We already have plenty of those. If you want to discuss the broader issue of gun control, feel free to do so in one of those threads.
Any change to reduce mass attacks will have some negatives. The profiling that that report ultimately says mostly won’t work would no doubt create endless problems for any number of innocent people. If we make it easier to remove guns from perpetrators of domestic violence, yes, some innocent people will lose their guns.
I gotta be honest, i think the constitutional protection of guns is an unfortunate anachronism in a world that doesn’t rely on militias to do squat. If we are trading off the gun rights of a few people with disgruntled spice for a few fewer murders, i think that would be a win.
I also note that a lot of the people who committed mass attacks in that study had lost their legal right to own guns, but had them anyway. Clamping down on that would also be a good thing, maybe a good thing with fewer innocent victims.
Run that by again.
We had a couple of guys with a double barreled shot gun forcing their way into neighbor’s homes. I’d like to be able to defend against that.
I think the government should recognize militias, give them basic training, which if they fail they lose the right to have assault rifles, and keep their large magazines under lock and key until the government calls out the militia. Eight round magazines are fine for any purpose except defending the state against a Russian, Chinese or Lithuanian invasion.
Given the low bar for the definition of mass shooting here in the USSS report, we get the anomaly that most of them are not “crazed loner guns down strangers” but instead drug gang warfare. That is what is pushing the total number of homicides up, not the rare but very newsworthy thing like the Monterrey Park shooting.
Most of the gang shootings involved criminals who can not own or buy guns legally anyway.
Look at @Airbeck 's cite, which has a higher threshold, and that shows that Fatal mass shootings, defined as four or more people killed by gunfire, excluding the perpetrator, account for a small percentage of firearm homicide fatalities
What we need to do, based upon the USSS report, is keep guns out of the hands of criminals- tighten up background checks and straw man sellers. or we could just get rid of the stupid “war on drugs” that cause drug gang wars.
Shootings like the Monterrey Park shooting are a huge tragedy, but there we need to focus on mental health, not gun control. Headlines make poor laws.
Two entirely different types of shootings, needs two entire different solutions.
Mass attack, mind you. The USSS report is not constrained to shootings, as pointed out by Roderick_Femm in post #3. I wouldn’t use it to draw conclusions on what drives people to commit mass shootings, specifically.
But again, we have three groups of multiple shootings: Gang wars - by far the most common, so they don’t get on the 10 o’clock news- spousal issues- and finally the very few so called “random shootings” (which often are not truly random, but the motive is often obscure to everyone but the shooter). Three or more causes, so we need more than one solution.
Also the USSS report is focused on behavioral threat assessment, which is not quite the same as preventing casualties. The numbers in the report are weighed per attack, not per casualty.
When it looked like NYC was going to get under 1000 murders, they knew what to do to get there. The police were instructed to treat domestic violence cases as priorities. Arrive quickly, remove the aggressor, search the home for guns and remove them.
It worked.
Domestic violence is a huge fraction of murders. But it doesn’t get the attention of mass shootings because people generally know whether they are at much risk of it. And those who aren’t at much risk don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it.
Yeah, first you have the drug gang shootings, then domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a 1000 times more dangerous than “mass shootings” (as we commonly think of them). But domestic violence calls are also both dangerous and frustrating to cops.