3747

Si.

And we’re very bad about establishing prevalence. Are these cases actually common, or is the media simply highlighting isolated cases?

I would agree with the criticisms of modernity though. So much of what we did in the name of progress… Just a tragedy.

3748

I’m pretty sure we can all agree that moar guns would not have prevented this.

3749

Per this article, there is now a mass-shooting in America just about every day:

mass%20shootings%20calendar.png549×672

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized President Barack Obama for “trying to score cheap political points” when the president mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings,

3750

I think it’s useful to avoid emotional rhetoric and look at our terms and definitions.

What is a mass shooting? How do we define it? And does the term capture something useful? Let’s say that it defines a shooting where more than three are injured… And let’s compare a school shooting and a failed bank robbery with more than three were injured in both cases. They are both mass shootings, but we would approach prevention in very different ways for each.

Let’s assume they are a discrete phenomenon that share certain unique traits though. While the graphic suggests that they are common, how does their frequency compare to historical data? National crime stats are trending down across the board, and have so for some time. Would one a day, if you adjust for population increases, be more or less than 30 years ago? Without historical data I can’t determine if one a day represents a high or low rate of vicitimization.

And perhaps it is worse, but then again perhaps it isn’t. Either way, we have homework to do before we make policy prescriptions.

3751

“Mass shooting” is like “binge drinking.”

3752

Per the cited data source:

It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event.

Here at GrC, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, “shooting” means “people shot”.

So 4 or more shot at a single event = a Mass Shooting for purposes of the graphic.

3753

Speaking just for myself, this is true.

3754

Ugh. Would ‘more guns’ have prevented this? I don’t think so. This cowardly pussy who had convinced himself that he was a victim of ‘the man’ rolled up on 3 unsuspecting people, 2 of the 3 being women, in the early morning with the intention to kill them. Having a gun made it easier for him to do what he did.

Would more guns in the hands of normal people have made this situation worse? Absolutely not.

3755

Don’t they always? And anybody who walks up and shoots an unarmed person from behind is by definition a cowardly asshole
.

3756

My father in law just emailed me this article:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-united-states-mass-shooting-20150824-story.html

No links to the source paper and it seems a bit more like a link-bait opinion article on the back of the most recent event, rather than a well constructed piece in and of itself. It strikes me as a little premature to just attribute (some) explanation of high mass shooting rate in the US to general delusions of grandeur based on ingrained concepts of American exceptionalism, without proper examination of many, many potential contributing factors. Or rather, taking all those other factors and claiming they all roll up to ‘American exceptionalism’ is stupidly reductive. Mental illness and general firearm availability is called out, but seems brushed aside to push this article’s agenda. Again, with no source linked to examine the cited paper’s methodology or actual conclusions.

Just having trouble forming a response to him as to why I think the article is flawed. Perhaps I just did so above.

3757

By the way, James Holmes, the Colorado theater shooter, got 12 life sentences (one for each person killed) plus 3,318 years. It’s the fourth longest sentence in US history.

3758

I think it’s good that he’s going to be in prison for life. But the “no sympathy” part is disappointing. He’s clearly a sick man. Even if the jury found that the sickness did not legally make him not guilty, this is not a man who killed for greed or hate.

I didn’t follow the trial close enough: what motive did the prosecutors show that wasn’t just crazy delusions?

3759

In the US there’s a difference between mentally ill and being declared legally mentally incompetent/insane. He’s clearly mentally ill. He wasn’t found to be legally insane.

And while two psychiatrists called by the defense said that Holmes did lack the mental capacity to tell right from wrong, two other court-appointed psychiatrists stated that, while Holmes had severe mental illness and schizophrenia, this did not amount to legal insanity when he carried out his rampage.

[…]

In Colorado, when an insanity plea is made, the defendant is presumed insane and the prosecution is tasked with proving otherwise. This differs from state to state, as do the rules governing an insanity defense. In some states, such a defense is not permitted at all — Kansas, Montana, Idaho and Utah would not have even given Holmes the option.

So the motive was that he was a dangerous psychopath that wanted to emulate The Joker, but that wasn’t enough to be found legally insane.

3760

Damn, I could not find the original paper anywhere. I do agree with you the link to American exceptionalism is flawed, but apparently that’s not the focus of the paper (not the article), which seems to be mainly (reading other reports on the same paper) a quantitative analysis of mass shootings across countries.

Main takeaway of the analysis of the data, by the author of the paper:

My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nation’s civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters

3761

What does QT3 think about these people that like to “exercise their rights” to carrying around a loaded rifle in public and scaring everyone? There’s entire youtube channels dedicated to walking around with rifles purely to troll policemen.





From what I see, these mentally deranged people are the reason you can’t stop a disgruntled employee walking into the office and mowing everyone down.

3762

Personally, my view on those guys is that being within your legal rights doesn’t preclude you from being an asshole.

3763

Meh. I’m skeptical about shock-value education initiatives in general, so I don’t really care one way or the other.

Your threat concern is valid these days when you don’t know who will snap, but the precise opportunity cost you describe seems so unlikely and superficial that it’s absurd.

3764

Basically this. They aren’t doing their cause or anyone else any favors. You already have open carry, all you can hope to do at this point is scare enough people into taking it away from you. It’s just a matter of time before it happens if they keep it up. Terrifying people who disagree with you and looking like a nutjob isn’t a very effective method of persuasion. Not that they have anyone to persuade really, they already have all the rights they want, which makes the entire exercise futile at best and counter-productive at worst.

3765

Yeah its dumb. I am probably one of the biggest pro gun guys on this board and I would never do something like that, or recommend anyone else do it. Its just a losing proposition in terms of trying to win people over to our side. Sort of like a gay pride parade full of topless dudes sporting ass-less chaps.

3766

I prefer open carry, that way I can be as far away from the crazy people as possible.