Mass shootings

[R.W.Dale]

That is never going to happen. Calm down.

I'm as calm, cold and as cynical about it as I can be.

Are you keeping an eye on the same post 911 government as I am?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Was there a rash of disappearances after the Lindbergh Kidnapping? I honestly don't know, but if there was ever an impact due to obsessive media coverage to be found, that would be it; it was practically the first one of these 'celebrity tragedy' stories that seem to dominate news cycles any more.

Actually, kidnappings were fairly common at that time.

But the Lindberg kidnapping (and most kidnappings of that era) was not the work of a deranged person looking for fame or revenge. It was a coldly-calculated crime committed for money.

And that's a big difference.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Has anyone talked to surviving mass shooting perpetrators and asked if their goal is actually to become famous and immortal? Or is this just a straw argument to put blame somewhere? Has anyone asked the Aurora, CO shooter? Sounds like we're trying to form a rational framework around irrational people, and that doesn't always work. I doubt every single mass killer did it for fame and infamy.

It's one thing if you're reporting facts of a hot story. It's another thing if you're CNN and you spend a month milking a missing plane and talking about black holes and aliens.

My problem with media saturation isn't that it might influence nutty people (whereby ANYTHING might trigger them) but that perpetual saturation of rare events like this give people the impression crime is on the rise (it isn't). Now people think a school shooting is going to happen on every block and a baby rapist hides behind every bush because such emotionally traumatic stories are stretched out disproportionately to how frequent they actually occur.

While some rally to nerf the mention the name of the killers in these events, many people are going to want to know the killer's name and how they grew up, what happened to them, their hobbies and plans. Many people are morbidly fascinated with killers and folks with a screw loose because it's so far outside their realm of personal experience. The entire genre of crime dramas (novels, movies, TV series) and non-fiction books on serial killers and nutty people is a huge, profitable industry. You're not going to be able to bottle that underlying fascination.

 

[ohbythebay]

R.W Dale is right

That's all it will take...and don't say "Never going to happen". We have seen it first hand and it changed life as we know it.

9/11. A horrific act against the United States...and our elected officials jumped on the bandwagon to take away our rights - all in the name of stopping terrorist. Patriot act ? Yeah...uh huh...

So you get a horrific crime (worse than Sandy Hook) or a string of them...what do you think the shouts will be ?

IT CAN AND HAS HAPPENED

 

[Agsalaska]

It is a mental health issue. We are way too lenient today. I know its not popular, but guys like the cali guy last week and the newtown giy laat year used to be locked up in insane asylums. Now we do everything we can to keep them in society. Sometimes it works. And it may ne the right thinh to do. But there are consequences.

 

[tacxted]

Sentryau2, while I share your sentiment its not what the media decides to report, its how they decide to report it. As long as the media continues to glorify or other wise convey a sense of popularity about mass shootings and horrible deeds, bad guys will forever want their time in the light. And while they glorify bad deeds they might as well throw "evil guns" into the mix.

 

[Art Eatman]

Either stick with the media thing as the thread subject or take it to PM/email to get all snarky and squabbly.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Back on topic. I would like to see at least some token investigation made to the allegation that there are a class of medications that tie all these violent acts together. But even so like it or not the truth is that in part thanks to the media the general public and .gov will be and is all too eager to take actions against the murder instruments used first and then ask the other questions later so really when you get right down to it from our POV the "why" is irrelevant. This phenomena just needs to be stopped PERIOD.

We are betwixt the proverbial PR rock an a hard place unfortunately with really no good ways to sway public opinion as either....

A- we take the doomed position of "the guns are no big deal" after quite literally a bunch of kids are murdered. Yeah that'll win us some hearts and minds.

Or

B- we point fingers at a different constitutional amendment and and take the "it's not our problem" line. As if that'll work either.


We desperately need a position "C" and we need to figure out what it is FAST because at best the public merely views us as obstructionists after each of these killings when we desperately need to be viewed as part of the solution.

 

[Bruno2]

This doesn't address the weapons or use thereof, just the responsibility of the press (no need for legislation, they need to self-regulate as a social and public responsibility IMO).

I would like to see some states honor and hear civil lawsuits against media outlets for over publicizing these shootings. I bet that the first couple that have several multi million dollar judgments awarded will bring that to a screeching halt! No legislation needed, just a jury willing to recognize the problems they are perpetuating.Let that be a trend after mass shootings.

 

[alsaqr]

I would like to see some states honor and hear civil lawsuits against media outlets for over publicizing these shootings.

Sue media outlets for "over publicizing these shootings". On what grounds? Suing the media for reporting the news will not get it.

Not surprisingly, the guy who shot four students in Seattle, WA state has "mental problems". He was also obsessed with the Columbine shootings :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-name-suspect-in-seattle-college-shooting/

 

[tuj]

Quote:"We need a legally armed non LEO stepping in and ending one of these mass shootings one day IMO."

We did.

Clackamas.

It is debatable if Clackamas was actually stopped by the CCW holder Nick Meli. Mr. Meli did not shoot for fear of a bystander behind the shooter, the proper thing to do. However the presence of another armed adversary may have contributed to Robert's decision to commit suicide at that point, or it may have been because his AR jammed.

Also, mental health checks aren't going to help. At Clackamas, the AR was stolen. Same with Sandy Hook.

Limiting handgun purchases to 1 a month won't help: VA already had that law in place when the Virginia Tech shootings happened.

 

[R.W.Dale]

It is debatable if Clackamas was actually stopped by the CCW holder Nick Meli. Mr. Meli did not shoot for fear of a bystander behind the shooter, the proper thing to do. However the presence of another armed adversary may have contributed to Robert's decision to commit suicide at that point, or it may have been because his AR jammed.



Also, mental health checks aren't going to help. At Clackamas, the AR was stolen. Same with Sandy Hook.



Limiting handgun purchases to 1 a month won't help: VA already had that law in place when the Virginia Tech shootings happened.

Here's the problem we're in

What will or won't ACTUALLY help is totally and utterly unrelated to what the public will demand be done about these shootings if they continue and WHEN the next sandy hook occurs.

We've been doing so well in the courts and at the ballot box for so many years now we as gun owners have started feeling secure TOO secure. These highly publicized killings are the most likely vehicle to see all those successes undone.

 

[Jlr2267]

I would like to see some states honor and hear civil lawsuits against media outlets for over publicizing these shootings. I bet that the first couple that have several multi million dollar judgments awarded will bring that to a screeching halt! No legislation needed, just a jury willing to recognize the problems they are perpetuating.Let that be a trend after mass shootings.

You want to sue the media for exercising free speech?...WOW!

 

[Tirod]

We are going to have to do something, we cannot continue to ignore these incidents.

The main issues with shooters that have committed acts, and us, is that they did it, and we just haven't yet.

We both have access to firearms. Guilty.
We both state to our friends and in public we know how to use them. Guilty.
We both suffer the pains in life and can very well be brought to a sense of desperation. "We are going to have to do something, we cannot continue to ignore those incidents."

Based on the worst case scenario of a third party hired to incarcerate potential killers, and the bureaucracy that would reward them with pay and incentives, there's no reason to assume they won't come after YOU.

That is the very real unintended consequence we have already seen acted out by the government in various situations under the cover of trying to prevent violence - house to house searches in New Orleans, and recent laws in CO, NY, and CT. Many politicians now believe they are charged with making the people safe against themselves, and enforcing it.

There's no distinct legally binding factor that makes them guilty before they act - or us. To prevent them acting out, we have to incarcerate anybody who may possess firearms - or remove them from society.

That usually turns out badly. We not only know it, people and their offspring who emigrated to this land over 250 years ago fought in a campaign for independence based on exactly that same problem - an overbearing government who restricted citizen's rights for their "best interest." Meaning, the person in control and to his benefit.

No, what WE need to do is accept that further restrictions on our liberties is not the answer. Bluntly, for every new restriction imposed by a government, there is another compelling reason for someone to resist. And it usually boils down to overthrowing the government. It's just that those who cry out for something to be done aren't blamed for pushing us to the precipice, and hide behind their calls for us to just get along. They ignore the basic fact of human nature that it has not and will not ever happen, and so far, it never has.

We have never stopped the murderers, what we need to do is stop pretending we can and assess our risk with human nature. We can and do kill each other. As long as humans are on the face of earth, we will. We need to conduct ourself accordingly, not empower government to make things worse.

Stop calling out that "we" need to do something - there is already a 200 year backlog of law that hasn't yet.

 

[bergmen]

Here is a link to the article in the December 19, 2012 issue of The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...p-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/

One authors opinion, but I for one share her concerns.

Dan

 

[R.W.Dale]

We have never stopped the murderers, what we need to do is stop pretending we can and assess our risk with human nature. We can and do kill each other. As long as humans are on the face of earth, we will. We need to conduct ourself accordingly, not empower government to make things worse.

How are you going to articulate this as a spokesperson or political candidate at a press conference after a shooting during an election year? The other guy is going to tell that slightly big half of the population that he will do X Y and then Z to make them "feel" more secure, the part of the population that votes security over liberty historically.

Your message that we cannot do anything (while absolutely correct IMO) is going to get your candidacy and agenda bitch slapped into the weeds at the ballot box.

THE FACTS DONT MATTER

We need to fight fire with fire. If the anti's have an absolutely bogus and ineffective message that's being bought hook line and sinker we need something similar to make us look like the proverbial good guy.

Merely stating "it won't help" just makes you look cold hearted and uncaring to the voters repelled by that kind of perception.

 

[Billy Shears]

Probably the best course of action for our side would be to begin pushing state governments and the federal government to return to something closer to the policies that prevailed before Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1981, which ended federal funding for mental institutions, and left it to the states. As governor of California, he had signed legislation which dramatically cut back California's own system of such facilities. The idea was to shift the burden onto local communities, and dramatically reduce the number of involuntary committals. Patients would, it was expected, cooperate with mental health care workers in local clinics, and be treated more or less as outpatients. Much as I admire Reagan, this was not one of his wiser policies. A key component of mental illness is not having a firm grip on reality, so how anybody expected these people to follow a course of medication on their own, particularly when some of the meds have side effects the patients really dislike, is beyond me.

To be fair, this was not all Reagan's doing. A massive push from patients' rights advocates and even some doctors began gathering force in the late 1950s, when California was institutionalizing more people per capita than any other state, and medicating the $#!& out of them. Some were even being lobotomized (ironically a procedure that was banned in the Soviet Union at the time as inhumane.) The overburdened mental institutions were sometimes genuine horror shows, and this lent the patients' rights movement force. And Reagan and the others were reacting to genuine abuses and failings of the then current system. But the reformers swung the pendulum way too far in the other direction. First in California, and then in the rest of the country after 1981, we would only treat you for mental illness if you asked for it, or unless you were judged a danger to yourself or others.

As a detective, I learned that what is judged being a danger to yourself is pretty much only a willingness to do active violence. Neglecting your health to the point of serious injury or death, or being so deranged that you effectively do that, won't get it. We had a severely mentally ill woman come into our office (saying her roommate was raping her every night and erasing her memory with witchcraft, among other things) with a large, festering wound on her ankle (the skin was split, the wound was suppurating, and the whole ankle was swollen up as big around as her thigh). We called an ambulance for her, but she refused to go to the hospital. I called community mental health in the full expectation they would involuntarily commit her, and they didn't do it. Neglecting yourself to death is not grounds.

So the kinds of people who are doing these mass shootings are the sort who, forty-plus years ago, would have been in institutions. We need to start really pushing to put more of them back there. Even the ones who aren't violent are often homeless and living in shocking conditions. We need to reform the system again and make it, not perhaps as easy as it was to commit people involuntarily before 1981, but much easier than it is now.

 

[Potatohead]

I agree PH. The problem is they seem to coincidentally occur in gun free zones, making it impossible for someone who obeys the law to do anything to help.

Your exactly right Paul. The other day a radio host on one of the shows I listen to went through 6 or 7 of the big shootings, they were all in "gun free zones". He also had some good points about these guys being cowards. They always shoot themselves at the first sign that some resistance is forming against them, be it cops, citizens, or whatever...they're very afraid of a fair fight.

 

[Potatohead]

We have had several such incidents where armed citizens stopped a mass shooting -- at a law school in Virginia, in Mississippi, and in a fairly recent mall shooting. And you're right -- they got swept under the rug.

Figures

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How are you going to articulate this as a spokesperson or political candidate at a press conference after a shooting during an election year? The other guy is going to tell that slightly big half of the population that he will do X Y and then Z to make them "feel" more secure, the part of the population that votes security over liberty historically.

Your message that we cannot do anything (while absolutely correct IMO) is going to get your candidacy and agenda bitch slapped into the weeds at the ballot box.

THE FACTS DONT MATTER

We need to fight fire with fire. If the anti's have an absolutely bogus and ineffective message that's being bought hook line and sinker we need something similar to make us look like the proverbial good guy. Merely stating "it won't help" just makes you look cold hearted and uncaring to the voters repelled by that kind of perception.

I suggest we tell the truth. Victim disarmament doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" invite mass killers. Put the blame where it belongs -- on the people who denied the victims the means of defending themselves.

As I have said before, for a victim of violent crime to oppose guns is like a victim of ship wreck opposing life boats.

 

[george burns]

Armed Guards in all schools and mental examinations for anyone who attends an institute of higher education.

 

[45_auto]

mental examinations for anyone who attends an institute of higher education.

Do you really believe that there is some kind of "mental examination" that will tell you if a person is going to commit a crime? You going to lock people up that fail your "mental examination"? Or just make it "against the law" for them to have a gun? Not like it's already "against the law" to commit murder anyway, I'm sure they would obey a law prohibiting them from having a gun .....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Armed Guards in all schools and mental examinations for anyone who attends an institute of higher education.

If we did that, grass would grow in the commons at Harvard and 99% of the professors at Ivy League universities would be institutionalized.

 

[X-Rap]

I can't imagine living in a world in which we all had to submit to some sort of government evaluation to own or carry a gun.
The concept is so full of pitfalls for a free society and would be the start of the ultimate control some Social Utopians seek.
We are far better off understanding that the world is a dangerous place and being afforded the freedom to act accordingly by our government.

 

[barnbwt]

Has anyone asked the Aurora, CO shooter?

Yeah, what's Carrot Job up to these days? Drooling on his jammies, or he supposed to be coherent, now? FWIW, there are actually very few intact survivors who've run amok; they are either killed, kill themselves, lapse into unconsciousness, suffer an altered personality, or have no memory of events afterward in many cases. It's almost like these events are the person's brain self-destructing, or something like a seizure. I think the few guys who could give a coherent picture of what was going through their minds would be the unrepentant sociopathic monsters like terrorists or war criminals.

Armed Guards in all schools and mental examinations for anyone who attends an institute of higher education.

I'll just assume you're being facetious...

TCB