Mental health and gun violence threads.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
Recently there have been numerous threads on THR (and every other gun bulletin board) about mental health, mass shootings, gun violence, and the right to keep and bear arms. I've been putting some thoughts together on the various issues and how they interact (or don't interact), and wanted some feedback. I'm often debating anti-gun proponents and doing public speaking on the side for gun rights, so I spend a bit more free time than most people doing prep work, positing, speculating, and conjecturing about things.

That, and it's raining outside.

Before I go on, understand that by no means am I an expert on psychiatry, nor am I an historian, or an expert on social issues. I'm a computer programmer and network engineer who is cursed with the ability to think outside the box, and tasked daily to finding root cause of impossibly complex problems.

The last few weeks has seen public shooting incidents on a daily basis throughout the country. Each of these events has had various and quite separate causal factors, demographics, and scenarios; ranging from "I can't get a girlfriend" (California) to "I want to start The Revolution right here and now" (Nevada).

People are grasping at straws trying to find a root cause to these isolated incidents of violence. Some blame modern medicine, some blame the Government, some blame violent TV shows and video games, some blame divorce or the decline of family values.

Everyone seems to blame SOMETHING. But the hard reality is there is no single, definable reason to blame.

To illustrate this point, in another thread I posited (jokingly) that you should blame cell phones or the Internet, because before those things existed, the frequency of public shooting rampages was significantly lower.

But the truth is, you may as well blame indoor plumbing. Guns existed before indoor plumbing was common - yet it wasn't until after the widespread use of indoor plumbing that private individuals going on shooting "rampages" became a growing concern to society. (The same could be said of Color Television, or the Space Program, or Electricity....)

Keep in mind I am not proposing that Indoor Plumbing is the cause of the increasingly common phenomenon of social violence we are seeing in today's society. I am merely bringing this point up to suggest that any number of reasons could contribute to the violence.

I've found in the last 20 years of complex problem solving that the truth is generally the simplest answer. I learned this very early on in my career when working tech support. I spent an hour trying to help a customer diagnose why they weren't getting a video signal on their monitor from a new computer purchase. They'd turn on the computer, it'd make sounds and light up, but they wouldn't get anything on the screen. We tried various keystrokes to get in to BIOS, etc. I asked if the monitor was plugged in - "Yes, it is plugged in."

It wasn't until much later that I helped this elderly person find the root cause by asking "how MANY cables on the monitor are plugged in? There should be two, one going to the computer, one going to the power outlet on the wall." There was only one cable going to the computer. Problem solved. Give it power to run.

Looking at the issues in society we face today, I believe the root cause is staring us right in the face. Yes, there are infinite numbers of contributing factors - life is a complex and wonderful thing. But the root cause is the same - and it has to do a lot more with mental health than many would think, but in a completely different direction than we're trying to go.

Humans are apex predators.

We are hard-wired in our primitive minds to be capable of committing acts of violence to sustain our life. Just as "dogs typically act like dogs" (without training or education), they will bite when cornered by anything that appears to be a predator. Other animals besides dogs also exercise this same reaction, including humans. Animals around the world kill for food - anyone ever watching a domesticated indoor/outdoor cat "play" with a rodent before consuming it from head to tail, has witnessed violence on a most primitive level. (Cats are quite evil, toying with their food before eating it.)

To the point: People have a primitive brain buried deep in the rest of our intellectually superior consciousness. We KNOW this is a truth because of hard-ingrained primitive reactions that every human has - our physiological fight or flight response (adrenaline dump), our deep-ingrained feelings which aren't on a conscious level that compel us to either seek out or avoid danger, etc.

Being a hunter, I know this is truth, because I've felt "buck fever" before taking a shot to end a life, so that I can sustain my own. That rush is undeniably primitive.

Yet, our capacity for violence - our innate draw towards it, as apex predators, has been suppressed along with many other base primitive needs. We don't, as a society, hunt for food - there is no outlet there for many. Instead, society consumes neatly packaged and brightly labeled boxes by the millions of tons daily, isolating us from the "brutal" task of killing animals and butchering them.

Based on ratings, millions of people tune in every night to watch increasingly gruesome and violent television shows. Some people propose this is a contributing factor or even a "root cause" to social violence. I strongly disagree! All those shows do is provide the average suburbanite masses with a peaceful outlet for their innate desire to do violence - it defuses that instinct; suppresses it.

Even the Romans recognized the need for a coliseum.

So what makes someone pick up a gun/knife/{insert tool of choice} to inflict random violence on other folks? And what about the propensity for younger folks to do this, demographically speaking?

First, younger people are more in touch with their primitive mind than adults who have had more time to successfully (more or less) conquer their Apex Predator instincts. Second, their hormones are MUCH stronger during the adolescent phase, leaving them less in control of their actions. And third; many have never been given a positive (or at least peaceful) outlet for their minds to exercise superiority over something. Many parents are content with throwing a television or computing system at the problem; and in many cases, that works.

I would propose that as a root cause:

As human civilization evolves, there is a certain percentage of people who simply cannot adapt to a peaceful life and snap. The vocations which "authorize" violence of any type are limited; law enforcement draws many, military careers, and so on. Many people find satisfaction as "apex predators" by climbing a career path and fighting for the top spot. Many successful entrepreneurs attack problems with a passion that is undeniably primitive.

But not everyone finds this. Youth are too young, and not invested enough in society to realize that there is an outlet for these most base of feelings. The vast majority of our youth have never picked up a bow or gun and taken a life (while hunting), to nourish themselves. The VAST majority of people have never butchered an animal to process their own food - even many hunters find the task distasteful and send it off to a processing facility, getting back packages of sausage and ground meat.

The shooting sports and other martial pursuits (martial arts) are another great example of feeling out the apex predator instincts. That gives individuals a method of conquering - or perhaps a better term would be harnessing - that base instinct of violence, towards a positive outcome.

The moral of the story:

Society needs to stop questioning "what causes violence" - and start looking at specific methods of tapping in to and utilizing that resource. Violence is not a "mental disorder", and it only becomes a mental health issue if it is allowed to become one. Every human is born with a seriously disturbing capacity to go forth and do violent acts - it's hardwired in to us, as without it, we'd starve and die. But you don't fulfill that instinct going through the drive through and driving off with a sack of food! Just as watching violent acts on television or video games only temporarily defrays that need (which eventually we become immune to; witnessing violent acts eventually leads to desensitization; which is nothing more than an immunity to watching violence, it does not solve the underlying problem of committing violence that our subconscious primitive minds require).

You might as well try to teach a cat not to play with it's food before it kills it and eats it - or a dog not to growl and bite when it's cornered by a threat.

If you bottle violence up, by trying to erase our base instincts, a certain percentage of the population will inevitably snap. Not every human is at the same point on the evolutionary chain, not all people are as advanced intellectually or in our reasoning facilities as others. Some people are born with stronger primitive brains, urges to commit violent acts. If those people are not given SOME outlet, they WILL eventually snap.

Violence is not a "gun issue" - guns are merely the most expedient tools many find. However, since violence is within every human, it DOES have the capacity to spread like wildfire if the suppressed masses are all suddenly "uncorked" at once. (Look at the Syrian civil war, or go back and examine any mass social upheaval, for what happens when an entire society has their corks pulled off the violence within us). We are fortunate - VERY fortunate - that it is a very small, nearly statistically irrelevant percentage of humans in our American society that go out and commit acts of violence.

But we will never eliminate it unless our society understands that it is one of the strongest of base instincts, and can NEVER be eliminated. We need to find a way of channeling our violent natures and giving youth who might not otherwise have an outlet a way to deal with it. (Healthy, strong people have football or other sports; but weaker children still have apex predator instincts; give them an outlet, or they crack under the pressure of it.)

I view hunting and shooting activities, as well as martial arts, as "healthy" outlets for children to exercise violence in a controlled fashion so they can crack that relief valve once in a while. The fact that children cannot exercise or even speak of these activities in schools which choose to pretend that violence doesn't exist in humans, should not be overlooked.

In summation - I believe that our failure to educate our children properly on base instincts and provide means of exercising basal instincts is the direct root cause of public violence in America.... and not firearms.

Is it a mental health issue? Yes, but not one we can test for, or should try to address as a "containment" issue. On the contrary. I believe that we should promote (certain!) overtly violent activities to provide a necessary relief valve for children. For without that safety valve, the violence builds and grows unchecked; and is only temporarily dispelled by witnessing violence, which eventually stops acting as a regulatory agent on the base urges.
 
Thank you Trent, nobody should be surprised when the killer hairless ape known as Homo Sapiens Sapiens kill. After all we have been doing it for thousands of years.
 
Thank you Trent, nobody should be surprised when the killer hairless ape known as Homo Sapiens Sapiens kill. After all we have been doing it for thousands of years.

Agreed. Never mind the fact that we're doing at a much lower rate than ever.
 
I can't disagree with anything you stated, Trent. I believe what you stated is also the reason why the NFL is, by far, the most watched sport in America. It's the violence and the poetry. As mentioned, the Romans had their gladiators, etc. Man has wreaked havoc on another man since day 1 and you are probably right, it's our way of expressing our inner drive of survival. I believe we all have a violent streak inside of us but 99.9% of us have learned, over time, to curb it and to find safe releases of it over the centuries of mankind.

With 300,000,000+ Americans, 1% would be 3,000,000 bad apples... one who have a disconnect with the reality of violence and it's affect. I used to number of 99.9% of us as being "civil" through breeding and societal pressures over time. If truly, .1% of all people are "born bad" or without a conscience, that's still 300,000 people who are just evil. They don't think like you and me. They have no conscience. They have no regard for human life and certainly not the life of our non-human friends. That's why so many serial killers have had a past of animal cruelty.

There may come a day where science can identify the "broken DNA" that I'd bet the majority of the evil humans have. What are the chances of the offspring of a serial rapist and a crack whore of turning out fit for society? Well, I'd say that the chances are pretty good that the children from unions like this are born good but are surrounded by every way to have their "bad gene" rise to the surface and destroy those around him. He becomes a predator from genetic means and then the world his parents show him. Sure, good usually triumphs over evil but it only takes .1% of the population to cause 99% of the truly viscious crimes we see today.

As long as man walks on earth, there will be people who have no conscience and will be the cancer of society. It's nothing more than a number thing. If 99.9% of Americans are good and decent people then that sounds like a good thing but if you add up the numbers of the .1% then it can turn scary in a hurry.
 
Trent, I appreciate the time and thought that went into your posting, but I kinda disagree with your major premise. I don't see people as being "apex predators" any longer, especially after the advent of religion as a civilizing influence. The kind of homicidal activity that we've seen recently is not the norm, even on a subconscious level, but is clearly the result of highly atypical pathologies. The issue remains as to what, if anything, we can do about this.
 
Gladiators were childs play in the scheme of things.

The Romans literally caused extinction of cultures and races. They even went so far as to destroy the earth their enemies had so they couldn't plant crops.
 
I have to agree with Trent on many levels

We can all try to blame mental health. That has existed for 1000's of years.

We can blame the violence on t.v. and video games and I do believe they do have a way of immunizing youth to the reality of violence...but I don't think that is it either.

I theorize that the single major change (and its a change in perception versus reality) is that the media has the ability to bring it to our attention almost instantly. We live in a world of constant data barrage. I knew about Oregon today the instant it happened. Why ? Phone news feed.

We have TV, phones, the internet...constant barrages of data and drama being forced upon us almost minute to minute. 30 years ago, it was slower, more selective simply because, bandwidth to get news out to folks was slower and smaller.

If it is true (and I believe it is) that gun violence is down from 30 years ago yet; gun ownership is way up, then the reason we are seeing all this is because it is being forced on us. Is there any such thing any more as "happy news"?

My AP newswire reads like a horror story. Globally. Bombings, shootings, tornado's, floods, accidents, plane crashes. I have just about given up reading because its just a downer.

Trent, thank you for your post.
 
Trent, I appreciate the time and thought that went into your posting, but I kinda disagree with your major premise.

I don't see people as being "apex predators" any longer, especially after the advent of religion as a civilizing influence.

I strongly disagree here. Religion is not a "civilizing influence" by and large - it has actually been one of the most destructive forces the world has ever seen. Crusades, inquisition, various wars that to this day are causing massive loss of life, starvation, and acts of unbelievable cruelty (RE: Syria).

While THR is not suitable grounds for a religious discussion (and the topic is outright banned), I would say with great confidence that religion is not a stance that can rebut the apex predator argument. Religion - like nation statehood - has been used far too often as an excuse to exercise the apex predator instinct.

(Note, I'm not saying that religion is bad; quite the contrary; all religions promote an ethical and moral path to understanding and bettering the world. HOWEVER; when people with those strong apex predator instincts get in positions of power within religious organizations, the effect is amplified massively over what those individuals could do alone.)


The kind of homicidal activity that we've seen recently is not the norm, even on a subconscious level, but is clearly the result of highly atypical pathologies. The issue remains as to what, if anything, we can do about this.

Atypical pathology could very well still be the base human instincts we all have. Some people have evolved beyond this or learned to control it, but it will always remain there.

Take Japan as an interesting example. Historically, a very militaristic society which has all but been neutered today (for lack of a better term). The sex drive of males in that society has been diminished (flat or negative growth rate), the culture is pacifistic, men are not nearly as aggressive as they were 500 or even 70 years ago.

HOWEVER - they still have their "stabbing sprees"; and have experienced domestic terrorism (doomsday religious cult trying to gas subways to cause mass casualties), etc.

You can tame a dog but you can never take the wild completely out of them.

Same thing with humans. Yes, we have rational thought BUT there is always a conflict of base desires that we struggle with.

The relevant question here, "is there a social change which we can implement on a widespread basis to quell these random acts of violence."

On one end of the spectrum, we have "perform mental health tests on the entire society and let man judge fellow man on whether they conform sufficiently to be a member of society with full rights" - something which WILL be abused.

Or, .... something else.

And that something else may be an embrace of our violent natures with more constructive methods of releasing this base need.

Give people a constructive outlet for violence.
 
Last edited:
I don't see people as being "apex predators" any longer, especially after the advent of religion as a civilizing influence.
It is entirely possible that more people have been killed in the name of religion, or with some sort of official sanction of religion, than not. Religion is a tool, and like the axe or the wheel, development of it can hardly be said to have changed the nature of man -- just given him different ways to interpret and express his perceptions of existence.

I think Trent has a very worthwhile point, however, not one that provides an enormous amount of enlightenment regarding the issue of mass killings. Yes, humans are violent by nature, and no civilizing influence is going to remove that underlying ability/tendency -- only stifle it or deflect it. And yet, humans are, statistically speaking, extremely capable of re-directing and stifling those tendencies. The vast majority of humans spend the vast majority of their time without tapping into their violent capacities. A small number use those capacities for "good" in protecting and defending others. A small number use those capacities for their own benefit (also "good" in a way) but in a way that is harmful to others and destructive to society. An EXCEPTIONALLY small number tap into their violent tendencies and are driven by them to act in ways that benefit no one, not even the actor. The violence grows out of all reason and purpose and becomes an end to itself. Serial killers, mass murders, and probably other forms of nihilistic behavior.

I'd say these sorts of killers represent something beyond exercise of natural tendencies, and more closely resemble cancer cells. A function that has run wild, blown way out of control and beyond usefulness or propriety or harnessing (even harnessing for socially bad purposes).

And that just happens sometimes. Mistakes in the wiring, random weaknesses in the wiring pressed just the wrong way by a series of chance stressors perhaps, and triggering a malign growth of violence. When you contemplate (well, you really CAN'T contemplate, because the numbers are beyond human comprehension, but...) the numbers of lines of code in the human genome, and then the human proteome, and the numbers of cells in a human brain, and the number of human brains there are and have been ... if any bad combination of gaps, voids, errors, and horrible coincidence CAN occur, it HAS occurred many, many times. Folks are born with physical deformities all the time, some which make the person unable to live a full life, or any life at all. Those are just the big ones we can see. How much more complex is the mysterious brain, and how less likely are we to even have a suspicion about the millions of ways it might be wired "not just right?"

So every once in a while a person's stresses and changes in a complex and frustrating part of life mount up to the point that they tear some congenitally weak connection in the mind that lets violence burst out and destroy them and others around them?

It would be far more surprising if that never happened.
 
I never find it appropriate to quote myself, but this thread pretty well lines up with my thoughts on the matter.

"The problem with the study of "gun" violence is that these studies try to use a macroscopic view to analyze microscopic problems. We don't know why Bill killed his wife and kids then himself, we don't know why Tom robbed the bank and killed the tellers. There is no blanket reasoning why people do these things (BUT THERE IS.)

Psuedo intellects and quasi academics have come up with some plausible reasons: mental health, "nature vs. Nurture", poverty, abusive childhoods, culture, tv, violence desensitzation etc. etc. Are they correct? Sure in some cases.

But what EVERYONE seems to leave out of "gun" violence is the HUMAN.

Since the dawn if time humans have been butchering each other and that is an undisputable fact. Even pre-human remains have been found with tool marks in their bones and inturments of death still in the body. Humans are and always will be killers. We are hardwired to kill. The NEED to kill has almost been eradicated from HUMAN society. Territorial borders are in place, food supplies and natural resources have been secured by their respective nations (there are exceptions to those societies that still live tribal.)

In society there is still an element that kills. Be it for drugs, money, insanity, jealousy, poverty, love or necessity. There is nothing that can be done about this, "Minority Report" doesn't exist, though there are psychological patterns behind certain behaviors i.e. a child that tortures animals, there is a good chance the child will be some sort of societal deviant or a female victim is found with excessive post-mortem wounds, one can deduce it was her husband or lover (crime of passion.)

Common sense dictates: if you want to end "gun" violence you have to end gun ownership.

If you want to end violence, you end humanity. Violence and killing is an integral part of our reptile brain, and that my friends you just cannot take away..."
 
Folks are born with physical deformities all the time, some which make the person unable to live a full life, or any life at all. Those are just the big ones we can see. How much more complex is the mysterious brain, and how less likely are we to even have a suspicion about the millions of ways it might be wired "not just right?"

So every once in a while a person's stresses and changes in a complex and frustrating part of life mount up to the point that they tear some congenitally weak connection in the mind that lets violence burst out and destroy them and others around them?

It would be far more surprising if that never happened.

The one thing these have in common, though, is that predatory instinct escapes control. Whether it's someone the scale of Dahmer, a serial rapist, the boy who killed his mother then shot up a kindergarten class, the criminal stealing from the local 7-11, or the boy beating up the weaker boy for lunch money; one thing is in common between ALL of them. The predator instinct comes out. Prey is found, and the act is done.

The reasons or rationale for justification are as varied as there are abstract human concepts. Killing in the name of {insert reason} has been done since the dawn of time.

If there is a chemical imbalance, or a "wiring problem" in the brain, the nature of it is largely irrelevant - the symptom that causes the break from mainstream behavior, is that the conscious mind can no longer control the base urges inside.

Sometimes we can recognize the warning signs in advance; sometimes the snap is so abrupt that no one sees it coming. Sometimes people "opt out" and turn predator on themselves; my father was one such creature. Instead of turning the gun on my mother or her lover, he turned it on himself, and checked himself out.

Unfortunately I was witness to the act and it caused me to undergo an entire lifetime of studying violence, cause, and effect. Not a very pleasant subject, but I've recognized over time that one can choose to be a predator or prey. I teach how to be a predator, how to refuse to be a victim, in my spare time as a firearms and martial arts instructor.

When I was attacked with a knife a decade ago, I didn't consider my actions; I just ACTED. I damaged the attacker badly enough to end the event. I became the predator who prevailed. My conscious mind told me when to shut this off, but for the first few seconds of the conflict, there WAS no conscious mind. Only violence.

That instinct is within everyone.

There are multiple causes for it to spin out of control, BUT, we could probably eliminate quite a lot of the "random events" of otherwise normal people, if we could give people SOME sort of relief valve they could tap in to when they need it, which does not involve some sort of widespread social stigma.

When I get stressed out and work the heavy bag in the basement, I'm exercising my body WHILE relieving my brain of the need to inflict violence. It's a safe outlet.

Not everyone finds a suitable outlet in time for it to do any good.

And medicine? The answer is not in a pill.
 
The ability to act in an ultra violent manner

Is called deviation from the norm. Every biological, chemical or mechanical system has it. Yes, humans by nature or evolution have violent tendencies but stay "within tolerance" by our psychological control. Nurture overriding nature.

When that system goes out of tolerance, unpredictable results occur. Nurture is the governance model that should supersede (by conscious control) the inherent effects of biological functions.

When those controls break down or the imbalance in the system deviates from the norm, we get abnormal results.

I know I am stating the obvious but no matter what we do, some % of the population is going to deviate from what we have determined to be the norm. Banning tools (guns) will not correct or stop that deviation.
 
Not that simple....

Id suggest reading the books of LTC Dave Grossman; On Killing(2009 ed) & On Combat.
Grossman(a enlisted paratrooper who became a US Army officer & PhD) goes into detail about human nature & the act of killing.
I don't agree with all of Grossman's points/material but he does offer some insight.
His descriptions of personal kills, distance skills & mechanical kills puts some things into perspective.
I don't claim to have the answers about spree shootings or EDPs(emotional distrurbed persons) but I don't think it's about a ingrained predatory or carnivore nature. :rolleyes:
Man(human beings) have evolved over the last few 1000s of years. Some are more aggressive than others or prone to violence but there are many factors involved.
 
Rusty...

Thanks for the book title...I just bought it on Amazon for my Kindle based on you rec.

I do have to say though, this is a bit different when the psychological system goes "unbalanced" We have 100,000 of years of evolution..going all the way back to our reptilian brain that we still possess. Violence, territoriality, sex drive, etc. are all hardwired in our DNA. None of that has changed. What has changed is the nurture cycle from childhood on. The indoctrination of right and wrong.

Raise a child to give in to their urges, to be violent, they grow up violent. Much like training a pitbull to be vicious. Yes, there is an inherent primal nature there but it is or can be trained out of us- what we call a sense of morality or conscious. Those are learned behaviors.

Sociopaths or people with anti-social personality disorder exhibit behaviors that are criminal or violent in nature.

They are often a combination of genetics and nurture (environment) but physiologically, their brains have been shown to react differently to stimuli than the general norm. So add to that environmental stressors (outcast at school, problems with women, self-esteem) and you have a recipe for anti-social or violent behavior as the person acts out their primal urges. This may be in the form of crime, rape, murder.

Anyway, thanks for the book !! I look forward to reading it.
 
Dave Grossman is an outstanding speaker and his books are incredibly interesting reading. He is an exceptional resource to the law enforcement community and has worked with many school districts in our county in an attempt to keep our kids safe.

While I do not agree with everything he states during his lectures or in his books, he definitely is onto something. I highly recommend his writings and if you get an opportunity to hear any of his lectures, it would be well worth one's time.

The original poster put much thought and effort into his post. Thank you!
 
There is a problem. People being murdered in public without cause by people intent on doing so is bad. I wish we could stop it.

Now what?

That's the problem. Because stopping it in today's society generally means using the coercive force of government.

And while these deaths are very bad for the dead, their friends, an their families, for society as a whole, this is not a major issue. I understand that sounds callous, but fewer than 100 Americans a year are killed in so called public place shootings. I am of course referring only to shootings involving 4 or more people where a motive other than criminal gain is involved, ie "lunatics shooting people" because the media only seems to care when innocent people get shot.

Far, far more people die every year from a range of preventable things such as food poisoning or being killed by drunk drivers. And the latter is important. Drunk driving deaths are the leading preventable cause of death among under 14 year olds. More under 14 year old children are killed by drunk drivers annually than have been killed in mass shootings in the last five years combined.

We could as a society end most of those deaths tomorrow, without infringing on a constitutionally protected right. By prohibiting anyone who has ever used alcohol from owning or operating a motor vehicle, the vast majority of those under 14 year old deaths would end. But, as a society, we accept those deaths as the price of the benefit and convenience of widely held driving privileges. That's a bit tough on the 250 or so children, their families and friends who are killed each year by drunk drivers. But, I get it.

We, as a society make choices, including choices that have life or death consequences. That the vast majority of those killed in these public place shootings are killed in so called "gun free zones" (evidently not) is the result of a choice, for example. That our justice system is designed so that many guilty men may go free rather than one innocent man be punished is another such choice.

So, society makes choices with death as a consequence all the time. If society believes that it must revise its choices to eliminate all risk of death or those risks that involve deaths over xx, so be it. But then we must, using utilitarianism as our basis, start with rescinding those rights which cause the most death first.

So, when much stronger regulations to root out salmonella poisoning are imposed, when meaningful and effective hammer control legislation is adopted (yes, more Americans are killed annually in murder by hammer than are killed by rifles of any description), when Prohibition is effectively reintroduced, and when anyone who has ever used alcohol is barred from owning or operating a motor vehicle, then we may have sunk to a level where we can discuss further restricting or removing a constitutionally protected right (to keep and bear arms) to potentially save some 75 lives a year. But until then, no, because the restriction on the right is not merited by the potential benefit to society, as evidenced by the many other deaths that we, as a society, condone every year in the name of convenience or the protection of rights.
 
^^^^^ The reasonable calculation of the minimal number of lives that would be saved by draconian gun regulation, versus the damage to our civil liberties by those regulations, I'm afraid, falls on deaf ears. Whole stadiums full of people can be brought to their feet with cries of "Not one more!" Where is the equivalent emotion on our side? People vote with their emotions, not with their brains.
 
I don't have a cohesive post to go with this thread; I have a collection of related thoughts.

Channeling aggression: From a young age I was involved in auto racing and it was definitely a relief valve for my aggression. As a race driver I was simultaneously the hunter – of the guy in front of me – and the hunted – of the guy behind me.

Later on I got involved in community theater, where I looked for murderer's roles. Brutally stabbing somebody on three nights and on Sunday matinee was another way to explore feelings of violence and aggression that lurked within.

There are ways available to channel those kinds of emotions. Can we get people to accept that they are a part of us and then find avocations that allow their release? Probably easier said than done.

Allocating blame: Early in 2013 there was a lot of media coverage about lead exposure's relation to violence. Nevin, the author, made a very compelling case for it in his research. I never read anything refuting his data or conclusions, yet it seems to have faded from consciousness.

http://pic.plover.com/Nevin/Nevin2007.pdf

Abstract
This study shows a very strong association between preschool blood lead and subsequent crime rate trends over several decades in the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Australia, Finland, Italy, West Germany, and New Zealand. The relationship is characterized by best-fit
lags (highest R 2 and t-value for blood lead) consistent with neurobehavioral damage in the first year of life and the peak age of offending for index crime, burglary, and violent crime. The impact of blood lead is also evident in age-specific arrest and incarceration trends. Regression analysis of average 1985–1994 murder rates across USA cities suggests that murder could be especially associated with more severe cases of childhood lead poisoning.

Grossman: Good stuff.
 
"Everyone seems to blame SOMETHING. But the hard reality is there is no single, definable reason to blame."

I think you are missing the link that 90% of these cases have in common: SSRI meds (psychotropic drugs). If you have not seen that clear association then you are watching main stream media that is bought and paid for by the drug companies. Those firms also make substantial donations to their favorite politicians, who purposefully ignore the impact of SSRIs upon undeveloped brains.

Do a YouTube search for Dr. Peter Breggin. As a psychiatrist, he is very aware of the propensity for today's psychiatrists to jump onto the nearest medication to solve every mental disorder. Breggin, on the other hand, recognizes the absolute corruption of the psychiatric profession by drug peddlers who take the quick and easy way to treat their patients--instead of the more challenging 'talk therapy' choice.

Back before the drug shelves began to get crowded with SSRIs kids had access to guns, and knives, and machetes, but they didn't bring them to school to do harm. Kids had guns in the 1960s and didn't mishandle them. What happened? Look to every school mass murder case and check to see which medication the murderers were on, or had deviated from their Rx.

Washington, DC is unwilling to deal with the pharmaceutical companies because they profit from them, and controlling guns is a part of their political agenda.

We've had mental disorders for centuries, but those people didn't do what they do routinely today because they weren't on mind-altering drugs.

Until the drug-pushing psychiatrists are held accountable, we will be unable of solving this problem. Politicians continue to push their anti-gun agenda. Recently President Obama expressed sympathy to the families of those "shot in Isla Vista, California" as the result of that mentally disturbed young man. Obama purposely ignored the three victims who were knifed and macheted to death. Why? Because it didn't fit his profile that the guns are the problem. Don't those victims deserve recognition as victims of a madman? Apparently not.

You wanted something to blame. Blame the SSRIs, and the doctors who push them and the treatment shortcuts they provide. Sadly, many of these things do not stop when the patients stop taking the medication. Quite often getting off the medication is as big or bigger a problem than why they were prescribed the med in the first place.

Alert your elected officials that you are sick and tired of their lining their pockets with such pharmaceutical blood-money. Otherwise, just keep tuning into CNN for their daily coverage in ad nauseum of these publicity seeking nuts.

Dan
Santa Barbara
 
Last edited:
I think you are missing the link that 90% of these cases have in common: SSRI meds (psychotropic drugs). If you have not seen that clear association then you are watching main stream media that is bought and paid for by the drug companies. Those firms also make substantial donations to their favorite politicians, who purposefully ignore the impact of SSRIs upon undeveloped brains.

That has been a popular theme among gun folks. There's a very strong case to be made that we have a cart-before-horse disconnect about that.

Say 90% of people who died of cancer had been treated with chemotherapy. Do we blame the chemo for killing them?

So say 90% of these very troubled young people are found to have taken SSRIs. Well, gee, hundreds of thousands of people take SSRIs, because folks who are troubled in these ways are often prescribed those medicines. So when a highly troubled person has a psychotic episode and kills someone and takes (or loses) their own life, they'll often be found to have been taking SSRIs -- because that's exactly what one would expect from ANYONE with the sorts of issues they'd lived with.

It's no more noteworthy than finding that deceased cancer sufferers had been on chemo.

As others have pointed out, sure we did have school shootings and even worse school violence before this generation, though there were fewer of "us" in total (so fewer opportunities) and not the ubiquitous news pressure to get and keep it all in the headlines.

As Trent pointed out before, hey, we didn't have cell phones either. Didn't have the internet. Maybe we should blame those. Who knows? Some statistically miniscule number of disturbed people under treatment with these drugs go on to do great violence like this. Would they have without the drugs? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think any of us here (or 99% of those who are deriding the drugs) have the education and technical understanding to say that. After all, the other 99.999% of those patients did NOT go kill multiple people.
 
Having lived through the Charles Whitman massacre on the University of Texas campus in 1966, I can say that school shootings (and mass shootings generally) are nothing new. What is new is our instantaneous communications web, and the agenda-driven magnifying effect that it provides. What's important here is not the statistical reality, buit rather the perception of reality. That's what drives politics, legislation, etc.
 
Could someone please explain to me: if there is any evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others, how do existing laws fail?

Problem is, as in the recent case, if that evidence is ignored by our "protectors", or does not exist, then the "we must do something" crowd is too quick to throw out the Constitution, Due Process, and the Rules Of Evidence for an imagined solution. Much like the Temperance movement deluded themselves into thinking that if alcohol was banned as the "root of all evil" Utopia would result -- instead we got Al Capone and organized crime that we still can't deal with adequately.
 
The ability to act in an ultra violent manner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is called deviation from the norm. Every biological, chemical or mechanical system has it. Yes, humans by nature or evolution have violent tendencies but stay "within tolerance" by our psychological control. Nurture overriding nature.

When that system goes out of tolerance, unpredictable results occur. Nurture is the governance model that should supersede (by conscious control) the inherent effects of biological functions.

When those controls break down or the imbalance in the system deviates from the norm, we get abnormal results.

I know I am stating the obvious but no matter what we do, some % of the population is going to deviate from what we have determined to be the norm. Banning tools (guns) will not correct or stop that deviation.
A key element of the problem is culture. Not all cultures in America are violent. The Chicago Police Department released a study on murders in Chicago that found about 2/3s of the killers were Black, about 1/3 were Hispanic, and less than 4% were White.

Change the violent cultures and much of the problem will go away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top