Mass Shootings and Data-Free Zones

[Hambo]

Bertrand Russell said, "Most people would sooner die than think."

While I would really like to live in a world where people make rational decisions, few people do so. As an example, I leased a new truck earlier this year. The manufacturer emailed a survey which I answered. There were a few questions about quality, features, etc, but what struck me were the straight out questions about emotion. How important is your car to your image? To me, not at all, but they wouldn't ask if there weren't a whole lot of people who worry more about how they look than crash safety ratings.

In political arguments actual facts have no importance to either side (fact check what candidates are saying if you don't believe me). Hence I'm with JAD: what you're doing is interesting, but I really hope you hit delete if the facts don't support the cause. As Alpha Sierra says, we are guaranteed certain rights which we do not have to justify.

[scw2]

The exercise of any of our rights is restricted to the extent that it creates no serious harm to others (supposing that you buy into freedom for excellence over freedom of indifference, which is probably asking too much). If Rob's data were to prove that the exercise of that right causes serious harm, it would be reasonable to restrict that right to some degree. It would only remain to be determined whether the restriction was more worser than the harm caused by the absence of restriction. Sadly, that's where being rational in a vacuum gets really hard -- it's very difficult to compare relative harm when they aren't the same kinds of harm.

But you're very right that the obverse isn't true. We don't have to prove, at all, that our rights produce good. They're good all by themselves.

I think I tend to be more pessimistic and agree with you that most of the people are for or against gun control based more on emotion than reason. I also would be willing to restricted if it were net-net beneficial. However, I also wish other areas of larger/greater harm would also be tackled first (e.g. car traffic deaths). To think that the voting public would be that rational or reasonable is..... irrational.

[RevolverRob]

I think I tend to be more pessimistic and agree with you that most of the people are for or against gun control based more on emotion than reason. I also would be willing to restricted if it were net-net beneficial. However, I also wish other areas of larger/greater harm would also be tackled first (e.g. car traffic deaths). To think that the voting public would be that rational or reasonable is..... irrational.

While not the subject of this thread, and a whole 'nother can of worms. I think car traffic deaths are being dealt with. The NHTSA has spent billions of our dollars investigating making vehicles safer. A 2015 Ford Taurus is considerably safer than its 1995 counterpart and orders of magnitude safer than its 1965 Ford Fairlane counterpart. Side-impact airbags, side-beam crash protection, roll over-protection, front airbags, airbags in seats, force absorbing impact zones. And as a result, traffic deaths are decreasing every year. Automated cars will probably see these deaths drop to an all time low. Some time in the future our grandkids will wonder about the days when people dying in car crashes wasn't a rare occurrence, but a regular one.

The thing about this - The major developments in this field have been driven almost exclusively by data. However, there was a time where rhetoric ruled the discussion (see: the introduction and Federal mandating of safety belts being installed in cars). Once it became obvious that the data supported increasing safety efforts, it became a logical discussion, not an emotional one. One can argue that laws mandating the wearing of safety belts or the production of certain safety features is restricting free rights. I agree at some level. I also recognize that you can choose to buy a 1955 Chevy and drive around in it, if you would like. Sans seatbelts, airbags, or crumple zones. That is your decision and you're free to make it.

___

Regarding releasing the data. While I respect that folks here want to see data in favor of their viewpoint and would rather see data that don't support their point swept under the rug. I am ethically, morally, and professionally bound to present the results as they come, and support my interpretations with published literature, be they negative or positive. If you wish to rebut them, you may. But I refuse to compromise or fail to publish or make freely available data that may be relevant to the discussion at hand. This is my professional responsibility as a researcher and I do not take it lightly. If I compromised my integrity, because the results did not meet my political expectations, I would be no different than a lying politician. I deal in facts and evidence. Again I will do my very best to present an unbiased interpretation of these data as they become available.

I recognize there are some who think this is a negative road to go down. I respect that opinion, but disagree with you. Hence, the warning at the beginning of this thread.

-Rob

[JAD]

Yeah, ok, I'm tracking now. That's pretty douchey.

[Hambo]

The argument will be won or lost by lying politicians and lobbyists, not academics, at least not honest academics.

[ubervic]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

[Software Guy]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

I had this discussion at our local gun club the other night before this last incident. Not one person argued. We are at a point where all of the freaking laws in the land will not help because there is an underlying cause that nobody wants to treat.

Background checks (which I do support as a gun owner) have failed numerous times because the reporting has failed, and honestly can you blame a family doc for not reporting that someone had an off day at the office? It's up to the people that interact with said shooter every damn day that play the important part. Many of which have said "yeah, not right in the head" or something like that.

We as a society simply fail to protect each other on a human level.

[JHC]

Seeing how GFZ are still a small % of the total places where people gather, I am not tracking with a preliminary conclusion that 40-50% mass shootings occurring in GFZs undermine the narrative.

[fixer]

First off I hope to make a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Everything I write here is intended to further the discussion and not 'troll' or 'flame' someone. I agree with the spirit of this thread.

Secondly I am with Alpha Sierra on this one: my inalienable rights are flat out, 100%, not subject to permission or analysis by or from statistics. They were not derived that way and will not be abridged that way. I know that such is not the spirit of this thread--my message is to those who seek to use statistical analysis techniques to determine the needfulness of rights.

I hope we as a mature gun community can offer a substantial contribution to root cause of mass shootings. Here are my thoughts on this...and yes, first off, I will come out and say I think the issue is 100% software, not hardware.

For the sake of argument, my premise is that mass shootings do in fact occur more in the US and also are increasing in frequency.

If you disagree with this then don't read on and offer some meaningful illustration of how this is a false premise. I would love to know that some other post-industrial revolution nation has the same problem the US does.

Guns have never been more restricted in access than they are now. I mean the ability to purchase.
Recently, guns have been carried by more folks, than ever before. This is the surge of CHL. (I'm open to be proven wrong about this)
The crime rate from populations of CHL and law enforcement has been, historically, extremely and reliably low. (people around guns all the time and use them or administratively handle them)
In rough proportion to population growth, there are more law enforcement professionals in existence than ever.

So if guns are more restricted in access, yet more mass shootings are occurring, it isn't the hardware. It isn't the purchasing process.

If more folks are carrying; if there are more law enforcement professionals; yet mass shootings are increasing, the issue is related to the population of people not CHL and LEO.

I submit this last point infers there is a mental issue at play. Folks opting for a CHL are going out of their way to open themselves to scrutiny in order to carry a firearm. LEO is obvious one of the highest stress jobs in existence and we trust them implicitly with firearms. Both sets of people must have a high pedigree in their ability to process and cope with a stressful situation. Note I am not equating the ability...just the aspect of sound mind.

So folks with a sound mind commit less crime and are not highly represented in mass shootings. Hardly a surprising conclusion.

It seems prima facie that the overwhelming number of people perpetrating these mass shootings are people possessing or harboring some grievance.

So are there more grievance-bound people today than in decades past? I will submit that yes there are. In fact I think the rise of mass shootings are a symptom of this.

So why?

What are some recent changes, inventions, or innovations that have taken shape in the past few decades?

We went from the invention of the internet to its ubiquity. We also have asymptotic increase in drug innovations.

The following is how I think these two confounded variables combine to create the mindset of a mass shooter.

We have steadily increased consumption of pharmaceuticals:

See table 4.3:

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/...html#Js6160e.6

Not all of the drugs are bad or have bad side effects. However the increased number of pharmaceuticals has increased the chances of drug side effects and even more so the possibility of drug interactions. These side effects and interactions can affect the mind in unknown ways in many individuals.

The internet is a cesspool. The internet for many people is an alternate reality where they can trot around their carefully constructed archetype. They have complete exclusion of people not like them; they can pretend to be like people they admire; they can construct a totally false reality. The internet is reality for some folks.

When this façade breaks it creates a severe psychological hole. A grievance is born. It can be anything: race, sex orientation, not getting sex, perceived sleights by colleagues, etc...the list is long.

Combine the over-use of the internet for acceptance, reality, social interactions and increasing complexity in pharmaceutical interactions, and increased pharmaceutical consumptions we have a powder keg with a lit fuse.

Countermeasures

So do we now ban the internet? restrict its use? Ban all pharmaceuticals made in the last 20 years?

Nope...then I'd be like the anti-gunners.

We need the internet. We need drug innovations.

We need to get a hold of ourselves and find some meaning in life beyond the computer screen. Perhaps we ask for more research into the mental side effects of new drugs before they are FDA certified?

I don't and won't pretend to have a full grasp on the countermeasures other than to say definitively--it ain't the fuckin guns.

[JHC]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

+1 but I think we've had a shooter or two that don't register with up on the radar profound mental illness too. We have this pent up failure rage lying latent in a LOT of young men. A witch's brew of a reeling culture, broken families and shattered psyches has I think spawned thousands of these candidates. IMO it's too big to fix. A new abnormal if you will.