[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

Especially considering that one of the most vehement Anti-Muslim Republicans in congress, Peter King, was also the IRA's bag man in the US during the 80s and 90s.

jdzappa wrote:

Thank you all for bringing this up. My own mental health struggles have helped me be more empathetic and in tune to this sort of thing.

I do wonder however what has changed in American culture that is driving all these mass shootings. Not trying to be the smug Gen-Xer who denies my generation ever having problems back in the day, but it does seem there has been a remarkable change when it comes to mass violence.

The levels of mass violence against black Americans begs to differ.

OG_slinger wrote:

Another should be to prevent people with emotional or behavioral issues from accessing firearms. A simple check of Cruz's social media would have shown that he posed a danger to those around him and no one should have sold him a firearm (let alone seven).

What Maq is explaining is that what you describe is not a synonym for "mental health issues". People with mental health issues are no more likely to so be domestic abusers than people without "mental health issues". (That's not the case for the person being abused, who is much, much more likely to have mental health issues).

We like to think that someone beating a woman or a child has "something wrong with them" and I suppose colloquially that is true, but clinically, no, that is not considered to be a mental illness.

Trump supposedly just banned bump stocks and like mods. We'll see what that actually means.

As W misquoted fool me once, then you won't get fooled again. It just cost 70+ lives and multiple national tragedies before we took a micro step

Hobear wrote:

Trump supposedly just banned bump stocks and like mods. We'll see what that actually means.

Just like he banned transgender troops from serving?

We need to look at mental health differently then. Someone who verbally or physically abuses his wife, his child, his dog ... is not well mentally. He may (just) have issues with impulsiveness and cruelty, but he should have some f*cking therapy to work on it.

And should not be allowed a gun in the meantime.

We do a sh*t job of protecting people from domestic abuse.

Yonder wrote:

We like to think that someone beating a woman or a child has "something wrong with them" and I suppose colloquially that is true, but clinically, no, that is not considered to be a mental illness.

Sane people can commit murder. Sane people can beat their spouses.

"Sane" is, of course, not quite the right thing for what I'm trying to get across here, but "does not have a mental illness" is misleads because of our associations about mental illness are going to color how we think about this. For "sane" you can read "someone who has mental processes that are normal and acceptable in society" -- which, of course, may be a condemnation of society. But the majority of mass murders are "normal" as far as that goes.

SillyRabbit wrote:

We need to look at mental health differently then. Someone who verbally or physically abuses his wife, his child, his dog ... is not well mentally. He may (just) have issues with impulsiveness and cruelty, but he should have some f*cking therapy to work on it.

And should not be allowed a gun in the meantime.

We do a sh*t job of protecting people from domestic abuse.

Yes, to all of that.

Now if we can convince people that it's in the public interest to fund that it would be nice.

Being an asshole is not a mental illness. There's nothing abnormal about the mental functioning of domestic abusers - they're just sh*tty people.

This is why you won't find it in the DSM, nor should you. We don't need to tar actual mental health with that brush.

Put it on 3 billboards somewhere?

I'm not talking about the DSM, I'm talking about the way we deal with domestic abuse, and that it should be included in background checks for gun purchases.

SillyRabbit wrote:

I'm not talking about the DSM, I'm talking about the way we deal with domestic abuse, and that it should be included in background checks for gun purchases.

There are federal laws that make it illegal for people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors to own guns. But there are massive loopholes: violence against non-spouse partners don't count, they're not required to surrender guns they already own, many states don't report the charges, and in many states there aren't any background checks before a private gun sale.

Switching gears a bit, here's an interesting perspective that at first blush I'm inclined to strongly agree with:

How Political Pessimism Helps Doom Tougher Gun Laws: Saying ‘nothing will change’ has empowered the NRA and ignores its declining punch.

At the very least, getting certain Republican senators on the record as being fine with children dying will have a concrete political impact.

SillyRabbit wrote:

We need to look at mental health differently then. Someone who verbally or physically abuses his wife, his child, his dog ... is not well mentally. He may (just) have issues with impulsiveness and cruelty, but he should have some f*cking therapy to work on it.

And should not be allowed a gun in the meantime.

We do a sh*t job of protecting people from domestic abuse.

As my source stated, psychotherapy had no effect on a quarter of abusers:

multistate study of four batterer intervention programs
consistently found that approximately a quarter of court-referred batterers are high-level
abusers, unlikely to respond to treatment

I mean, maybe these people should be categorically defined as mentally ill, but I imagine that there is a reason that "hurts other people" has not been chosen by psychologists as defacto evidence of a specific clinical diagnoses. At the very least it doesn't seem to be that useful to narrow the diagnoses down:

"These same treatment studies found no common personality type among the batterers referred to batterer programs in three different states."

SillyRabbit wrote:

I'm not talking about the DSM, I'm talking about the way we deal with domestic abuse, and that it should be included in background checks for gun purchases.

Absolutely, but saying "guns should be kept away from mentally ill people because they may harm us" is very different from saying "guns should be kept away from perpetrators of violent crimes".

The latter is solved with background checks looking at convictions, and will stop people that have a huge predictive factor that they are likely to murder people with guns. The former will keep guns away from people that are statistically very unlikely to perform any shootings. (Although they are much more likely to commit suicide with guns, but lets be clear as to who is at danger in that scenario).

Yonder wrote:

What Maq is explaining is that what you describe is not a synonym for "mental health issues". People with mental health issues are no more likely to so be domestic abusers than people without "mental health issues". (That's not the case for the person being abused, who is much, much more likely to have mental health issues).

We like to think that someone beating a woman or a child has "something wrong with them" and I suppose colloquially that is true, but clinically, no, that is not considered to be a mental illness.

For me mental health screenings encapsulate everything from actual mental illnesses to emotional, behavioral, or even substance abuse issues. What that screening process ultimately gets called doesn't matter to me.

What's important is that we move away from the current strict requirements--that someone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution"--to a much broader "this person has mental, emotional, behavioral, or substance abuse issues that would likely endanger themselves or others if they were allowed to own a firearm."

As lax and permissive as our current gun laws are, we already try to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers because we've collectively decided that people who beat their partners or children definitely have "something wrong with them." That's an acknowledgement that the emotional state and behavior of people should be considered before letting them own a firearm.

And I'm very willing to be as proactive in that screening as possible because someone's right to own a firearm should never trump someone else's right not to get shot and killed.

I understand the difference. I'm surrounded by people who think this is just a mental health issue.

OG said it much better, but this is what I was thinking:

OG_slinger wrote:

What's important is that we move away from the current strict requirements--that someone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution"--to a much broader "this person has mental, emotional, behavioral, or substance abuse issues that would likely endanger themselves or others if they were allowed to own a firearm."

Hobear wrote:

Trump supposedly just banned bump stocks and like mods. We'll see what that actually means.

Means he’s just grabbed the lowest of the low amongst all the hanging fruit. So now he can wash his hands of it and say, “See, I’ve done something about it.” Then he’ll try to take a lot of credit for it and move on. He’ll probably also mention that Obama never banned bump stocks ahead of time and is therefore somehow responsible for Las Vegas.

gewy wrote:
Hobear wrote:

Trump supposedly just banned bump stocks and like mods. We'll see what that actually means.

Means he’s just grabbed the lowest of the low amongst all the hanging fruit. So now he can wash his hands of it and say, “See, I’ve done something about it.” Then he’ll try to take a lot of credit for it and move on. He’ll probably also mention that Obama never banned bump stocks ahead of time and is therefore somehow responsible for Las Vegas.

Yep.

OG_slinger wrote:

For me mental health screenings encapsulate everything from actual mental illnesses to emotional, behavioral, or even substance abuse issues. What that screening process ultimately gets called doesn't matter to me.

But it does matter to people with actual mental illnesses, who are asking us to be more careful with our language.

Yonder wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

For me mental health screenings encapsulate everything from actual mental illnesses to emotional, behavioral, or even substance abuse issues. What that screening process ultimately gets called doesn't matter to me.

But it does matter to people with actual mental illnesses, who are asking us to be more careful with our language.

Given the APA and similar organizations in other countries have not come to a consensus on what mental illness is, trying to discuss the parameters of mental illness in the context of who should be allowed to own a firearm is a waste of time, imo.
There is ample (not conclusive) evidence that suicide rates can be reduced by removing access to the tool. It seems likely that this would apply to homicide as well.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Given the APA and similar organizations in other countries have not come to a consensus on what mental illness is, trying to discuss the parameters of mental illness in the context of who should be allowed to own a firearm is a waste of time, imo.

It's a wedge issue, pure and simple. It separates people (some of whom are gun owners themselves) who understand that not everyone should be able to own a firearm from people who view the Second Amendment as an absolute right and that nothing--however small--should infringe upon.

Anything that breaks the idea that gun owners are a monolithic entity who all support everything the NRA says is a good thing. It'll give a chance for the voices of more moderate and responsible gun owners to be heard and that will go a long way to show how absolutely unhinged pro-gun groups have become.

It's sad but I am just awaiting the counter argument from the 2nd folks that we need to train and send our kids armed to school.

One other thing about "mental health screenings" is that it really isn't that simple. It can take sessions to determine if anyone has a serious mental illness let alone a violent one.

I would be very happy if people could get to a place where they can look this fact in the eye: People who commit murder, even mass murder, don't have something mentally wrong with them. You can't screen for murderous intent as it can come to anyone. Intent to murder is a normal human impulse. Our species has done a great job of building social structures to ameliorate our violent nature. Part of that job involves ensuring that the gap between someone getting uncontrolably angry and being able to act on it is as wide as possible. Having a firearm drastically shortens that gap.

We don't like facing the fact that anyone's capable of murder so it's super easy to grasp on to the passing life raft of "there must be something wrong with them". Once you do that you've just thrown them into the same group as me: someone who is way more likely to suffer from gun violence than commit it.

So then everyone wants to make laws to stop these "unstable" people from having access to firearms. But you won't find them, because mental health is not a predictor. So now you've just further marginalized an already vulnerable group based on nothing but your own fear.

The way it feels to me – and I wholeheartedly apologise if this comes off as insensitive to anyone – is similar to times when gay men were not allowed to work with children because they "may be predators". Or bathroom bans for trans folk because they're a "threat to children". They're not. They're just a convenient other group that "ordinary" people can point the finger at to avoid having to look at themselves.

The other day I read an article about how the owner of the gun store that sold Cruz the AR-15 he used was absolutely devastated about what had happened. He did what he was required by law and because Cruz didn't check the box saying a court hadn't declared him mentally unfit or he hadn't been committed that he gladly sold him the rifle.

I really doubt that that gun store owner would have sold Cruz that rifle if he had looked at Cruz's social media postings.

Wait. The buyer has to declare their background for background checks?

lunchbox12682 wrote:

As Irish-Americans seem to have collective amnesia about supporting the IRA, I've always wanted to pull that thread when discussing how can people support terrorists (i.e. Muslims in this case) with family. I imagine lots of "that's different".

As I said upthread, this dovetails nicely together as the AR-15/18/180 was the weapon of choice of the IRA and other paramilitaries during The Troubles. Or at least it was the weapon that they loved to arm themselves with. The lessons learned by IRA and the Loyalist led those weapons to be more likely to used against unarmed civilians in social settings in order to increase the body count. Not against professional armies as some imagined. Seems some Americans have learned the same lessons which is sad but I suppose unsurprising.

And for those reading this who think this proves their theory that arming yourself and your friends with an AR-15s will make you the match of a professional army, it doesn't. Those type of weapons are not practical in that kind of conflict. They are purely there as a show of strength and more often used against the unarmed, shot in the back while drinking or eating. Sometimes shot through doors after the person rang the doorbell. As the US learned in Iraq, explosives are needed if you really want to fight asymmetrical warfare. So, if you are really serious that people should be able to fight the government with over the counter weaponry then small arms are not going to cut it, you need to advocate Semtex be sold in Walmart.

OG_slinger wrote:

The other day I read an article about how the owner of the gun store that sold Cruz the AR-15 he used was absolutely devastated about what had happened. He did what he was required by law and because Cruz didn't check the box saying a court hadn't declared him mentally unfit or he hadn't been committed that he gladly sold him the rifle.

I really doubt that that gun store owner would have sold Cruz that rifle if he had looked at Cruz's social media postings.

The background check is just a CYA maneuver especially when you hear the excuse "required by law." The law is at a bare minimum. the only item the background check looks for is felonies and domestic abuse and even that database isn't maintained because the Republicans will not allocate funds to it.

At gun shows they do not check for anything, no ID, no bill of sale, nothing in most states. My state (Illinois) requires background checks for all sales; but you can go right across the border to Indiana or Wisconsin without much of an issue (and there is always a gun show right across the border in Indiana).

Maq, I believe part of why the mental illness issue always comes up is because liberals are being nice and extending a good faith olive branch to conservatives. It’s another way to do nothing.

We should, of course, study whether there are ways to predict violent tendencies and if any of those track with mental health. But I believe what this is is a way to not talk about what we should be talking about. Banning large swaths of guns. Period.

It’s diplomatic to make most of the proposed action about background checks when the reality is that the only thing that would truly prevent mass shootings is if these guns just weren’t available.

DSGamer wrote:

We should, of course, study whether there are ways to predict violent tendencies and if any of those track with mental health. But I believe what this is is a way to not talk about what we should be talking about. Banning large swaths of guns. Period.

It's almost as if some polticians are blaming a thing they have specifically outlawed scientific research about, and then using that lack of data as an excuse to scapegoat people with mental illness.

I can't imagine how I got the perception that one political party is acting in bad faith, and the other one is letting them.

Yup. The political Right's unwillingness to include sh*t like this in their discussion of mental illness really puts the lie to their sincerity about gun control.

IMAGE(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v9H13UI1WgM/maxresdefault.jpg)

If you look at the data from Mother Jones I linked to, over half of them had a prior history of mental health issues, and another quarter had unaddressed mental health or behavioral issues. So it keeps coming up because most mass shooters did have some sort of mental health or behavioral issue. There are overwhelmingly more people with mental health issues that aren't dangerous, so the general umbrella term is not a predictor, but it may mean that certain kinds of mental health issues increases the risk (even if it's a correlation, not a causation).

I don't think tackling it only from a mental health standpoint is a good solution, but it shouldn't be ignored either. I think a mental health screening is going to have to be part of whatever form of gun control we advocate for. Not in a sense that being diagnosed with any mental health problem automatically disqualifies you, but certain diagnoses should mean that you have to have a more in-depth screening.