[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?

Yonder wrote:

OG, you've spent a lot of effort coming up with some decent, some strained reasons that Maq's study may be flawed. Do you have another, good ol' Made In America study with different numbers? In absence of that you sound a lot like the pro-gun activists that bend over backwards to come up with reasons while every single other countries' lessons have to be ignored because they can't possibly match up with the real world here in the U S of A.

That's kinda the point, Yonder. There isn't fantastically rich data about people who are mentally ill who also commit violence (especially gun violence) in the US of A. It just doesn't exist. There are data points, but they're caveated data points. And those caveated data points just highlight that there's a lot that hasn't been studied in any detail.

And that data doesn't seem to exist outside of America either because everyone and their mother seems to ultimately refer back to that one Swedish study.

I think it’s unreasonable to single out anyone as unfit to wield assualt rifles. Let’s just get rid of all of them instead and actually try and solve some issues.

Because it got mentioned in the other thread, I'm reposting this list of easy things to do that are perfectly in line with the values that conservatives taught me to believe.

They're all things that should be just fine for conservatives to support.

TheGameguru wrote:

I think it’s unreasonable to single out anyone as unfit to wield assualt rifles. Let’s just get rid of all of them instead and actually try and solve some issues.

You get rid of assault rifles and the only thing you've accomplished is maybe eliminate one or two hundred firearm deaths a year.

What isn't touched is the 11,000 or so homicides involving firearms because handguns are used for a good 90%+ of those. Nor would banning assault rifles make a dent in the 22,000 people who use a firearm to commit suicide because they also overwhelmingly use handguns.

Same with violent crimes. Handguns are the popular choice for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes a year.

OG_slinger wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I think it’s unreasonable to single out anyone as unfit to wield assualt rifles. Let’s just get rid of all of them instead and actually try and solve some issues.

You get rid of assault rifles and the only thing you've accomplished is maybe eliminate one or two hundred firearm deaths a year.

What isn't touched is the 11,000 or so homicides involving firearms because handguns are used for a good 90%+ of those. Nor would banning assault rifles make a dent in the 22,000 people who use a firearm to commit suicide because they also overwhelmingly use handguns.

Same with violent crimes. Handguns are the popular choice for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes a year.

Dude!!! Come on you are just wobbling all over! Last page YOU said

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm not scared, Maq. I'm f*cking pissed. This sh*t happens over and over and no one does a goddamned thing about it.

Screenings are a politically expedient and achievable way to reduce the number of people who get a hold of firearms. They are something we can do now and regardless of how inefficient or ineffective may be. Even filtering out one killer--mass or not--makes doing it worthwhile.

So you want screenings because filtering out ONE killer is worthwhile but it isn't worth doing something that would "eliminate one or two hundred firearm deaths a year"

Seriously you are just moving the goalposts all over to keep arguing or something because your positions make no sense.

Gremlin wrote:

Because it got mentioned in the other thread, I'm reposting this list of easy things to do that are perfectly in line with the values that conservatives taught me to believe.

They're all things that should be just fine for conservatives to support.

Yeah what's with all that government interference and regulation? Jeez, let the market fix it.

farley3k wrote:

So you want screenings because filtering out ONE killer is worthwhile but it isn't worth doing something that would "eliminate one or two hundred firearm deaths a year"

Seriously you are just moving the goalposts all over to keep arguing or something because your positions make no sense.

Where the did I say that eliminating assault rifles isn't worth doing? I said that it wouldn't make a dent in the overall level of gun crime and homicide because of handguns.

That's not really "solving" the issue of guns in America, as it was put.

"Solving" the issue of guns in America means accepting that, yes, pretty much all guns are going to have to be banned, not just assault rifles, and few people are comfortable openly saying that for a whole host of reasons.

Oh, and here's another one that everyone should be able to embrace: stop accepting donations from the NRA (and return any donations already made). They say they care about corruption. Shouldn't they be eager to distance themselves from the appearance of corruption? Sounds like a win-win to me.

OG_slinger wrote:
Yonder wrote:

OG, you've spent a lot of effort coming up with some decent, some strained reasons that Maq's study may be flawed. Do you have another, good ol' Made In America study with different numbers? In absence of that you sound a lot like the pro-gun activists that bend over backwards to come up with reasons while every single other countries' lessons have to be ignored because they can't possibly match up with the real world here in the U S of A.

That's kinda the point, Yonder. There isn't fantastically rich data about people who are mentally ill who also commit violence (especially gun violence) in the US of A. It just doesn't exist. There are data points, but they're caveated data points. And those caveated data points just highlight that there's a lot that hasn't been studied in any detail.

And that data doesn't seem to exist outside of America either because everyone and their mother seems to ultimately refer back to that one Swedish study.

Look here, count the number of people with a prior history of mental health problems. Most mass shooters had a prior history of mental illness. That doesn't mean that mental illness alone is dangerous or something to be afraid of or should be legislated against (which is what some of you think I'm advocating for), but the combination of mental illness and guns is. I've never disputed that people with mental health problems aren't likely to become mass shooters, I'm pointing out that mass shooters are overwhelmingly likely to have mental health problems. You need to pass a mental health screening to be a cop, join the military, or fly a plane. Just having a problem isn't automatically disqualifying, it depends on what the problem is and if it's being treated properly. Failing a screening doesn't mean you're dangerous or crazy, just that the responsibility inherent in owning a gun isn't a good fit for you. Why is asking for the something similar when someone goes to buy a gun such a sticking point?

Gonna overshare here:

I have been put on a mental hold. Forced institutionalization for worries that I will harm myself. I have also been incarcerated for non-violent criminal activity. (I found that a certain illegal substance made my life more bearable.) I have "institutional" nightmares from time to time. There is literally no difference between the stigma of having your freedom taken away for how your chemicals present, and for what behavior you have exhibited.

The folks talking about having a better conversation in regards to the mental health angle would just like people to understand the difference between having freedoms taken away for what you have done, and for who you ARE. The results here in America unfortunately are not very different. Being in a place where you do not have the option of leaving is really the sticking point. The uncomfortable beds, the tasteless food, and lack of control are all there.

Should we really make it worse for the less fortunate, when the SCIENCE doesn't back it up?

I should never own a gun. Yet, the thousands to millions like me, who generally just get in our own way should be offered up to the altar of public scorn to make the rest feel better? LISTEN!

Stengah wrote:

Look here, count the number of people with a prior history of mental health problems. Most mass shooters had a prior history of mental illness.

To save others some time, 52 out of the 97 listed shooters are categorized as having "Prior signs of mental health issues" however I don't know how those 97 shooters are cherry-picked, and whether that selection criteria has inflated the number of people with a mental health history. That selection has, as stated, 97 shooters going back to 1982, but there were 346 mass shootings in 2017... I strongly suspect that they have looked at some of the more high profile, eye-catching shootings, and it wouldn't surprise me if those had a much higher likelihood of a mentally ill shooter.

Why is asking for the something similar when someone goes to buy a gun such a sticking point?

The biggest sticking point is that people in this thread are continuously lumping together different types of personality traits, using terms like "mentally ill" or "mental health" to lump together people with mental illnesses, and people with a violent history, when those are Not The Same. That equalization directly harms people that are actually mentally ill. That equalization makes people not want to (or want to their children to) socialize with people with mental issues, because maybe that mentally ill person will go nuts one day and attack somebody. That equalization makes people not want to hire mentally ill people, because that guy with bipolar disorder is probably going to shoot up the office one day.

That equalization means that people that are being pushed to do something, anything about gun violence are realizing that they can make a choice that people THINK are equivalent, but that aren't. Should they infringe upon what is seen as a patriotic institution with a super rabid fanbase, or enact draconian repression on a marginalized and historically oppressed segment of society that it seems like the public is all too ready to kick around?

Let me pull out a choice quote for you.

President Trump wrote:

"Part of the problem is, we used to have mental institutions, and I said this yesterday, we had a mental institution where you take a sicko, like this guy, he was a sick guy, so many signs, and you bring him to a mental health institution," he said. "We've got to get them out of our communities."

Here's the thing, can I blame people on this forum for President Trump's rhetoric? No, he's an idiot monster. But here's the more important thing, when people in this community say

"Hey guys, this is exactly the sort of false equivalency between my marginalized group that is currently a problem with our acceptance in society, and in very recent history was used as rationale to do really sh*tty, really terrible things to us. I'm really concerned that this will be the pathway to really regress in how we are treated, people are going to use this exact thing as an excuse to do really bad things to us."

While people in power are saying

"I've got this great idea, because of this exact thing we should do these really bad things to these people."

Then it's time to pay some gods damned attention pretty f*cking quick.

And I know, you had no idea, you're horrified by those words, you completely renounce them and they sicken you. That's all totally true. It's also totally true that people in this thread have been trying to break this down a dozen times over the last few days, so my apologies if it's got my hackles a bit up.

Thanks for being so personal, Beuks33. I literally worry about this every time I have a bought of insomnia. I worry that *this* is the time my mind "breaks" and I'm never free again. Part of why I came back from Australia when my health turned in 2016 is because I was afraid of what my options would be if my derealization were diagnosed by a doctor in a foreign country.

I worry about this and we treat people with mental illness much better than we used to. Thanks again for sharing.

Thank you as well, Yonder.

It was for Maq's most patient posting that I felt the need to share. There are places a person can end up that only time to personally work it out, or someone's understanding can save you from. Not all of us have the luxury of either. Thank you Yonder. Thank you DSGamer.

Perhaps instead of giving additional people in schools gun, one might want to look in to just what happened with the one person who was actually supposed to have a gun at school.

Beuks33 wrote:

It was for Maq's most patient posting that I felt the need to share. There are places a person can end up that only time to personally work it out, or someone's understanding can save you from. Not all of us have the luxury of either. Thank you Yonder. Thank you DSGamer.

And we all thank you, too. We're all family here at GWJ going back a long time. Heck I've known Certis and Elysium so long we were all clean shaven in the olden days.

There. Are. No. CDC. Studies. In. The. Modern. Era. Because. The. CDC. Is. Not. Legally. Permitted. To. Do. Any. Gun. Studies.

DO NOT USE THE LACK OF STUDIES AS AN ARGUMENT!

EDIT: ok this got addressed lower in the thread, but it can never be stated enough.

Once you start including mental health in background checks, I start to worry about who has access to that information. Once you start equating mental health with too big a risk to own a gun, I wonder who has access to that information and will use it as a reason to approach anyone flagged with the label as a risk of violence. I'm in treatment for depression. That would likely fall under "mental illness", and would need to show up on background checks. If police are involved in running background checks, which now include mental illness, it seems likely that info would come up if they, for example, pulled me over and ran my plates. Now, maybe they become more likely to draw a gun on me because I'm a potential danger to them.

The problem is that I don't have an option to not have depression. If I know that seeking help puts me in the system, and makes the police think of me as a risk of violence, I very well might choose not to get help to avoid getting in the system. That's no good for anyone.

So unless you can guarantee that "mental health" as a label never crosses path with law enforcement or anywhere else it could be used as a disqualifier, it's probably not the best metric to use.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'd f*cking love a nice study that said the biggest factor in mass shootings (or any shooting) was guns. But deep down I know it's not.

Oy.

Show me even anecdotal evidence of a single mass shooting that happened without guns.

I'll wait.

So slippery slope arguments and conflating knee-jerk and uninformed arguments (Trump) with thought out ones because they deal with the same subject.

Information from a background check for a gun doesn't get sent to police (unless you lied on it, which is a felony). Whatever they find won't be used against you if you don't pass, you just don't get the gun.

I didn't quote something Hitler did 70 years ago and say "that's sort of like this". I quoted something the President of the United States said YESTERDAY. It is this, it's exactly this. It's not a metaphor!

Yeah, but it's Trump. Do you seriously think he's who gun control advocates who want mental health screened for are looking to for ideas? That's like assuming people here who don't want them are getting their ideas from Wayne LaPierre.

This is silly Mental Health isn't some binary on or off thing you can "check" for. All this will do is further stigmatize mental health. Nobody needs guns.. nobody. Let's actually make a difference and get rid of them starting with Assault Rifles like the AR-15.

Stengah wrote:

Yeah, but it's Trump. Do you seriously think he's who gun control advocates who want mental health screened for are looking to for ideas? That's like assuming people here who don't want them are getting their ideas from Wayne LaPierre.

He's an uninformed buffoon, but he's also the President. What he says matters, especially when there's a shockingly large portion of the country that believes every word that comes out of his mouth. You can't say "oh, that's just Trump being Trump" because as scary as it is, what he says means something.

TheGameguru wrote:

This is silly Mental Health isn't some binary on or off thing you can "check" for. All this will do is further stigmatize mental health. Nobody needs guns.. nobody. Let's actually make a difference and get rid of them starting with Assault Rifles like the AR-15.

Yep.

I just had a thought. Would there be so many incidents of police officers killing innocent civilians without guns being as rampant as they are? Part of why those things happen (outside of racism, cultural differences, etc.) is that police feel they are outgunned and have to be ready for a shootout at any moment. It could be transformative in other ways to take that off the table.

He got up on TV today and argued that gun free zones just invite attacks, that armed defense will stop school shootings. And then after minutes of rambling, he admitted that a security guard didn't stop this one, but that's because the security guard didn't care about the students. Teachers care, and they will save lives.

He's a goddamn lunatic.

Stele wrote:

He got up on TV today and argued that gun free zones just invite attacks, that armed defense will stop school shootings. And then after minutes of rambling, he admitted that a security guard didn't stop this one, but that's because the security guard didn't care about the students. Teachers care, and they will save lives.

He's a goddamn lunatic.

His comments were kinda sorta terrifying. Any time the president of the United States stands in front of the country and starts with, "...and I just thought of this today..." when discussing what could be substantial policy issues is utter lunacy.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Show me even anecdotal evidence of a single mass shooting that happened without guns.

Show me even anecdotal evidence of a single mass shooting that happened without a person attached to the gun.

The problem is guns and people combined. The problem of mass shootings is guns being used by a person with with mental, emotional, or behavioral issues. The problem for the 22,000 people a year who commit suicide with a firearm is their guns in combination with their mental, emotional, or behavioral issues.

If you are concerned about further stigmatizing people with mental illness then you should be demanding mental health screenings as part of firearm background checks. That's because there absolutely will be another mass shooting involving someone who has mental, emotional, or behavioral issues. In fact, it will probably be the next one considering healthy, well-adjusted people simply don't go on killing rampages.

So, yet again, there will be wall-to-wall media coverage of how someone with mental, emotional, or behavioral issues slaughtered a sh*tload of people and the public's reaction will, predictably, be to associate any mental, emotional, or behavioral issue someone might have--no matter how benign--with violence and danger.

I find it frankly odd that just about everyone here who's admitted to suffering from some form of mental illness has said that they shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. And yet they somehow feel that mental health screenings as part of background checks--checks that would prevent them and others who suffer from buying a firearm--would be bad.

They are in effect saying we should continue to let people who have mental illnesses buy firearms because if we do something to try to stop that from happening then society will look slightly worse at people with mental illnesses than they already do. I would love for Americans to better understand mental illness. But that's a tremendously tall order made even taller when it's combined with people's feeling about firearms.

That's all made worse because we do know that beyond mass shootings there are tens of thousands of times a year where mental illness and firearms collide: suicide. We could also be doing something about that.

Not the kumbaya sh*t of "let's just ban guns"--even only ARs--because, while it's an admirable and desirable goal, we all know that that isn't going to happen any time in the next decade at least.

What could happen in the near future is to at least make an attempt to prevent people with mental, emotional, or behavior issues from being able to buy firearms. It's not going to be a Scarlet Letter "C" that haunts their life. It's just going to be that the folks who try to buy a firearm won't be able to. And if we wanted to take mental health more seriously then we could probably figure out a way to shunt people who failed their screenings into treatment and tax the sh*t out of guns to pay for it.

OG_slinger wrote:

I find it frankly odd that just about everyone here who's admitted to suffering from some form of mental illness has said that they shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. And yet they somehow feel that mental health screenings as part of background checks--checks that would prevent them and others who suffer from buying a firearm--would be bad.

Only one or two people have said that, the majority of people are saying "pretty, pretty please make a clear distinction between people with mental illnesses that should be restricted from owning a gun because they are a danger to themselves, and the people with histories of violence that are actually a danger to others. Please stop using language that lumps them together into the same category."

And after numerous requests the troubling response has been "whatever, I see that whole thing as the same issue".

Yonder wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I find it frankly odd that just about everyone here who's admitted to suffering from some form of mental illness has said that they shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. And yet they somehow feel that mental health screenings as part of background checks--checks that would prevent them and others who suffer from buying a firearm--would be bad.

Only one or two people have said that, the majority of people are saying "pretty, pretty please make a clear distinction between people with mental illnesses that should be restricted from owning a gun because they are a danger to themselves, and the people with histories of violence that are actually a danger to others. Please stop using language that lumps them together into the same category."

And after numerous requests the troubling response has been "whatever, I see that whole thing as the same issue".

And if just some of the people in this sterling community see it that way, just extrapolate that to the public at large.

The only reason I don't have a scarlet letter C, sir, is because the judge had some compassion and sealed that case. A mental hold is a legal action that comes up in a background check and can make you unhireable. There are already real consequences, not just future slippery slopes.