Whenever violence is targeted or situational, one can hear news of a killing and place oneself mentally out of danger by reason of probability, or by vowing to turn in odd family members to some authority, or to avoid high crime areas. A random killer is an unforeseeable danger, thus no mitigation is possible, and there is therefore no sense of control. This is why mass murders, in general, get the sensational coverage and cause the fear they do.
Next, in this specific category of mass killing, it is true that the bulk of the incidents in the USA involve White males. Not all of them, but most. Where your narrative falls apart is in stating that others argue it is always Whites, which is of course untrue. Yet you feel free to say that your view applies forum-wide in the same breath.
And why is that so? Who in the US (or Anglo world) feels no pressure from, say, probable retaliation from a larger or dominant majority, or from suffocating public authority? In the US, the historical and contemporary answer is decidedly "White males". Were the power dynamics different, things would undoubtedly be elsewise in terms of demographics. But in the US it is, and has been, White males in many things, owing to the same reasons. Including in this, in committing acts of domestic terror, they have the swagger to feel rightfully in command and to punish whoever on whatever grounds. Far loser of mind, even, than an ISIS terrorist, who usually can produce an argument when asked.
This may be hard to accept, rather, it is hard to accept, and that is, in a nutshell, the core, deep, number one issue American males have, and a very good reason the nation can go to war at the drop of a hat: lack of meaningful accountability. Well, except for faggot Democrats like Carter giving away our Panama Canal, by golly! (Central American refugees from failed regimes, the US military, and the Banana Wars are now only causally related in "left-wing propaganda"; real, honest-to-goodness facts and terrible ongoing consequences be damned. Git them damned epithets off my lawn! Build the Wall!).
Sorry you were feeling put upon. Didn't have a right to, though
Just to say again, the language used up thread was the vast majority are white. Which is not true, in fact the majority are white in proportion(actually a bit lower) to the general population. The US is about 70% white, mass shooters/killers ect are between 55 and 65% white depending on how you define it.
The article describes classic schizophrenia: onset in late teens or very young adult; increasing paranoia over time; eventually full blown delusions.
The family didn't recognize it. They thought the problem was the guy was bullied. They didn't understand the paranoia they observed.
He bought the rifle a week earlier. Without a diagnosis of schizophrenia, I don't see that he would have been on any gun purchasing site radar.
But he was seen playing around with the gun a couple days before the shooting. It's unfortunate the family didn't recognize or were in denial that he had a mental illness.
Note: some schizophrenics become violent and dangerous. Most schizophrenics NEVER become violent. It's important people understand that ratio. But when it comes to restricting access to guns, I don't see why they shouldn't be restricted for people with schizophrenia just because delusions are integral to the disease. Maybe one could be cleared to own a firearm before being allowed to purchase/acquire one: Stable, on meds, etc.
Sure, guns are best even for a layperson. I suppose a bomb is probably the best tool, but that takes some reading, technical skill, and more careful planning. Any dingus can walk into a gun store and walk out with a highly effective, rarely malfunctioning killing machine and manage to figure out which side the death comes out.
My point is that the Assault weapon ban is itself an especially useless piece of legislation. Magazine fed repeating firearms, even AWB compliant versions, are prefect substitutes, and cruder manually fired repeaters are only a bit worse and would still likely lead to a large bodycount.
Second was local, but very similar .. guy set apartment on fire, killing 11 (and sadly, one of them was a friend of mine, which I only found out several months later).
In both cases the attacker used gas in canister, and he was able to pour it around the only exit, and set it on fire. In both cases the fire developed so fast, people were unable to run away.
Another mass shooting popped up on GVA today, this time in Detroit. 1 dead, 3 injured in a car-to-car shooting. This will be widely ignored also and not considered a mass shooting because…
Another mass shooting popped up on GVA today, this time in Detroit. 1 dead, 3 injured in a car-to-car shooting. This will be widely ignored also and not considered a mass spree shooting because it is not a spree shooting
Back to Atlanta. Another car-to-car shooting at a mall. Three young adults and one elementary aged child were injured. No description of the perpetrators as of yet.
The article describes classic schizophrenia: onset in late teens or very young adult; increasing paranoia over time; eventually full blown delusions.
The family didn't recognize it. They thought the problem was the guy was bullied. They didn't understand the paranoia they observed.
He bought the rifle a week earlier. Without a diagnosis of schizophrenia, I don't see that he would have been on any gun purchasing site radar.
But he was seen playing around with the gun a couple days before the shooting. It's unfortunate the family didn't recognize or were in denial that he had a mental illness.
Note: some schizophrenics become violent and dangerous. Most schizophrenics NEVER become violent. It's important people understand that ratio. But when it comes to restricting access to guns, I don't see why they shouldn't be restricted for people with schizophrenia just because delusions are integral to the disease. Maybe one could be cleared to own a firearm before being allowed to purchase/acquire one: Stable, on meds, etc.
Even with a diagnosis he wouldn't have a problem. The federal form only asks if you've ever been committed involuntarily to a mental health institution or have been adjudicated mentally deficient through official process. Voluntary treatment or diagnosis is not something that would cause a problem here, and I doubt local or federal government even has access to this kind of information.
I also am very wary of the conversation around banning rights to the mentally ill. The state seems to take a very binary view of mental illness, which is a very crude way to deal with a variety of afflictions.
As Suburban Turkey says, only those who have been adjudicated by a court will show up on present FBI checks, and that’s only a tiny percentage of mentally-ill folks.
This, coupled with the stigma attached and the semi-intentional blindness of family (who might, after all, be tarred by the same brush), most of these folks go under the radar until it’s too late.
I recall the Virginia Tech shooter, who was actually under the care of a therapist, who was aware the fellow had homicidal ideation.... But did nothing.
Many of these people either already own or have access to firearms, well before they “go bad”.
As Suburban Turkey says, only those who have been adjudicated by a court will show up on present FBI checks, and that’s only a tiny percentage of mentally-ill folks.
This, coupled with the stigma attached and the semi-intentional blindness of family (who might, after all, be tarred by the same brush), most of these folks go under the radar until it’s too late.
I recall the Virginia Tech shooter, who was actually under the care of a therapist, who was aware the fellow had homicidal ideation.... But did nothing.
Many of these people either already own or have access to firearms, well before they “go bad”.
His first mental health professional contact was with a social worker, who wrote, “this is the most anxious guy I've ever seen and he has symptoms of OCD, but most concerning is that he has thoughts of killing people, though I don't think he's dangerous". The social worker said that it was difficult to interview him, because he would stare and take a long time to answer. (name redacted) told them that he never had hurt anybody and never would. The social worker noted that he had a number of odd mannerisms; for instance, when he left appointments, he would not say thank you, goodbye, or other customary remarks on his way out. The worker also thought that he might be having a psychotic break.[citation needed]
He was seen by psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton, who testified at his trial that she was worried about his homicidal ideation expressed in their last meeting. She saw him a total of seven times over three months, twice with a male psychiatrist. (name redacted) rejected their suggestions for treatment. In June 2012 after (name redacted) had sent her a threatening email, she activated a threat assessment team to help her formulate a plan for (name redacted). She listed specific concerns, such as his long-standing fantasies about killing as many people as possible, his reluctance to discuss any details about his plans, his refusal to allow them to talk to anyone else and the unclear timeline; she didn't know if he was always that way or if this was a new behavior. She consulted with his mother, who said he had longstanding social problems. Although the center offered to treat him if he lost his insurance, he left treatment. His final diagnosis there was Schizoid personality disorder with two rule-outs: Schizophreniform disorder and autism spectrum disorder.[59]
(I try not to use the names of the shooters, so I redacted the name. But the link goes to the Wiki page about him, that seems unavoidable.)
If this shooter is as mentally ill as the current claims state, then this makes two mass shootings by obviously mentally ill people in Colorado. I think we'll see some discussion of legal solutions regarding the access to firearms by mentally ill people - but as Bikewer points out, the more liberal side of the political divide is itself divided on that issue due to concerns about stigmatizing mental health problems and civil rights.
When discussing effective gun control, the mass public shootings with more than about 6 victims is the red herring.
The Majority of gun deaths are suicide with hand guns, about 60%.
The majority of murders involve a small number of victims, usually the family of the perpetrator. The next biggest group are felony murder, gang or crime related, almost all hand guns. Depending on the year, there are more knife murders than rifle murders.
Types of legislation that will have almost no impact on gun violence in the US.
Bans on "assault weapons" or any other type of long gun.
Types of legislation that may help.
Anything impacting hand guns. Bans, licensing and registration, almost anything.
Increased penalties for crimes when guns are used. Robbery gets one thing, robbery with a gun gets a much steeper penalty.
I'm generally pro second amendment but, I'm basically on board with a ban on sales of new hand guns, mandatory registration of those that are out there, buy backs, and I could probably be convinced of a total ban. I think allowing folks to keep there long guns would comply with the intent of the second amendment. Most of those suggestions require an amendment except maybe the ban on sales.
Anything directed at rifles are useless pandering and virtue signalling.
ETA: One more thing, any restraining order should include a requirement that the restrainee give up any guns for what ever time the order is active.
Another mass shooting popped up on GVA today, this time in Detroit. 1 dead, 3 injured in a car-to-car shooting. This will be widely ignored also and not considered a mass shooting because…
It will be considered a mass shooting when it comes to reporting, "There have been X many mass shootings since......" The reports will then go on to discuss events like Boulder.
Even with a diagnosis he wouldn't have a problem. The federal form only asks if you've ever been committed involuntarily to a mental health institution or have been adjudicated mentally deficient through official process. Voluntary treatment or diagnosis is not something that would cause a problem here, and I doubt local or federal government even has access to this kind of information.
I also am very wary of the conversation around banning rights to the mentally ill. The state seems to take a very binary view of mental illness, which is a very crude way to deal with a variety of afflictions.
There are a few things to unpack there - poverty, culture. Note the geography - pretty much all in the southeast. When I was at the University of South Carolina who commuted to Columbia from Sumter, SC. She informed me that her county has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. I was surprised to find out she was right - and that (as in the posted link) most of the highest (per capita) 50 towns with a pop of at least 20K (as I recall) were in the
south.
The tern assault weapons includes certain types of handguns and shotguns. For example the TEC-DC9 handgun used by the Columbine shooters, the handgun with a 33 round magazine used in the Tucson grocery store shooting and the Saiga combat shotgun found in the shooter’s car at Sandy Hook.
I agree that handguns are at the core of the gun violence problem. The reason is that most homicides are not planned. In a culture where people keep a loaded handgun close at hand it is the tool that gets used when anger flares. But since the Heller decision declared that keeping a loaded handgun was a right we can’t ban handguns.
Regulating guns that are attractive to spree killers is indeed nibbling at the problem. But it is something we can do besides throw up our hands and declare that we just have to accept the carnage.
Colorado closed the gun show loophole after Columbine. After the Aurora theater shooting the stare implemented universal background checks, magazine restrictions and a red flag law. This latest shooting could have been avoided if the shooter’s family had asked for a red flag order.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
