Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
What Skeptic Ginger was doing was, in effect, saying that the vast majority of mass shootings aren't worth discussing.
Click to expand...
Really? Could you quote where I said that?

You are describing what some people here think I said. Perhaps if you quoted me I could clear this falsehood up.
 
Max_mang said:
Again with the categorization equals reduction thing. ??
Click to expand...

I thought I understood from your posts that categorization of the types of mass murder would eventually lead to something positive or advantageous. Presumably reduction in the deaths from mass murders is a positive. If categorization is just an academic exercise and a reduction in deaths is not a/the goal then why bother?
 
Steve said:
I thought I understood from your posts that categorization of the types of mass murder would eventually lead to something positive or advantageous. Presumably reduction in the deaths from mass murders is a positive. If categorization is just an academic exercise and a reduction in deaths is not a/the goal then why bother?
Click to expand...

I'll take this as an indicator that you either don't read the posts or are arguing in bad faith. If it's not the latter I ask that you re-read my posts and perhaps we can start at the same place.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You can own a machine gun. If it was made or imported before 1968 or registered before 1986 All you need is a bit of extra paperwork and a few hundred dollars to pay the fee.[/B]You can have an M16, a Vickers, an M60 or a Bren gun etc.
Because there is a limited expensive to buy.

Even some M16s are now more than 50 years old and count as 'Collectables and Relics'

You can own a howitzer, and AA gun or an RPG. They are classed as 'Destructive Devices' and you need the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fee.
Click to expand...

So as I said... not "as of right"
 
Steve said:
I pick neither. The thread is about mass shootings. The thread is pointless. You said so yourself. Others here think your post was nuanced. I do not.
Click to expand...
My post wasn't the least bit nuanced.

Again, please quote what I said so I can help you understand it.

Actually now that I think about it, cherry picking, quote mining, that's probably closer to the problem.

I wonder if people prefer this distraction than admitting there's nothing in this thread that will make a difference if one ignores the specifics. The FBI calls them "active shooter incidents".

FBI: A Study of Pre-attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the US between 2000 and 2013

Pre-attack indicators: Do we finally have a profile on active shooters? FBI study looks at what happened in the lives of shooters before the violence to find behavioral predictors of likely mass killers [A discussion of the FBI paper]

The FBI- The School Shooter—A Threat Assessment Perspective

You'll find that a lot of schools, colleges, universities did adopt these recommendations but many did not. It's not too late.

Does any of that apply to the gang members that shot up a party?

Then there is the FBI themselves that need a bit more effort:
FBI Knew About the Boulder Shooter But Failed to Stop Him
Where was the FBI? It turns out that the Colorado grocery store shooter Ahmad Alissa was known to the FBI and had ranted online about “racist islamophobes” hacking his phone. The FBI failed to stop another shooting where they knew the gunman but weren’t watching him as he purchased a gun six days ago.
Click to expand...

Risk Management: FBI: Over 80 Percent of Active Shooter Incidents Occur at Work
Of 160 active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013, over 80 percent (132) occurred at work, according to the FBI’s first study of the subject.

The agency defined an active shooter incident as when an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area through the use of firearms.

The study found that 1,043 people were either killed or wounded in all 160 incidents, excluding the shooters. There was an average of 6.4 incidents per year from 2000-06, but the rate increased to 16.4 incidents per year from 2007-13. The incidents occurred in 40 states and in Washington, D.C.

Of the 132 worksite shootings, 73 incidents (45.6 percent) took place at businesses, 39 (24.4 percent) at schools, 16 (10 percent) at government sites, and four at health care facilities (2.5 percent).
Click to expand...

Workplace Violence Prevention
Readiness and Response


These are things we can address. Banning certain guns? Not gonna happen. Maybe we can get some of those multiple rounds clips off the street. What good is it to talk about all the gun violence in the US then not offer any possible solutions?
You want to add to the list? Go for it. But adding other types of gun violence just to say you care? You thought about it? You lamented? I don't see the point.
 
Max_mang said:
I'll take this as an indicator that you either don't read the posts or are arguing in bad faith. If it's not the latter I ask that you re-read my posts and perhaps we can start at the same place.
Click to expand...

Let's start with this one:

Max_mang said:
No one has made this claim.

Categorization happens in all areas where people are trying to fix a problem, do you oppose it across the board or only on this topic? Categorizing different kinds of cancers has not lessened or eradicated them. But that categorization leads to a better understanding that could lead to something that helps the problem.
Click to expand...

Now "something that helps the problem" or is useful in "trying to fix a problem" in the case of mass murders would be something that reduces the total number of mass murders and the number of persons who die that way. Do you see some other way of help(ing) the problem, leading from categorization, that does not involve a reduction in both occurrences and deaths? If categorization is to have a material effect it must lead to reduction.
 
Steve said:
Let's start with this one:



Now "something that helps the problem" or is useful in "trying to fix a problem" in the case of mass murders would be something that reduces the total number of mass murders and the number of persons who die that way. Do you see some other way of help(ing) the problem, leading from categorization, that does not involve a reduction in both occurrences and deaths? If categorization is to have a material effect it must lead to reduction.
Click to expand...

Bad faith. Got it. Thanks for your time, I guess.

Seriously, if you think having a simple, non-detailed discussion about a complex, important issue is more helpful than the converse, then so be it.

As for categorization, everything is categorized by people who are serious about improving and or studying/understanding those situations - be it crime, diseases, areas of science, politics, etc. If you truly think that since categorization does not equal immediate reduction/positive effects it is therefore pointless, then what are you doing on a critical thinking forum?
 
Max_mang said:
Bad faith. Got it. Thanks for your time, I guess.

Seriously, if you think having a simple, non-detailed discussion about a complex, important issue is more helpful than the converse, then so be it.

As for categorization, everything is categorized by people who are serious about improving and or studying/understanding those situations - be it crime, diseases, areas of science, politics, etc. If you truly think that since categorization does not equal immediate reduction/positive effects it is therefore pointless, then what are you doing on a critical thinking forum?
Click to expand...

Bizarre! I'm out.

ETA immediate reduction? Talk about bad faith! my whole point re reduction is that it will take years or decades for statistics to show it.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Bizarre! I'm out.

ETA immediate reduction? Talk about bad faith! my whole point re reduction is that it will take years or decades for statistics to show it.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's bad faith for me to say that you want immediate results, but since it will take years then...something?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Someone who sets off to murder complete strangers, or everyone at a workplace or school.

It does not include the guy who murders his spouse/girlfriend and takes out any family members that had the unfortunate luck of being there.

It doesn't include armed robbery, or gang-related murders. It doesn't include road rage.


That doesn't mean all those other deaths from gun violence don't matter. They do. But the only way to address any of this is to define shooters by groups of characteristics one can use to address the problem.

To address mass shooters we need to know what their characteristics are, what they have in common, what are the triggers, the warning signs and then those need to be incorporated into planning.

The FBI has a good paper on 'the school shooter' and what schools need to do to prevent those incidents. And there are things that can be done. Schools need risk assessment tools and plans. I've linked to it before.

There is also a workplace shooter plan, identifying who is at risk like blaming others among other things, and establishing a plan, how to get law enforcement involved and so on. I've been to conferences on 'going postal' that advise employers on how to establish such a plan.

In the latest shooting at Sooper's that might have been prevented by better educating people who are worried about family members and taking away roadblocks. For example, police have to stop shooting mentally ill people in a crisis when someone calls for help. Would you call the police to help you with your schizophrenic child knowing how often they just shoot the person?

Family members need resources and education. This one is a little loftier of a goal but we can still begin to address it.


Do you see how none of those address these kinds of shooters:
The Way We Think About Mass Shootings Ignores Many Black Victims

The article bemoans the fact these murders don't get the same press coverage. And that is a valid complaint.

That is not the school shooter, not the schizophrenic shooter, not the workplace shooter.

While they obviously need attention, and news coverage, they are a different animal. Equal attention doesn't mean they should all be lumped together into "gun violence" because that really limits the actions we need to be taking.
Click to expand...

I have read through this several times SG, and while you definitely make some valid points it seems a little disjointed and confusing,

I can see that the classification of characteristics would be useful in developing mitigation and prevention. I have no problem with the categories.
I am less clear on the following:

- Why are some categories specifically excluded from the definition of a mass shooting? It seems to me that they are more properly useful sub-categories that fall under the overall classification of mass shooting and/or gun violence. Saying that a person who was shot intentionally was not a victim of gun violence just seems odd.

- What does the level of press coverage or publicity of individual events have to do with mitigation? Is the idea that more general awareness in potentially affected groups will help recognize potential trouble and enable them to avoid it?

- Why bring up police shooting of troubled individuals? This is way outside any type of mass shooting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom