More mass shootings

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>>Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

>Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

There is a concept common to our justice system called "deterrence." Knowing you will be found and arrested for vehicular manslaughter serves as a deterrent for people who want to run someone down and flee.

Very true.

But most mass shooters plan on dying in the process. Even the kid in Texas planned on committing suicide, but chickened out.

Not a whole lot will deter someone who doesn't plan to be around to see any consequences.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

There is a concept common to our justice system called "deterrence." Knowing you will be found and arrested for vehicular manslaughter serves as a deterrent for people who want to run someone down and flee.

Seems to me that most mass shooters either are aware they will get caught, or do not plan to survive anyway. Deterrence means nothing to these people.

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,465]

wolfriverjoe

***>>Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

>Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

There is a concept common to our justice system called "deterrence." Knowing you will be found and arrested for vehicular manslaughter serves as a deterrent for people who want to run someone down and flee.

Very true.

But most mass shooters plan on dying in the process. Even the kid in Texas planned on committing suicide, but chickened out.

Not a whole lot will deter someone who doesn't plan to be around to see any consequences.

Which makes the logical next step to prevent them from having easy access to tools which make it both easier to act out their desires and increase the severity of the incident.

[billvon 2,996]

>But most mass shooters plan on dying in the process. Even the kid in Texas planned on
>committing suicide, but chickened out.

Right; won't stop them all. But even stopping 30% of them would be a big deal (especially if it reduces the incidence of shooting deaths, the vast majority of which are NOT mass shootings.)

[Phil1111 1,149]

The Mind of the Mass Murderer
Posted May 30, 2014
"He also notes that most perpetrators are young males who act alone after carefully planning the event. They often have a longstanding fascination with weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings usually occur in a public place and during the daytime.

Individual case studies involving psychological autopsy and a careful analysis of the often copious communications left behind suggest common psychological themes. The mass murderer is an injustice collector who spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the window, an outside loner always looking in.

Aggrieved and entitled, he longs for power and revenge to obliterate what he cannot have. Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose and public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair, and callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer typically expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass homicide-personal suicide. He may kill himself or script matters so that he will be killed by the police.

The frequency of mental disorders in mass murderers is controversial because it is not clear where to draw the line between "bad" and "mad." The paranoia exists on a spectrum of severity. Some clearly do not meet criteria for any mental disorder and often may justify their acts on political or religious grounds. Others have the frank psychotic delusions of schizophrenia. Many perpetrators are in the middle, gray zone where psychiatrists will disagree about the relative contributions of moral failure versus mental affliction."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/saving-normal/201405/the-mind-the-mass-murderer

Above from a study:
Dr Knoll writes: In 2013, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on public mass shootings. The CRS used as its working definition incidents “occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths.” The CRS identified 78 public mass shootings in the U.S. since 1983 that had resulted in 547 deaths and 1, 023 casualties.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Right; won't stop them all. But even stopping 30% of them would be a big deal (especially if it reduces the incidence of shooting deaths, the vast majority of which are NOT mass shootings.)

The deterence's are already in place. Commit murder and odds are good you are going to get caught.

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

"Not a whole lot will deter someone who doesn't plan to be around to see any consequences. "

But what about deterring the person who can still legally buy a gun from then selling it on to someone who can't?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

But what about deterring the person who can still legally buy a gun from then selling it on to someone who can't?

That is already illegal. Colorado passed a universal background check law. Several poster here, including billvon, were sure that the law would be enforceable. Want to guess how many people have been prosecuted in the last 5 years?

Boiling a frog.

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

Hooknswoop

Quote

But what about deterring the person who can still legally buy a gun from then selling it on to someone who can't?

That is already illegal. Colorado passed a universal background check law. Several poster here, including billvon, were sure that the law would be enforceable. Want to guess how many people have been prosecuted in the last 5 years?

Boiling a frog.

Derek V

Illegal but can it be traced? If you sell a gun to an undercover cop then you'd be arrested.
But if you sell it to your brother in law and they find it on his body after he shoots up a business will they be able to trace it back to you?

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I think that most gun laws are bullshit simply because they're unenforceable. They make some people feel good and get votes for passing them, and good gun owners nervous because they're the ones who obey the laws, but other than that, not much.

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

ccidental VS. Intentional

Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

Derek V

Vehicles make society work.
You want firearms for fun.

[JoeWeber 2,721]

JoeWeber

***

Quote

I think he's pointing out that the question is unanswerable as to how many. It might be arguable that no system of controlling who has certain types of firearms could succeed without registration. Hence, if you agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled then you ought to agree that registration is part of the solution. I'm guessing that you definitely do not agree.

I agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled, but the current system works to control those firearms.

I do not see how registration will prevent mass shootings.

I do see how registration is the first step in confiscation.

Pro-gun control supporters will take any new gun control laws they can get. Here in Colorado, 5 years ago they passed 2 new gun control laws. Universal background checks, which did nothing, and magazine size limit. The state senator that sponsored this law, Mary Hodge, thought that this law would cause 30-round magazine to quickly be used up since she thought they could only be used once.

This is why I do not trust new gun control laws and ask how they would work. I don't see how they would. I think the end goal is extreme gun control, verging on confiscation. One small step at a time, aka boiling a frog.

***I've been open about what firearms I have and want to protect. Are you willing to post what you have that you want to protect? I ask the same of everyone posting on this thread.

You made a jump from "there is a problem" to "action is required" to what guns do you want to keep? I do not agree with that chain of reasoning.

You want to save lives? Require GPS speed limiters, ignition breathalyzers, real initial and recurrent driver training, and cell phones that are disabled in vehicles. Now there is some low hanging fruit.

Derek V

Derek,

That there is a problem and that action is required are my personal opinions. When I see a problem I want to fix it. I'm not sure that is making a leap.

As to disclosing our personal arsenals, it seems to me that there might be a real connection between the types of weapons we own and where we each stand on interpreting the Second Amendment.

Mostly, I was hoping someone like Marc would exclaim that he doesn't want the bad guys to know he has guns in his house! Or that saying so on the internet was the actual first step towards registration!!

Joe

Derek,

Now I'm intrigued. Are you uncomfortable disclosing certain weapons in your arsenal?

Joe

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Now I'm intrigued. Are you uncomfortable disclosing certain weapons in your arsenal?

Well, sure, for the same reason I am against a national registry of firearms. I actually had a long post typed up focusing on identifying the problem more, but deleted it. It wasn't very coherent.

I agree, there is a problem. I agree there is more we can do to reduce the problem. I do not agree that gun control is the solution. I do not agree that registration will work to prevent anything.

Bill Von disagreed with me that the Colorado Universal background check law was enforceable. Turns out, it is not enforceable. Instead of, "I was wrong, that law should be repealed", I get "Well, let's expand it to a national registry". Where does it end? Let's take away Semi-Auto AR-15's. Well, that did a little. Let's take away all semi-auto rifles. OK, that did a bit more. Let's take away semi-auto pistols. OK, that did more. OK, let's take away shotguns. Boiling a frog.

Pro-gun control will keep going as far as they can.

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

I think this article talks about something that we really need to start taking into consideration, not just when talking gun registration but pretty much any time data is collected onto computers.
I've dealt with IT departments for years and one thing I'm sure of is that many of the people who are supposed to be guarding this information tend to be high on arrogance but lacking in competence. We need to just accept that until things somehow change once they get our data everyone will soon have it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-07-06/data-breach-fatigue-ticketmaster-ticketfly-linkedin/9943720

[jcd11235 0]

Hooknswoop

Bill Von disagreed with me that the Colorado Universal background check law was enforceable. Turns out, it is not enforceable.

Once again, your logic is flawed. Not being enforced is not equal to unenforceable, no matter how many times you make the dubious claim.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,996]

Quote

Once again, your logic is flawed. Not being enforced is not equal to unenforceable, no matter how many times you make the dubious claim.

Yep. Often speed limits are not enforced here in CA. That does not mean they are "unenforceable" as many drivers who leave the state have found out to their chagrin.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Not being enforced is not equal to unenforceable, no matter how many times you make the dubious claim.

And not enforceable is not equal to not being enforced.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yep. Often speed limits are not enforced here in CA. That does not mean they are "unenforceable" as many drivers who leave the state have found out to their chagrin.

Yep, and the difference between CA speed limits and the CO universal firearm background check laws, one is enforceable, the other isn’t.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

The only evidence you have shown that it was unenforceable is that it was not enforced. Got anything else?

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The only evidence you have shown that it was unenforceable is that it was not enforced. Got anything else?

Logic? For example. I buy a firearm from a friend without complying with the background law. How would law enforcement know and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law I bought it without a background check?

Derek V

[jcd11235 0]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Not being enforced is not equal to unenforceable, no matter how many times you make the dubious claim.

And not enforceable is not equal to not being enforced.

That's what I said. I'm glad you finally agree. Now you can stop perpetuating that "It's unenforceable!" nonsense.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Hooknswoop

Quote

The only evidence you have shown that it was unenforceable is that it was not enforced. Got anything else?

Logic?

Unfortunately, you've avoided using any of that in this discussion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wmw999 2,452]

And if someone can conduct an indectible murder, does that mean that we shouldn’t legislate against murder?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bob_Church 7]

wmw999

And if someone can conduct an indectible murder, does that mean that we shouldn’t legislate against murder?

Wendy P.

But there's a big difference between laws that some people will break anyway and laws that can't be enforced. The latter undermine our faith in our legal system and cause a lot of damage. They show a disconnect between the people making the laws and reality.

[billvon 2,996]

>But there's a big difference between laws that some people will break anyway and laws that
>can't be enforced.

Agreed. But thinking "laws can't be enforced" because (for example) the police in your town don't pull over speeders isn't really accurate. It might be a very popular view in your town, of course, since some people might really like to speed and might want to believe that a law against speeding is illegal, or unenforceable, or unconstitutional, or something. (I've seen such arguments.)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Bob_Church

***And if someone can conduct an indectible murder, does that mean that we shouldn’t legislate against murder?

Wendy P.

But there's a big difference between laws that some people will break anyway and laws that can't be enforced. The latter undermine our faith in our legal system and cause a lot of damage. They show a disconnect between the people making the laws and reality.

Most laws can't be enforced under the logic hooknswoop is using. The majority of laws are written as a deterrent, many only applied after the fact or as an addon charge to something else.