Mass Shootings the last six months

[Breadburner]

Whoops....Do we even have the proper info to begin with.....

[Teatownclown]

It's all about mental illness.  Something you apparently know quite a bit about.

"It's" really about responsibility. The culprit in this crime was the boys Mother who was irresponsible by allowing the tools to be accessible. The boy had bad wiring but the Mother had bad control over those tools of hers.

[Hoss]

"It's" really about responsibility. The culprit in this crime was the boys Mother who was irresponsible by allowing the tools to be accessible. The boy had bad wiring but the Mother had bad control over those tools of hers.

Are you sure about that?  Even in a safe or secure location, someone who wants a firearm badly enough will get it.

[Teatownclown]

Are you sure about that?  Even in a safe or secure location, someone who wants a firearm badly enough will get it.

Pretty damn sure. Maybe you should buy stock in the manufacturers of "safe" gun lockers. But my guess is they will not be suited for the newly classified illegal weapons.

 The beholders of the tools to use violence against their own government because they perceive the day when their democratic process no longer works for their own interests need to protect the public by securing these weapons of mass destruction.

MIND
In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
Published: December 17, 2012
In the wake of the terrible shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., national attention has turned again to the complex links between violence, mental illness and gun control.

The gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, has been described as a loner who was intelligent and socially awkward. And while no official diagnosis has been made public, armchair diagnosticians have been quick to assert that keeping guns from getting into the hands of people with mental illness would help solve the problem of gun homicides.

Arguing against stricter gun-control measures, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and a former F.B.I. agent, said, “What the more realistic discussion is, ‘How do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?’ ”

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, told The New York Times: “To reduce the risk of multivictim violence, we would be better advised to focus on early detection and treatment of mental illness.”

But there is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts. Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness.

This does not mean that mental illness is not a risk factor for violence. It is, but the risk is actually small. Only certain serious psychiatric illnesses are linked to an increased risk of violence.

One of the largest studies, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, which followed nearly 18,000 subjects, found that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illness — like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — was 16 percent, compared with 7 percent among people without any mental disorder. Anxiety disorders, in contrast, do not seem to increase the risk at all.

Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

It’s possible that preventing people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other serious mental illnesses from getting guns might decrease the risk of mass killings. Even the Supreme Court, which in 2008 strongly affirmed a broad right to bear arms, at the same time endorsed prohibitions on gun ownership “by felons and the mentally ill.”

But mass killings are very rare events, and because people with mentally illness contribute so little to overall violence, these measures would have little impact on everyday firearm-related killings. Consider that between 2001 and 2010, there were nearly 120,000 gun-related homicides, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Few were perpetrated by people with mental illness.

Perhaps more significant, we are not very good at predicting who is likely to be dangerous in the future. According to Dr. Michael Stone, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia and an expert on mass murderers, “Most of these killers are young men who are not floridly psychotic. They tend to be paranoid loners who hold a grudge and are full of rage.”

Even though we know from large-scale epidemiologic studies like the E.C.A. study that a young psychotic male who is intoxicated with alcohol and has a history of involuntary commitment is at a high risk of violence, most individuals who fit this profile are harmless.

Jeffery Swanson, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University and a leading expert in the epidemiology of violence, said in an e-mail, “Can we reliably predict violence?  ‘No’ is the short answer. Psychiatrists, using clinical judgment, are not much better than chance at predicting which individual patients will do something violent and which will not.”

It would be even harder to predict a mass shooting, Dr. Swanson said, “You can profile the perpetrators after the fact and you’ll get a description of troubled young men, which also matches the description of thousands of other troubled young men who would never do something like this.”

Even if clinicians could predict violence perfectly, keeping guns from people with mental illness is easier said than done. Nearly five years after Congress enacted the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, only about half of the states have submitted more than a tiny proportion of their mental health records.

How effective are laws that prohibit people with mental illness from obtaining guns? According to Dr. Swanson’s recent research, these measures may prevent some violent crime. But, he added, “there are a lot of people who are undeterred by these laws.”

Adam Lanza was prohibited from purchasing a gun, because he was too young. Yet he managed to get his hands on guns — his mother’s — anyway. If we really want to stop young men like him from becoming mass murderers, and prevent the small amount of violence attributable to mental illness, we should invest our resources in better screening for, and treatment of, psychiatric illness in young people.

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

[Red Arrow]

I think that a healthy discussion about civilian access to military weaponry should be on the table, but I don't think it's a good idea to discount in any way, the impact that modern warfare simulation games has on the minds of children.  Horror is not so horrible when you immerse yourself in it for hours each day.  Living in a virtual world where you are respected for your prowess at carnage, makes it difficult to function in the other world where you are ridiculed by people who wouldn't last 10 minutes in Call of Duty 4.

Don't think its the weapons making these folks carry out these horrendous acts.  I think that they are already immersed in these acts, the scene has played over and over in their heads, on their screens, and the movies they watch.  Picking up the metal is simply a transition from digital to physical.  I think if we really want to change things we need to limit access to virtual simulated violence, just as we do with pornography.

The reset button is awesome in virtual life.  Not so effective in real life.

[TeeDub]

How about instead of taking things away from people, you educate them?    

I could see mandating a "hunter safety" type class (which has to be renewed every xx years) before a firearm could be purchased.    It might help remove the mystique that guns seem to have amongst those who didn't grow up around them.

[Gaspar]

How about instead of taking things away from people, you educate them?    

I could see mandating a "hunter safety" type class (which has to be renewed every xx years) before a firearm could be purchased.    It might help remove the mystique that guns seem to have amongst those who didn't grow up around them.

Excellent idea.  Understanding weaponry, its use, and inerrant dangers is always important if you intend to own. 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8&sns=em[/youtube]

Unfortunately, as the entertainment industry focuses more violence towards younger and younger kids, we may be fighting a losing battle. 

We've gone from Tom & Jerry and The Three Stooges, to headshoots from 200 yards with a mist of blood and skull fragments.

[Ed W]

So far, this thread has covered the usual suspects: the easy availability of guns, violence in our entertainment, and the lack of mental health care.  Each has probably played some role.  But one of the columnists - and I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to find the piece - said that he was approached by some news network reporter asking for his views on the root cause of these violent events.  He said that one part of the problem was news media coverage.

It was a good point.  There's another disturbed person watching the 24 hour coverage of Newtown right now.  And he's thinking that by committing a similar act, he too can be famous.  We all may get our 15 minutes of fame, but by shooting a bunch of children, a crazy can be famous for days, weeks, and possibly years.  And that was the columnist's point.  When our news media covers this to the exclusion of everything else happening in the world, it lays the groundwork for the next atrocity.

He also pointed out that they did not run his remarks.  Imagine that.

[BKDotCom]

But one of the columnists - and I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to find the piece - said that he was approached by some news network reporter asking for his views on the root cause of these violent events.  He said that one part of the problem was news media coverage.
.....

He also pointed out that they did not run his remarks.  Imagine that.

Twas Roger Ebert:

http://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-press-r.html
"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

    The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

    In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy. "

[Ed W]

Twas Roger Ebert:

Thanks for finding that.  As one of my crew chiefs said, "None of us are as smart as all of us put together."

[Conan71]

So far, this thread has covered the usual suspects: the easy availability of guns, violence in our entertainment, and the lack of mental health care.  Each has probably played some role.  But one of the columnists - and I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to find the piece - said that he was approached by some news network reporter asking for his views on the root cause of these violent events.  He said that one part of the problem was news media coverage.

It was a good point.  There's another disturbed person watching the 24 hour coverage of Newtown right now.  And he's thinking that by committing a similar act, he too can be famous.  We all may get our 15 minutes of fame, but by shooting a bunch of children, a crazy can be famous for days, weeks, and possibly years.  And that was the columnist's point.  When our news media covers this to the exclusion of everything else happening in the world, it lays the groundwork for the next atrocity.

He also pointed out that they did not run his remarks.  Imagine that.

This is what scares me.  There's no shortage of people watching the coverage right now thinking about their own grotesque farewell message and how they'd like to out-do this shooter. 

I'm purposely turning away from wall-to-wall coverage.  I find the 24/7 coverage to be disrespectful to the victims, their families, and the survivors.   No one should be forgotten, however, news trucks parked in Newtown for the next 2 weeks solves nothing other than trying to sell advertising and the media trying to cobble together what our new gun and mental health policies should be. 

So far I've heard that we mistakenly release too many mentally ill people back into society who commit these atrocities.  Yet, at some point, we decided it was inhumane to segregate these mental defectives from society, therefore we integrated them back into society.

Clown, loss of self-control, really?  Going on a 2000 calorie eating binge at 3am is losing self control, not opening fire on an elementary school. 

[Teatownclown]

  Going on a 2000 calorie eating binge at 3am is losing self control, not opening fire on an elementary school. 

Same brain waves....just different choice of weapon.

You got a panty on your head?

[TulsaRufnex]

If the problem is violent video games, shouldn't Japan have a BIG problem, since theirs are some of the most violent and sadistic around?

Ten-country comparison suggests there’s little or no link between video games and gun murders
Posted by Max Fisher on December 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

[Townsend]

You got a panty on your head?

Good movie just not sure of the relevance. 

[Teatownclown]

Good movie just not sure of the relevance. 

" I'm purposely turning away from wall-to-wall coverage. " Conan the Libertarian