Three out of four mass killings involve a gun

Hapax Legomenon said:

It's kind of funny, really. When an Arab guy goes out to shoot a lot of people it's because he as a religious fanatic and when an Asian guy goes out to shoot a lot of people it's because his culture dictates that he keep his problems to himself and not get help.

When a white guy goes out and shoots a lot of people, oh, he was just nuts. Because we can't acknowledge that there is something wrong with our society that drives white guys to do this. That would require us to change something, and change is hard. Best to just say he's nuts, an anomaly, and leave it at that, shed ourselves of the responsibility of all those dead people.

Click to expand...

I did not hear that about the South Korean guy who did those killings at VA Tech. Overwhelmingly, it was acknowledged that it was an act of evil and the idea that East Asian culture somehow was responsible for his killings was only suggested by a small minority who are always desperate for an easy solution.

As far as white guys go, well yes it is true that white culture in America still is not subject to classification and broad brushing the way minority cultures are. But overwhelmingly, Seuing Hiu Cho, just like Adam Lanza and Harris and Klebold, was considered simply an evil person or a product of the failed American mental health system.

And when it comes to America's mental health system, how we deal with them, how we cope with those with poor mental health and how unsuccessful we are at integrating them into society properly is something we can have a serious discussion over - when it comes to all races of course. There is something about how society that has lead mentally unhealthy people of all ethnic groups to commit these mass shootings. If we were mature enough, we could have a dialogue about that which transcends political biases.

Don said:

What percentage of mass killings involve:

a killer on psychotropic drugs, a killer who hasn't been taking their psychotropic drugs, or a killer under the care of a psychiatrist?

a victim-disarmament zone?

...and historically, I think the numbers would say the majority of mass killings were carried out by agents of the state, with the approval of the state, using everything from garrotes to firebombing to nuclear weapons... to drones. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot come immediately to mind.



So for extra credit, how about "What percentage of mass killings involve civilian killers?"

Or is this just a "guns are bad" thread?

Click to expand...

Also add how many shootings are done in the cities with the most gun laws - and why Chicago and Washington DC are not America's safest cities if gun control is the sole or primary solution -and how many shootings are done in the cities with the least restrictive gun laws and how many shootings occur at gun shows or hunting conventions and so on.

One could go on all day to this end - it is just so much freakin fun.

This thread has so many derails that it's hard to know how to refocus it. But I'll venture some things:

1. It's not about "gun control." That's a separate social issue, for which there are all kinds of opinions. It is, however, about the undeniable fact that the technology of guns today is so powerful that they clearly are the weapons of choice for the mass public killer. Why?

2. Guns today are extremely lethal and very easy to obtain, at least in the U.S. A bomb is arguably more dangerous, but a bomb ain't obtainable over the counter at any of thousands of stores/pawnshops/gun shows across the nation. You won't be able to attend a "bomb show" in your town anytime soon. And making one on your own is tricky, risky, and requires a stealth in compiling materials.

3. A determined killer can carry multiple guns and a great amount of ammunition, with a little careful planning. Example: Harris and Klebold, in the Columbine massacred. They made some crude pipe bombs, which injured a few students, but killed nobody. With the several guns they carried, they killed 13 plus themselves.

4. As I previously suggested, family murderers like Andrea Yates are a very different animal from the public massacre killers like Adam Lanza, Charles Whitman, James Huberty, George Hennard, etc., and even the workplace killers like Mark Barton and "Postal Boy" Sherrill. Family killers can do their deeds in quiet privacy (which Yates most certainly did). The public killers want none of that. They WANT theater; they want the public spectacle.

5. The serial killer is about as closely related to the public massacre mass killer as a nematode is to Albert Einstein. Most serial killers love their work, go to great lengths to pursue their hobby in secrecy, and love being able to read about it in the media. Some (Jack the Ripper, Zodiac, Richard Ramirez, Dennis Rader, David Berkowitz) actually provoke publicity.

The mass spectacle killer is most often just plain suicidal. And most of them succeed in that effort, too.

So we really need to stop thinking of serial killers as being the same as mass killers, as one watershed.

5. "Spree" killers (e.g., Charles Starkweather, Christopher Wilder) fall somewhere in between serial and mass killers, but probably are closer to the serial ones. They are also rarer than either of the other category labels. Wilder is a prime example. He had murdered in a serial fashion before being detected, recognizing he had been detected and was being chased, and opting to go on a bizarre end-of-life odyssey across the U.S. from coast to coast, twice, ultimately being found by police, engaging in a shootout, and after being badly wounded, killing himself. Both David Berkowitz and Zodiac, after committing a series of individual murders (all involving guns, by the way) threatened a mass spectacle event. Neither carried that off, Berkowitz mainly because he was captured, Zodiac for God knows what reason; he was never found.

6. It isn't about the gun itself. The gun is a tool. It has a use. I live in a place where firearms are common currency and a lot of people use them to obtain food. It's a tool for them the same way a boat or a fishing rod or a hammer is a tool.

But I'll toss this one out to gun enthusiasts everywhere: How do we curtail the access to guns and ammo from people like Adam Lanza or Seun Hui-Cho? And prevent Newtown and Virginia Tech horrors? Hey, Wayne LaPierre? You listening?

caw

blacbird said:

2. Guns today are extremely lethal and very easy to obtain, at least in the U.S. A bomb is arguably more dangerous, but a bomb ain't obtainable over the counter at any of thousands of stores/pawnshops/gun shows across the nation.

Click to expand...

I'm curious -- is this statement made from personal experience or from quotes and propaganda from anti-gun zealots news stories?

jeffo said:

I'm curious -- is this statement made from personal experience or from quotes and propaganda from anti-gun zealots news stories?

Click to expand...

Good old Blacbird can defend his own statements, I'm sure, but are you really suggesting any part of it is factually incorrect? I think you are but... would you mind isolating which assertions you believe to be wrong?

No one is suggesting that serial or etc. killers are the SAME.

Mass killing is the overarching category. It's got a definition - people who kill more than X.

Under that umbrella are more specific categories, with more and more specific definitions.

Suggesting that because they're under the same umbrella term means that anyone thinks they're the same is like suggesting that because the smart car and the hummer are both considered cars, people are saying they're the same.

Wait, where are you getting the definition that mass murder includes serial murder?

FBI doesn't recognise that.

Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period.

. . .

The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement.

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.

Click to expand...

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

jeffo said:

I'm curious -- is this statement made from personal experience or from quotes and propaganda from anti-gun zealots news stories?

Click to expand...

Well, I dunno. All I know is yesterday I went down to my local Fred Meyer department store to puchase a bomb, you know, for fishing and stuff. I tried to find the Explosives aisle, but was unsuccessful, and decided to ask at the sporting goods counter behind which was a rack of twenty or so rifles of various kinds.

"Excuse me," I said to the clerk, "but I need to buy a bomb or two. Can you direct me to where I might find those?"

He looked at me kind of funny, and got on the phone to call his manager. Three other people had already lined up behind me, so after about thirty seconds, I decided to move on, because I needed some milk and bread. Never did find the damn Bomb department.

But there was some kind of excitement outside when I left, three or four police cars with lights all a-going. Don't have a clue what they were there for, but I'm glad I left when I did.

I'll try WalMart tomorrow.

caw

blacbird said:

Well, I dunno. All I know is yesterday I went down to my local Fred Meyer department store to puchase a bomb, you know, for fishing and stuff. I tried to find the Explosives aisle, but was unsuccessful, and decided to ask at the sporting goods counter behind which was a rack of twenty or so rifles of various kinds.

"Excuse me," I said to the clerk, "but I need to buy a bomb or two. Can you direct me to where I might find those?"

He looked at me kind of funny, and got on the phone to call his manager. Three other people had already lined up behind me, so after about thirty seconds, I decided to move on, because I needed some milk and bread. Never did find the damn Bomb department.

But there was some kind of excitement outside when I left, three or four police cars with lights all a-going. Don't have a clue what they were there for, but I'm glad I left when I did.

I'll try WalMart tomorrow.

caw

Click to expand...

Have I told you lately that I love you?

blacbird said:

Well, I dunno. All I know is yesterday I went down to my local Fred Meyer department store to puchase a bomb, you know, for fishing and stuff. I tried to find the Explosives aisle, but was unsuccessful, and decided to ask at the sporting goods counter behind which was a rack of twenty or so rifles of various kinds.

"Excuse me," I said to the clerk, "but I need to buy a bomb or two. Can you direct me to where I might find those?"

He looked at me kind of funny, and got on the phone to call his manager. Three other people had already lined up behind me, so after about thirty seconds, I decided to move on, because I needed some milk and bread. Never did find the damn Bomb department.

But there was some kind of excitement outside when I left, three or four police cars with lights all a-going. Don't have a clue what they were there for, but I'm glad I left when I did.

I'll try WalMart tomorrow.

caw

Click to expand...

OTOH, I can build at least a couple different bombs from various items currently stored under my kitchen sink, and so could most people with the tiniest bit of knowledge. No reason to even visit the hardware store.

Or WalMart.

I didn't even have to apply for a permit or register the serial number with the state, and the signature left by the device could in no way be tied to only one specific creator of the bomb, unlike the grooves found on any bullet.

Even felons who could never legitimately get their hands on a gun can stroll into any store and purchase the materials necessary for a bomb.

I blame the imbalance between bombings and mass shootings on the dismal state of science education.

Don said:

OTOH, I can build at least a couple different bombs from various items currently stored under my kitchen sink, and so could most people with the tiniest bit of knowledge. No reason to even visit the hardware store.

Or WalMart.

I didn't even have to apply for a permit or register the serial number with the state, and the signature left by the device could in no way be tied to only one specific creator of the bomb, unlike the grooves found on any bullet.

Even felons who could never legitimately get their hands on a gun can stroll into any store and purchase the materials necessary for a bomb.

I blame the imbalance between bombings and mass shootings on the dismal state of science education.

Click to expand...

As you point out though, that requires knowledge, practice, and time. Compared to walking in, buying a gun and a box of ammo and walking out. Bullets go in the gun, point, and click.

That's kind of the argument. That guns are just more efficient at what they do (which is kill things) than anything else and are readily available with no real education or assembly.

I've said it before. If guns weren't the best portable tools for killing, there wouldn't be a gun lobby because hardly anyone would care whether they were banned or regulated. Nobody is getting very worked up over the banning of switchblades, for example.

Among killing tools, guns represent, by far, the best combination of ease of access, ease of use, and lethality. If bombs were as easy to obtain and use, we'd see a lot bigger percentage of people being killed by bombs.

Oh, and yes, possessing or constructing a bomb is illegal.

caw

clintl said:

Nobody is getting very worked up over the banning of switchblades, for example.

Click to expand...

No, but I think in the past I've made my feelings known about open carry with a sword.