Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Well, my point is that the availability of materials informs the method of violence. Kids who like to blow things up either go on to be gun collectors or med students, in my experience. The availability of guns here tends to push violence that direction. The lack of avilability else tends to push violence in the direction of political statement using large explosions.

It's certainly true that "art criticism by dynamite" has resulted in an almost complete lack of statues of public figures in Dublin, compared with the plethora of such statues that one finds in most European cities .

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I disagree that the lack of availability changes the motive. Lack of availability of one weapon just pushes people to choose different weapons. The choice of weapon does not make something a "political statement." It also doesn't make mass murder something other than mass murder.

I love it when people call mass murder a "political statement." A "political statement" is when I stopped voting Republican and told people about my choice. If I had decided to kill a few other Republicans to shut them up .... that would have been murder, not a statement.

What she said (and said very well!) seems spot on to me.

Xenophon

[HarryT]

So you don't think that organisations such as the IRA, ETA, etc, have political goals? They would certainly disagree with you.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I disagree that the lack of availability changes the motive. Lack of availability of one weapon just pushes people to choose different weapons. The choice of weapon does not make something a "political statement." It also doesn't make mass murder something other than mass murder.

I love it when people call mass murder a "political statement." A "political statement" is when I stopped voting Republican and told people about my choice. If I had decided to kill a few other Republicans to shut them up .... that would have been murder, not a statement.

I did not mean to imply that the motive is changed, just the sociologic translation of the disaffection. The motive is the same, "I want to kill someone." It's just that the situation of what is happening in your society bends those who are so inclined to make that transation to actual behavior take certain pathways. It is soooo much more complex than what the nightly news heads try to sell us.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I did not mean to imply that the motive is changed, just the sociologic translation of the disaffection. The motive is the same, "I want to kill someone." It's just that the situation of what is happening in your society bends those who are so inclined to make that transation to actual behavior take certain pathways. It is soooo much more complex than what the nightly news heads try to sell us.

Do you know of any studies on the affects of the media immortalizing these mass murderers as a potential cause? I really thought it was shown when NBC granted Seung-Hui Cho's wishes by broadcasting the tape and images he sent them. (From the Virginia Tech shooting) To me it tells anyone who is disturbed and feels worthless that here is how you can get yourself remembered.

The media already censors names in suicide cases for similar reasons, and uses the excuse of not wishing to expire vigilantism to not broadcast stories involving citizens defending themselves. I happen to err on the side of free speech, but this really makes me wonder if the increased sensationalism on the part of the media is giving more and more people the idea to do this.

-MJ (And this doesn't remove ANY of the guilt on the ###holes commiting these acts, before anyone thinks that is what I'm hinting at)

[pshrynk]

Studies on that are rife with bias, depending on the bias of the studier. I don't know of any peer reviewed post hoc evaluations that show "proof" either way. Obviously, a double blind controlled study woul have a few problems getting past the human use committee.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Although, is killing someone with a knife or cross bow or arrow any less violent and tragic than using a gun?

BOb

No, but it's a hell of a lot less common.

Do you have an explanation, BOb, for why the murder rate in inversely proportional to the ease of having a gun? More guns, more murder - fewer guns, fewer murders the world over.

Regards, Alex

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Do you have an explanation, BOb, for why the murder rate in inversely proportional to the ease of having a gun? More guns, more murder - fewer guns, fewer murders the world over.

That's not inversely proportional. Inversely proportional would mean More Guns - Less Murders. What you state is directly proportional.

Anyway, I don't know first if what you say is true. I assume studies have been done to show this is true and that it is not true.

I also sort of believe in mutually assured destruction. Supposedly the US has so many nukes to keep others from nuking us. If you are going to mug or rob someone and you know they can't have a gun but you being a criminal have a gun you are more likley. But, if you think that Pop at the store has a shotgun under the counter you might think twice about robbing him.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I also sort of believe in mutually assured destruction. Supposedly the US has so many nukes to keep others from nuking us. If you are going to mug or rob someone and you know they can't have a gun but you being a criminal have a gun you are more likley. But, if you think that Pop at the store has a shotgun under the counter you might think twice about robbing him.

BOb

That's the vicious circle, though, isn't it? Criminal has a gun because he thinks that victim will have a gun. Victim has a gun because he's afraid of armed criminals. I don't know how you can break out of that once it's established.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the vicious circle, though, isn't it? Criminal has a gun because he thinks that victim will have a gun. Victim has a gun because he's afraid of armed criminals. I don't know how you can break out of that once it's established.

Most criminals keep guns more for use against other criminals (which make up the bulk of U.S. shooting deaths). I don't know the statistics, but in my experience most legally acquired weapons are not kept for defense from criminals. Most individuals who own a couple of guns, they're hunting rifles, but the vast preponderance of legitimately owned firearms are in the hands of a few para-military militias, who keep them against the possibility of failure or abject corruption of the government (and because they like to play army).

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the vicious circle, though, isn't it? Criminal has a gun because he thinks that victim will have a gun. Victim has a gun because he's afraid of armed criminals. I don't know how you can break out of that once it's established.

Not exactly.
You surely must agree that criminal is more likely to obtain a gun to force his victim to comply regardless whether he belives that the victim possess a gun or not. If criminal belives that the victim might possess a gun he might try a different tactic of an attack or aquire a "bigger" gun.
So, it is not really a circle, because I am sure it started when criminals started to obtain guns and use them against innocent people when innocent people decided it is time to take up arm and defend themselves.
For example, in the UK even police force don't have guns....anyone is afraid of them? They just die when they encounter armed criminals. Do the criminals refuse to have guns because police force don't have them? No. they use it as an advantage.
I feel sorry for our police force and this stupid law. Who is going to be scared of an unarmed policeman/policewoman? Maybe some teens at the best.

[DixieGal]

Dear Murders:

Please don't start with the "if only they had a shoulder to cry on" stuff. I'm as liberal as they come, but dang it, there is plenty of help and counseling and clergy and medicine out there that is free to one and all.

The Vietnamese shooter last week had been talking. Everyone they interview talks about how he was always spouting off his mouth and denigrating the US. Talking it out was never going to help him. He was angry at a country that took him in, probably fed and housed him, and he was too big of a coward to face his life so he took the lives of others.

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing how tough it is out there and that being an excuse for any sort of horrible behavior. These self-proclaimed "victims" need to suck it up, grow up, and take their responsible place in society with jobs, homes, and families. Don't come over here expecting to walk off the boat, illiterate and without a word of English, and just glom onto the good life. It's gonna be tough, and hopefully your children will be able to find the American Dream when they grow up.

And if you hate America so badly, why did you come here? You certainly aren't doing us any favors by taking advantage of tax paid resources. Just because you couldn't get a gun in whatever hole you crawled out of, doesn't give you the right to get one over here and start shooting people. Not even if they laugh at you and embarrass you.

Suck it up, coward, grow a pair and move on. Or do us all a favor and go back to whatever 3rd world slum you call home if you hate us so much.

[HarryT]

Who are you talking to, Dixiegal? Nobody in this thread has said that this low-life was not to blame for his vile acts.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by astra

For example, in the UK even police force don't have guns....anyone is afraid of them? They just die when they encounter armed criminals. Do the criminals refuse to have guns because police force don't have them? No. they use it as an advantage.
I feel sorry for our police force and this stupid law. Who is going to be scared of an unarmed policeman/policewoman? Maybe some teens at the best.

I must very respectfully disagree with you, astra. Our police are not "unarmed" - they just don't carry guns. They do, however, have a baton and a canister of pepper spray.

VERY few criminals in the UK carry guns, because there is such a harsh penalty if they are convicted while doing so. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the UK are drug dealers killing each other. "Professional" criminals VERY rarely use guns. When they do, it's so unusual that it's headline news.

[pshrynk]

I think she's probably responding to the dismal turn that the news cycle has taken in that the criminal was "upset" about something and that is the reason he did it.