Side story on the recent gun spree

[Firn]

Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.

May the warm rays of wisdom enlighten you my friend .

I did now read a bit more in the Wiki - how shocking and lazy - and the following bits have catched my eyes:

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[42] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[43] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[44]

Keep in mind that the US population has grown a lot so the recent downward trend has been remarkable.

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a primary source for data on firearm ownership, with surveys periodically done by other organizations such as Harris Interactive.[64] In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home and in 1997, 40% of Americans reported having a gun in their homes. At this time there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This meant that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm. These owners possessed 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns.[65] The number of American homes reporting have a gun in their homes was down from 46% as reported in 1989.[66] Cook suggested that increased numbers of female-headed households may have been a factor in declining household gun ownership.[26] A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted in 1994, indicated that Americans owned 192 million guns: 36% rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% other types of long guns.[67] Most firearm owners owned multiple firearms, with the NSPOF survey indicating 25% of adults owned firearms.[67] In the United States, 11% of households reported actively being involved in hunting,[66] with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons. Throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the rate of gun ownership in the home ranged from 45-50%.[66]

The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high. If we consider that there are actually more rifles then handguns in the US the ratio is 1:20! Obviously among the category rifles are typical bolt-action hunting rifles and semi-automatic carabines, both center- and rimfire.

All in all the percentage of homicides per captia, while high compared to other advanced countries is very low I dare to say if we compare it to some 'primitive' cultures. Phillip S. Meilinger on the SMJ has remarked on this, and I remember quite a good amount of sometimes scholarly aricles I read on the issue of violence in similar cultures.

So we are doing pretty well despite the Internet, violent video games, highly effective weapons, economic crisis and high unemployment, urban life & so forth and despite having almost certainly quite violent ancestors. Of course our massive advances in medicine, organisation, infrastructure and technology ( phones) have helped a great deal to reduce the numbers of deaths after violence.

[carl]

Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?

[Fuchs]

Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?

I aassume he merely wanted to inject some more facts. Very on-topic.

[slapout9]

More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?

[Fuchs]

More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?

First go after the tobacco companies.


Seriously, why so polemic now? Desperate for arguments? For that's what it signals.

It should be self-evident that non-linked topics need to have their costs and benefits looked at separately. One may argue the marginal rate (kind of "benefits per one accepted death") should be identical across the board, but such a mathematical view doesn't help in practice. Philosophy and other researchers have not delivered the means to pulls such a comparison off anyway.

So the state of the art is to look at separate topics separately, and to settle on an opinion of the optimum balance of costs and benefits based on preferences.

[Dayuhan]

The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high.

If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.

I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.

[carl]

If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.

Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

[Dayuhan]

Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

Yes, that's why I suggested the urban/rural distinction as a reason why handguns are used more than rifles. I'm guessing that rifles are more heavily concentrated in rural areas.

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

[carl]

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

Weapons are locked up, from my observation, for two reasons. The first is to keep the children from getting into unsupervised mischief when they are young. The second is to make it harder for burglars to steal them. Burglars LOVE guns more than just about anything because are easy to sell to other hoods. Nobody I ever knew stored ammo away from the gun for any reason other than convenience.

My point was killers don't have second thoughts about what they do. They want to do it. They don't snap. They kill because they want to. It makes them feel better. If they had a pile a parts and had to assemble the weapon they wouldn't have a second thought. They would just be ticked off at being inconvenienced. These aren't normal guys pushed too far. Normal guys pushed to far go and cool off at their brother's house. These are bad, bad people.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Perhaps they are used for ego props. But if they are I think that is going to be much more likely to be an action of a gang banger type. Yo, dude, I'm strapped. I'm something. That is the action of a a person who is already criminally disposed.

Most law abiding people buy weapons, in my opinion, because they are interested in shooting as a sport, hunting or protecting themselves or a combination thereof.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

I don't think much Filipino crime patterns have much to do with American ones.

[Firn]

Natural curiosity and technological opportunities have driven me again:

Urban–Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results

Objectives. We analyzed urban–rural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban–rural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Firearm suicide rates showed an increasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 2.09 times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban (P<.001). Conversely, firearm homicide rates showed a decreasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most urban counties experienced 3.04 times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties (P<.001; Figures 1 [triangle] and 2 [triangle]).

This case shows pretty well the law of small numbers as it is called by Kahnemann, and why we should be aware of it. This is the reason why cancer rater are both highest and lowest in small. poor rural areas voting Republican. Homicides happen thankfully very rarely even in the US, making it difficult to get big numbers for small counties. It would have very interesting to see the study without those two:

Code 10 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area. 8.1 1.1
Code 11 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area. 17.0 1.5

Those 25% percent of the US counties contain just 2% of the population, bringing in the fearsome law of small numbers big time into the study. If you look closely this would mean however that we completely loss the only completely rural population codes.

A second paper, Deadly Violence in the Heartland: Comparing Homicide Patterns in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties shows the very danger of this approach.

Similarly truncated variation may be found with other variables commonly associatedwith homicide, including poverty and percentage of the population that is African American (Kposowa & Breault, 1993). By including rural cases in the study of homicide, many problems resulting from truncated variation can be resolved. Significantly,the authors also found that of the 30 United States counties withthe highest homicide rates, 23 had populations of fewer than 20,000 people. Thus, although the most rural counties had lower homicide rates overall, there was substantial variation amongrural counties in the rate of homicide, a range of variation unmatched in purely metropolitan samples.

Later there is a nod to that problem...

A second impediment is methodological and reflects the added measurement difficulties of including rural areas in analyses because of their small populations and relatively small number of rare but important events, such as homicide. The results of this study affirm that including such areas is analytically, as well as empirically, important.

Time has run out. So I just will throw a couple of questions into the virtual room about crime (and guns). Tend certain crimes to be more of an urban problem because it is there 'where the money is'? Do rural and semi-rural areas lack a critical mass of say young men and good criminal business opportunities? Does a demographic adjustment with age groups in mind change relationships between more or less urban counties?

[slapout9]

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

Just take a look at the most recent school shooting. The suspect had a long history of mental problems and had been in and out of treatment until his mother became so disenchanted with the supposed treatments she attempted to take care of her child herself. Hopefully more will come out about the total lack of appropriate public psychiatric care in this country.

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

If you haven't noticed this is real sore spot with me. To include my own Governor who just recently closed one of the last physical mental health hospitals that LE would have access to as far as getting people the treatment they needed and keeping THE PUBLIC TRULY SAFE by controlling sick people and criminals instead of this left over commie gun control stuff. The greatest threat to Americans is not people with guns it is pinheads with college degrees that can make or influence public policy in this country.

Since the most recent shooting several people have asked for my opinions and advice and I still give the same advice which is something I learned long ago from a training officer. "Never fear the weapon, but always fear the man, because a man can always find a weapon" still very true and still very good advice. The only thing I would add is to be especially scared of people with college degrees that think they are smarter and know what is best for you and know more about making the proper policies of this country............they don't.

Roll Tide....

[Ken White]

However, in fairness to the Politicians, Republican and Democratic, their failures in this regard were broadly supported. One shouldn't forget that the Psychiatric and Psychologist communities were broadly but actively and decisively supportive of that dismantling for 'professional' -- or financial due to our terribly flawed medical insurance model (and the ever changing, ever interesting DSM) -- reasons...

Like any foul up, there's egg for a lot of faces

[KenWats]

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

A bit of a thread derailment, and I apologize in advance.

As a man whose wife has worked as a psychologist in both a State Prison and now, a State Mental Institution, I can agree with you that the system needs to be improved somehow. It's scary and sad to me who ends up out in the community. It's also very surprising to me who ends up "sane enough for trial". There's a lot of crazy in prison. Also, a lot of sane jerks (she uses a different word) trying to look like they're crazy. I don't know which stories she tells me are funnier.

[streamfortyseven]

Gun prohibition only works if there aren't many guns in circulation to begin with, and it's quick and easy for law enforcement/military to pick up those guns, and the law enforcement/military people aren't corrupt or infiltrated by criminals. For example, Mexico has nearly absolute gun control, with only one legal gun store in the country, but it's pretty easy to get a gun (illegally) there - you just go to a cop, pay the requisite amount of money and the cop delivers the gun and ammo to your door, and he'll even teach you how to fire it. There's a separate marketplace for drug gangs, some of which have infiltrated the army or local police forces, or both.

That's not the situation in the US, we have an estimated 300 million guns in circulation, almost one for every person in the US. A "War on Guns" would have the same success as the "War on Drugs" and enforcement would be costly in terms of dollars and human lives, not to speak of the political effects amongst the population. With gun prohibition, there'd probably be a resurgent militia movement, and troops going house to house to seize guns might kick off a domestic insurgency, especially if people were killed in the process.

School shooters tend to be individuals who are socially isolated, odd, intelligent, and who have been severely bullied, and it's that last part which is not really being mentioned in the most recent controversy. In the case of Adam Lanza, when he was still in school, when he'd walk down the hall, if he encountered students walking towards him, he'd flatten himself against the wall, and hold his briefcase up in such a manner as to shield himself. It strikes me that this is a learned behavior - probably he'd been repeatedly punched.

A rabbi in Newtown stated that:

I personally know from a classmate and neighbor of Adam Lanza that he was brilliant, odd and severely bullied.

From:http://www.thejewishweek.com/editori...cies-are-vital)

Lanza was referred to a school psychologist because it was thought that he *might* be a target for bullies, but it strikes me that there is a good amount of denial going on here, in retrospect. Instead, Lanza, like the other school shooters, is characterized as "evil" and the blame is set squarely on him. That's the easy way out.

Here's another case which, thankfully, did not result in a school shooting:

I stood out like a black thumb; I was the most bizarre-looking kid in town. My style was met with equal parts disgust and fascination by my classmates, and the bullying predictably escalated—I was verbally and physically assaulted on a regular basis, receiving death threats at least once a month. Teachers not only didn’t bother to defend me, they would often chime in with comments about my appearance, maybe in an effort to impress the more popular kids, who were usually the offspring of the grown townspeople with high standing in the community.

The bullying was not only halted by the people whose job it was to do such things, it was actively encouraged. Once again, the victim of the bullying was sent to the school psychologist:

I was also informed that I was emotionally disturbed and I was ordered to undergo sessions with the school therapist twice a week. I hated him. He was smarmy and condescending, and when I told him I was tired of being harassed he told me that the other kids were just blowing off steam, that their reactions were normal. He also claimed that people probably weren’t picking on me as much as I imagined. When he walked me out after that session, two people yelled “psycho” at me in front of him.

The bullying didn't stop, with this result:

Thus, my clothing and behavior became increasingly bizarre—I felt that upping the ante was the only reasonable solution to the cards I had been dealt. I wanted to create a persona that would help to minimize my harassment, which I figured would be a hyper-real, meaner version of myself. I grew tired of trying to do damage control so I figured I may as well give them what they wanted. Every step I took caused a scene—all I had to do was show up at a school function and people would get visibly upset. I once made a brief 15-minute appearance at a formal dance wearing a short silver dress, and those 15 minutes resulted in weeks of chatter—tales of my “insane” dress circulated until it was said that it had spikes and squares sticking out of it. It was like being a celebrity. A PTA meeting was held, and one of the topics debated was whether I could be banned from all dances and after-school functions.

Luckily, she was able to get out of that town, and get some insight as to what she had gone through, and was able to make a decent life for herself. Here's the whole article: http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-a-sus...school-shooter

It's not gun control which needs to be addressed here, because desperate people, people driven crazy with a need for revenge, will always find a means to bring it about. Mental health screenings might help, but as above, if the underlying causes of the problem are not addressed, those will be of little use as well.

[carl]

Welcome aboard streamfortyseven.

Many, many people are bullied in school. Not many turn into criminal murderers. To that extent the bullying victims who turn to mass murder can, and in my opinion should, be considered evil. They most certainly are cowardly. The planning and execution of their crimes show that with certainty.

I don't know how many of these criminals have been bullied. I do know that the two criminals who murdered at Colombine were not. Within the school crowd they fit in pretty well. The problem was one of them was very well developed psychopath/sociopath and the other was a follower. They formed one of those criminal pairs that sometimes occur.

The approaches to bullying that I have read about go after the wrong targets. Bullies can't be got to. They have to much fun doing it to give it up sans some kind of immediate penalty or possibility of an immediate penalty. Adults won't be on the scene when they are needed. I think what should be concentrated on are the good kids and this is where the adults come in.

The adults, teachers and parents, should make it clear that we are all our brothers keeper and if somebody is bullied somebody else should stand up for them. There is honor in that. Honor in the strong protecting the weak. That is the key to the thing. For if the bullies know that some of the other kids are going to intervene if they cross the line, they won't do it.

My Mom told me a story once about bullying. She was in 5th or 6th grade and was walking home with my aunt who was two years younger. They saw a 7th or 8th grade boy picking on a 2nd grade girl. They told him to knock it off or else. He didn't think much of that coming from two girls so he continued bullying. They then lit into him beat him some. He stopped his bullying. That is the kind of thing that should be encouraged.

(The 8th grade boy told his brother that the bruises on his face came from a fall. His brother was friends with my uncle and when my uncle heard the 'fall' story he said 'Well let me tell you what really happened.' That 8th grade boy didn't do much bullying after that.)

The other thing that can work is teaching the bullying victims to fight. I don't mean turning them into Seagal, I mean some judo or boxing lessons. That gives them just enough confidence that they are more likely to stand their ground which has a hugely dissuasive effect on bullies, who are cowards.

Adults can help with that too. Another story, I like stories.

My aunt (see above) was a phys ed teacher in the 60s and 70s. She taught the boys boxing and set up some intramural matches. She, not by accident, matched a bully with his victim. The victim had the advantage of some fighting lessons and a situation that encouraged him to fight. He whaled on the bully. Of course my aunt didn't happen to see any infractions that might have been committed against the bully. "Ain't ya gonna call that?" "Shut up and fight." The bully didn't pick on the former victim after that.

Those old fashioned things worked. I don't know if they can be done any more.

[slapout9]

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I would say DV Homicides are all planned, never heard or seen one that wasn't, often over a fairly long period of time. Never heard of a snap I think I will kill my wife, or other close relative, just a big myth. That is correct they absolutely DO NOT SNAP!!!!It is more like the "straw that broke the camels back." The pressure builds and builds until it blows.