American Politics

[kkck]

How does racial profiling work against a cauasian or africab american? Or people with no criminal record? Will you prevent everyone who went to the middle east or has ties to any african and middle east country from buying a gun and using any form of public transportation in america? Why do you want to prevent honest americans from traffic and to gain a stereotype they dont need. Its bad enough people now assume people of middle east origin in american are looked down upon. Your proposal would set them back 100 yrs.

My point was specifically "not" racial profiling. Racial profiling not only is wrong, it simply does not work. There are alternative types of profiling which are actively used today which do work and do not involve racial profiling. It's how the safer airports in the world work. I don't see any reason you couldn't have a system where you'd be able to filter out potentially dangerous or irresponsible people when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[SharkBait]

My point was specifically "not" racial profiling. Racial profiling not only is wrong, it simply does not work. There are alternative types of profiling which are actively used today which do work and do not involve racial profiling. It's how the safer airports in the world work. I don't see any reason you couldn't have a system where you'd be able to filter out potentially dangerous or irresponsible people when it comes to gun ownership.

It is unethical to do that as the probability of risk of dangerousness of a person will never be above 50%, meaning there is greater chance that THEY wont be dangerous with a gun. See: [ Is It Unethical to Offer Predictions of Future Violence? ]

The risk probabilities found in research for the highest risk groups are rarely above 50% (and often less than 30%). As such, ethically supportable risk-related statements will almost always constitute an acknowledgment, by inference, that it is more likely than not that violence will not occur.

Legal decisions identifying a person as, "dangerous" (for purposes of authorizing restriction of liberty) require a finding of relative certainty (or at least likelihood of greater than 0.5) that the individual will be violent.

 

[kkck]

It is unethical to do that as the probability of risk of dangerousness of a person will never be above 50%, meaning there is greater chance that THEY wont be dangerous with a gun. See: [ Is It Unethical to Offer Predictions of Future Violence? ]

It's not unethical AND it is currently done today on a massive scale across what would be considered the safest airports in the world. The issue to what I am suggesting (it's called predictive profiling IIRC) is not whether it's ethical or not (its not unethical) but rather whether it would also work in this specific situation.

 

[M3J]

Ever since the judge in NYC ordered a cease and desist on stop and frisk, gun violence apparently went up. Fuck privacy, safety matters more.

 

[SharkBait]

It's not unethical AND it is currently done today on a massive scale across what would be considered the safest airports in the world. The issue to what I am suggesting (it's called predictive profiling IIRC) is not whether it's ethical or not (its not unethical) but rather whether it would also work in this specific situation.

If it is as reliable and used widely as you say how did we still miss various airplane events in recent rimes? It is still unethical as if it wasnt why are journals and articles still writing about it in present times and lastly why hasnt it been employed for trains, public bussess, and entrance to amusement parks and malls, all places where killing events have taken place.

I also dont understand how yours would work. If observation of people is needed and technology is needed to full examine a persons life, how would it prevent normal everyday salaryman who gets angry at work for being fired and then goes to shoot up the place from getting a gun. It seems unlikely that a part of buying a gun involves a 2 hour period of watching the person roam the store or a 180day waiting period of hiring an FBI agent to follow the persons day to day habits and interview coworkers neighors and spouses over them. There is no feasible way to take that application in an airport to the gun buying arena.

 

[kkck]

If it is as reliable and used widely as you say how did we still miss various airplane events in recent rimes? It is still unethical as if it wasnt why are journals and articles still writing about it in present times and lastly why hasnt it been employed for trains, public bussess, and entrance to amusement parks and malls, all places where killing events have taken place.

I also dont understand how yours would work. If observation of people is needed and technology is needed to full examine a persons life, how would it prevent normal everyday salaryman who gets angry at work for being fired and then goes to shoot up the place from getting a gun. It seems unlikely that a part of buying a gun involves a 2 hour period of watching the person roam the store or a 180day waiting period of hiring an FBI agent to follow the persons day to day habits and interview coworkers neighors and spouses over them. There is no feasible way to take that application in an airport to the gun buying arena.

Well, it is used in at least some of the things you mention. However different places can have varying methodologies which skews things and its effectiveness. For instance, US airports are particularly jackasses about it and overall shamefully ineffective (as of the last time I read about it anyways), their job desceiption might as well be to make everyone's socks dirtier at checkpoints. Still, the thing is mainstream enough to have its own wikipedia page. I am not sure of what airplane events you are refering too though (if its within the US you can just google how ineffective US airport security is).

Well, if a person literally flips to the extent you suggest (from average joe to the joker) within a period hours then there really is nothing to stop that person (unless he doesn't own a gun and buying a gun takes more than a few hours). And to be fair, what I am suggesting does not necessarily involve checking literally every person (though I can't stress enough the issue would be whether this could work in this specific scenario which would have to be done by people who know more than me about profiling and guns). Even if this specifically does not work for this scenario, it means nothing in regards to other means of implementing stricter gun control.

 

[xi0]

I can kind of see the validity in that argument. Shooters usually want to take out as many people as possible, but if tons of would-be victims have guns, shooters are not as likely to go on a shooting spree. Although, they could always compensate by setting off a bomb or sniping.

Maybe someone who wasn't as disturbed and had some of their faculties would consider that, but I seriously doubt it. Especially since so many of them have suicidal tendencies in the first place.

 

[SharkBait]

Well, it is used in at least some of the things you mention. However different places can have varying methodologies which skews things and its effectiveness. For instance, US airports are particularly jackasses about it and overall shamefully ineffective (as of the last time I read about it anyways), their job desceiption might as well be to make everyone's socks dirtier at checkpoints. Still, the thing is mainstream enough to have its own wikipedia page. I am not sure of what airplane events you are refering too though (if its within the US you can just google how ineffective US airport security is).

Well, if a person literally flips to the extent you suggest (from average joe to the joker) within a period hours then there really is nothing to stop that person (unless he doesn't own a gun and buying a gun takes more than a few hours). And to be fair, what I am suggesting does not necessarily involve checking literally every person (though I can't stress enough the issue would be whether this could work in this specific scenario which would have to be done by people who know more than me about profiling and guns). Even if this specifically does not work for this scenario, it means nothing in regards to other means of implementing stricter gun control.

Stricter control isnt necessary since theres no way to know what an average joe and jane will do. And with gun deaths being down its an issue that doesnt need addressing in our age.

 

[M3J]

Maybe someone who wasn't as disturbed and had some of their faculties would consider that, but I seriously doubt it. Especially since so many of them have suicidal tendencies in the first place.

I think that's only if they're caught or see no way out, no?

 

[xi0]

Stricter control isnt necessary since theres no way to know what an average joe and jane will do. And with gun deaths being down its an issue that doesnt need addressing in our age.

So suicide by gun is an acceptable statistic but homicide by gun isn't?

I think that's only if they're caught or see no way out, no?

I don't think so. And even so, they put themselves in that position in the first place.

 

[SharkBait]

Arent democrats in agreement with suicide is a legal right even wanting medical practitioners to assist their patients in suicide?

 

[kannazuki]

Just want to say nobody flips from perfectly sane to wanting to kill people overnight. Every one of these shooters you're talking about had a history of mental illness which was underplayed or ignored by the people around them, due to the shame and stigma. (Also note that the vast majority of those with mental illnesses have never and never will hurt anyone - there has to be a particular antipathy toward society before someone stoops to that, mentally ill or not. If you look into each of these cases, you'll see these guys all had that in common. Violent behaviour isn't more common among men with depression than women because there are somehow different forms of depression for men and women. That doesn't exist. It's because men in general are encouraged to be violent.) Maybe start with changing things so people's overall happiness is checked on a regular basis by their doctor, and they're referred for help if they need and want it. Eliminate the stigma that causes people to hide mental illness in themselves or their family members, and you start to work toward preventing things from devolving to tragedy-- whether personal or public.

 

[xi0]

Arent democrats in agreement with suicide is a legal right even wanting medical practitioners to assist their patients in suicide?

Euthanasia might have started out as somewhat of a liberal concept but using firearms was never part of the discussion on either side...

Not that it compares to the loss of life, but using a gun also causes property damage and potential collateral damage.

Using a firearm to kill yourself is "easier" for lack of a better term. If a person doesn't have that option, there might be much more hesitation. It might very well be that suicides are up and homicides are down, but the total amount of deaths caused firearms is most certainly not on the decline. I don't see the point in segregating the two other than people trying to create a false narrative.

 

[kkck]

Stricter control isnt necessary since theres no way to know what an average joe and jane will do. And with gun deaths being down its an issue that doesnt need addressing in our age.

This kinda mixes up a number of different things. There are a number of facts to consider here.

That is sort of like arguing that there is nothing left to do with world peace because we are living in the most peaceful and least violent age in the history of humanity (which we are but there is still plenty left to do).

Now, as far as gun violence in general, the US is actually doing significantly worst than most first world countries (most third world countries are doing worst but obviously there are other factors to consider there). Gun violence has had world wide a downward trend as far as I know but the implication is still somewhat disturbing:

Also interesting to note, Switzerland has the most guns among developed nations after the US and it ranks second in whole gun violence thing (88 guns per 100 people in the US and 45-ish for Switzerland). Though the US still leads with a significant margin. So one way or the other there is a gun violence problem in the US, one large enough that deaths from mass shootings don't even register there.

To add to that, there is reason to think the mass shootings we have seen could have been prevented. None of the mass shooters from recent times have been made overnight, there is no reason to think someone can go from average joe to the joker overnight or even a few weeks. Even a few months might not be enough. And I'd argue that several months of disturbing behavior is already enough to identify a potential risk. Take holmes, a somewhat extreme case. The guy had a history of mental illness that was basically hereditary. And even with that he was allowed to buy weapons legally. Statistically speaking mentally ill folk are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence but even then it doesn't make sense that he was able to purchase a gun at all. Looking into other cases, quite a few of the people involved in mass shootings have had problems with the police before. You'd think people who get arrested wouldn't be allowed to buy guns and have the ones they own confiscated at least for a while...

 

[M3J]

So suicide by gun is an acceptable statistic but homicide by gun isn't?

In my experience arguing with republicans and conservatives (primary gun supporters), any statistic that doesn't support their views is not acceptable while statistic that makes them look right, no matter how unrelated or wrong, is.

I don't think so. And even so, they put themselves in that position in the first place.

If they put themselves in that position and only contemplated suicide if they couldn't see a way out, then they didn't have any suicidal tendency in the first place. They might also not be mentally ill.

Just want to say nobody flips from perfectly sane to wanting to kill people overnight. Every one of these shooters you're talking about had a history of mental illness which was underplayed or ignored by the people around them, due to the shame and stigma. (Also note that the vast majority of those with mental illnesses have never and never will hurt anyone - there has to be a particular antipathy toward society before someone stoops to that, mentally ill or not. If you look into each of these cases, you'll see these guys all had that in common. Violent behaviour isn't more common among men with depression than women because there are somehow different forms of depression for men and women. That doesn't exist. It's because men in general are encouraged to be violent.) Maybe start with changing things so people's overall happiness is checked on a regular basis by their doctor, and they're referred for help if they need and want it. Eliminate the stigma that causes people to hide mental illness in themselves or their family members, and you start to work toward preventing things from devolving to tragedy-- whether personal or public.

Can you prove no one can flip to wanting to kill overnight? For all we know, one hour of reading could be all it takes for a person to decide on shooting a random theater, or settling on killing women at a school few minutes after being rejected by a girl, solely because all girls reject the person over and over. Helping mentally ill or blocking them from owning a gun could likely reduce mass shooting, but by how much? You also have to look at history and whether they committed any act of violence towards anyone or anything. I personally find mental illness to be a cop-out in an attempt to defend owning gun.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-beh...tal-illness-mass-shootings-gun-violence-83103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

 

[SharkBait]

The only mental illness I can think of people possessing when they become a killer over knight or after being fired recently is they became demon possessed. However, that would be difficult to prove and probably wouldnt hold up in court.

 

[kannazuki]

Can you prove no one can flip to wanting to kill overnight? For all we know, one hour of reading could be all it takes for a person to decide on shooting a random theater, or settling on killing women at a school few minutes after being rejected by a girl, solely because all girls reject the person over and over. Helping mentally ill or blocking them from owning a gun could likely reduce mass shooting, but by how much? You also have to look at history and whether they committed any act of violence towards anyone or anything. I personally find mental illness to be a cop-out in an attempt to defend owning gun.

No more than you can conclusively prove these shooters who so often write rants and manifestos full of hatred (or who have histories of antisocial behaviour in the actual psychological sense) are perfectly happy people who just "snapped." Not sure where you get the idea I'm defending people's interest in guns???? I'll speak to mental illness based on what I've read about it, but (to everybody's relief I'm sure) I'm not touching your gun debate. I just get irritated when I see all this talk about people just suddenly snapping and deciding to shoot a bunch of people. Find me a mental illness in the DSM that initiates with sudden violence You'll be hard pressed to find any that even require violent behaviour as a diagnostic criterion, let alone any that begins with someone "snapping" and immediately going off to do something violent. And if you're trying to claim someone who "suddenly" decides to go off and shoot a crowd of people made that decision in the absence of either mental illness or an amoral rationalization based on dehumanizing and other-ing people (i.e. explicit hatred), then unless you have some fairly compelling evidence for that assumption the person is happy in life, I'm going to have to disagree.

Actually maybe at some point I'll just make a separate thread about the costs of poorly managed mental illness on societies. I'm really only interested in US politics for where it overlaps or has influence on the rest of the world. Thankfully the issue of domestic gun violence/deaths does not seem to be one of those areas.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-beh...tal-illness-mass-shootings-gun-violence-83103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

What is your point in posting this article? What out of the things I said is this meant to address?

 

[M3J]

Some people can snap overnight, some people shoot others due to mental illness. There's no set way of determining what can cause mass shooting, but one good way is to look into the person's past when he or she is interested in buying guns. If there's a history of violence, keep them away from guns. Point is, murderers could commit mass murder for any reason, mental illness or not, anger or not. Blaming it on mental illness is just gun defenders trying to skirt around the issue and blame something else.

 

[kannazuki]

Blaming it on mental illness is just gun defenders trying to skirt around the issue and blame something else.

So you're neither acknowledging nor trying to understand what I've actually said, but making me a surrogate for what you think a pro-gun conservative would say? Again, I talked about mental illness, not your country's unfortunate obsession with exalting gun "rights" over basic human rights. If you're going to reply to me then reply to what I said. Of course it's blatantly obvious easy access to guns is a problem (as the data kkck posted, and a decade of Australian gun ban results demonstrate). But that's ONE dimension of a multidimensional issue. It doesn't erase the fact that happy and mentally healthy people don't just "snap" and go on killing sprees. My saying that does NOT automatically mean I'm saying guns are great and mental illness predicts violence, for goodness' sake. I actually spend a lot more time telling people I know in person NOT to assume diagnosed mental illness in a person means they're somehow morally or intellectually compromised.

Spoiler: rant on the marginalization of ppl struggling with mental illness

It sickens me all the disgusting automatic negative associations people have with mental illness. I've spent a lot of time talking to suicidal people, depressed people, bipolar people, and more. They live among you and you see them every day as your acquaintances, friends, and relatives, yet you never notice it because they know they have to "hide" their illness at all times due to BS stigma. Most people don't have the slightest clue how exceedingly painful it is for them to fool you into thinking everything's fine all the time on top of whatever illness they are already suffering. It always saddens me how many of them talk about how they end up hating people for it and resenting that they have to keep their pain bottled up. Most people never know this however, because they also have no clue how incredibly deep these people's resilience and restraint is. Pretty much everyone with mental illness is being failed by their society on some level, but among those who are failed over and over and over again on many levels, you're going to start to find some who have begun fantasizing about revenge. If more stress (unemployment, a history of relationship problems, unresolved trauma, etc.) piles up than a person can handle, in most cases it won't lead any further than a suicide attempt, but that minority of people I just mentioned-- especially if they already have an existing history of violence-- will (continue to) externalize their pain in a violent way. This is why crime goes up when economies are bad-- it's not just people stealing food to survive (though that does happen), but a statistical inevitability of pushing people who are already suffering even harder. Unsurprisingly, greater income inequality also equals greater crime and greater overall unhappiness in a society.

Although I'm not really a Utilitarian in my views on morality, I think the Utilitarians had a point in advocating for governance that seeks to promote people's freedom to pursue happiness rather than the current model of consumerist "productivity." (I'll try to do a separate post on it at some point though, rather than going into detail on this here.)

 

[kkck]

Some people can snap overnight, some people shoot others due to mental illness. There's no set way of determining what can cause mass shooting, but one good way is to look into the person's past when he or she is interested in buying guns. If there's a history of violence, keep them away from guns. Point is, murderers could commit mass murder for any reason, mental illness or not, anger or not. Blaming it on mental illness is just gun defenders trying to skirt around the issue and blame something else.

In this context the issue is not proving people can't snap overnight but rather the opposite, proving they can. I don't think there is any documented case or even evidence that people can snap overnight and just decide to shot at strangers. Mental illness probably is not a factor in all cases however among the cases that aren't attributable to mental illness there won't be a single one that "snapped" with no background or context into doing the deed.