In the news we keep hearing about the recent mass shooting. We hear about how something must be done to keep our children safe. We see high emotions, hysteria, to protect children. I understand the emotion of fear and can feel empathy. I do not let my emotions override my reasoning when I have enough data to make a decent assessment. Based on analysis of the data I've been able to digest my conclusions are:
- Gun control based on the data is not an effective policy.
- No specific law that I'm aware of would have prevented Cruz from acquiring a gun.
- Cruz, based on his murder of defenseless animals for fun, resembled a budding psychopath in the making and it seemed only a matter of time before he progressed to killing people.
- The United States has one of if not the highest per capita mental illness rates on earth.
- The United States has the most guns per capita on planet earth.
- The United States has the most prisoners per capita on planet earth (mass incarceration).
- Around 3% of the United States has almost 50% of the guns which means there is gun hoarding going on.
- The actual odds of dying in a mass shooting is extremely low, only 1 in 15325 people. (The odds of dying of cancer is 1 in 7, the odds of dying from a bicycle is 1 in 4485, the odds of dying in a police shooting is 1 in 8719.
The actual risk of dying in a mass shooting is only moderate
By US gov (US gov) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
So let's discuss the numbers and think about this rationally? I have a greater chance of dying by the police than by a mass shooter. I have a greater chance dying riding my bike than by a mass shooter. Do we disarm the police and outlaw bikes? Police and bikes are more likely by the statistics to get us killed than a mass shooter.
Based on a risk matrix, we can determine actual risk based on frequency and severity. Frequency of mass shootings is low and is not any higher than it has been. Severity of mass shootings is the maximum as there is nothing worse than loss of life for most people. So while coverage on the media makes it seem like there is greater frequency this is not the case. It is the case in the statistics that the deadliness of the mass shootings is going up (more people dying by the hands of fewer persons). This doesn't mean more people are dying overall in mass shootings, just the the mass shootings are killing more people at a time. So the truth is, based on risk, when severity is equal, the frequency becomes the difference maker.
What effective policy options are on the table?
The other question is of effectiveness. In my opinion gun control policies are as ineffective as the drug policies. We have seen the War on Drugs which also we implemented to protect the children from the drug dealer. The War on Drugs did not result in less accessibility. Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs due to there being a black market. If we substitute guns for drugs then we can see that just as a black market for liquor formed during prophibition, and a black market for drugs formed during the war on drugs, a black market for guns could form. There is perhaps more than 1 gun per person in the United States, and guns are being hoarded, so those guns unless confiscated will remain accessible by a portion of the serial killers, the psychopaths. I am open to any policies which are proven effective in studies in the United States, as I follow the data and if the data shows a policy is effective on the local level then why not scale it up? I do not support policies which have no evidence or data supporting the effectiveness of the policy. In my opinion gun control policies already exist and are not preventing mass murderers from accessing guns, and gun confiscation seems to be infeasible because I do not see gun hoarders volunteering to hand over their guns.
What about genetics?
There are two genes MAOA and CDH13 which were found (in a scientific study) to be associated with violent crime. This means children could be screened for these genes. I would support a policy which screens for a genetic tendency toward violence so that parents of these children and the children themselves can learn more about themselves and strive to become better more self regulating persons. Neurofeedback has displayed evidence of effectiveness for treating ADHD, to help brains develop better responses over time. This may indicate that if children are identified to have the genes associated with a propensity for violence then they can be helped (if they know they have the gene). There is no indication in studies that I'm aware of that budding serial killers with no empathy can be helped, and the literature shows that children who murder animals for fun are more likely to become serial killers.
Conclusion
By Stuart G Hamilton (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
The data suggests that the risk of death in a mass shooting is moderate. This means we should monitor, study the problem, and plan effective solutions. Effectiveness of a solution can be measured by the impact assessment. A policy such as the war on drugs in conclude as ineffective because the impact of that policy is negative and resulted in mass incarceration. The policy did not result in achieving the goal which they stated at the time was to reduce drug use (harm reduction). Gun control if it is implemented by harsh sentences for possession offenses, will likely lead to even more mass incarceration. I do not see this as being effective for reducing mass shootings.
References
Lansbergen, M. M., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Buitelaar, J. K., & Slaats-Willemse, D. (2011). ADHD and EEG-neurofeedback: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study. Journal of neural transmission, 118(2), 275-284.
Whts Your take on this :
Every time a white person kills a person , he’s mentally ill
When a brown person (Muslim ) kills , it’s a act of terrorism .
America sees blacks as thugs and shoot them often ( many cases)
Mexicans are illegal .
Any take ?
I do have a take. A person who commits mass murder is mentally ill no matter what their skin tone, religion, gender, age, or anything else. So I do not think it is wise to treat black offenders, or mexican offenders, any different from white offenders. I see them all the exact same, a terrorist is a terrorist based on whether or not they did terrorism, a mass murderer is a mass murder based on if they committed mass murder.
I agree with you that the Justice system is fucked up. In fact, if you're a black male in particular, it is far more likely you will die by the police (more than twice as likely actually) than that you'll die from a mass shooter or school shooter. If you're Muslim or black, it may be more likely that you end up falsely convicted of a crime you didn't do than to die in a mass shooting. If we are going on numbers, it might be more likely if you're a black male that you'll die in a drive by or random shooting than a mass shooting.
Mass shooting upsets the right sort of people in society to make a hysteria. This doesn't mean mass shootings is causing more deaths or even more gun deaths than other kinds of violence. What America sees is unfortunately what America sees, but it's not necessarily what I see or how I see things.
References
I have learned from my classes as well how a white male with a criminal record is more likely to get a job over a colored male that has a clear record . Justice system , the media and many other things are to blame as well
In one of my previous posts on wealth I addressed this. Some people are born into a race which isn't being negatively stereotyped where they are born. This is being born wealthy (with a genetic gift) to fit in and not be discriminated against. Often people born with gifts completely take it for granted unfortunately, and do not realize that they are born with more wealth than some or perhaps many others.
I do not expect a system run by humans to ever be truly fair. What I tell people is to recognize your own assets and liabilities, and make the best of it. Take what gifts you are born with, and build from there, and if possible try to evolve into a better person over time. A very simple couple of words, have humility, be humble. Avoid developing arrogance due to having had good luck.
References
Gifts and talents as well, we can’t ever be the same as others but we can learn from others to progress in this so called life
Thanks for your feedback , had to get it off my chest
Well done and spot on! Couldn't agree with you more and I'm impressed with your pragmatic approach with this topic. I did not know that genetics can be a factor. Excellent post yet again :)
I agree with you in regards to taking more informed decision in regards to gun policy. Apart from genetics, I think another large factor is mental illness. In the disconnected society we live in, unguided youth can become un-grounded and act on psychosis.
Then again, if there is proper diagnosis and treatment the individual can self-regulate and live a normal life.
There is no need for high powered semi and automatic weapons in a civil society. The whole world is laughing at the stupidity of that arguement @dana-edwards
There are more guns in the US than there are people.
They should look at Japan's gun laws
A country whose suicide rate is often higher than our homicide and suicide rates combined?
What gun law will turn us Japanese?
When the Yakuza kills someone there they chop up the bodies and throw them in the ocean and their statistics only record a murder when a body has been found. 33,000 a year of mostly intentional suicides in the US. Very misleading.
And Australia.
As an outsider looking in, I'd recommend baby steps.
The first steps I would recommend would be to make it illegal for a civilian to possess automatic weapons and put a limit on the size of the ammunition clip.
If found with such a weapon, the individual would receive an instant fine and confiscation/destruction of the weapon.
The only thing this would do would make it an anomaly to see someone with a 25 round clip and/or here the rapid fire of an automatic.
Once it becomes uncommon to see/hear these unique weapons, then the weapons will become the sole possession of the criminals. (This makes it easier to enforce - when found)
Knowingly, these steps would not prevent these types of killings, but they may reduce the number of people that are injured/killed, and give a better chance to flee/fight while the individual reloads.
I agree with baby steps. I do not think law enforcement in particular should move on this. I think the research phase should take place now based on the risk level being moderate. I think there is time to design effective policy based in science and do not think hysteria should interfere with the scientific inquiry into this problem.
I do think more funding should go into studying the causes of mass shootings and of violence in particular. Science uncovered the genes associated with violent behavior. Science uncovered that the brains of psychopaths are wired different. We need more science (facts), more data analytics, and less hysteria.
There is no evidence to suggest any gun control policy thus far has had an impact on the outcome of mass shootings. There are stray cases such as the shooting where someone else had a gun and shot dead the shooter but there hasn't been enough to know the impact. Data science would allow for analysis of the outcome in such a way so that we can figure out the underlying factors and perhaps find out a precise policy which can make a difference.
Mass shootings seem to be mostly caused by the drugs the shooters are on that come with warnings about "may cause suicidal actions".
but of course they are a very small fraction of homicides in general, the exception to the rule. Most gun homicides are committed by gang members because we created them with drug prohibition. The media and politicians only focus on mass shootings with legal guns to promote a gun control narrative and distract from the true problems. If they covered the day to day slaughter no one would conclude more gun control laws were needed, they would conclude that prohibition has failed.
its always the same cycle. school shooting --> thoughts and prayers --> repeat. i just dont know why trump made it easy for people with mental illness to buy guns like what the fuck!?!?!
Trump of course did no such thing, he reversed an illegal Obama executive order that stripped anyone receiving certain benefits of their gun rights without any due process, in America we only strip people of their rights after due process.
If a person receives government benefits it has nothing to do with their right to own a gun. Mental illness doesn't equate to propensity for violence. Disability doesn't equate to propensity for violence. Some of the least violent people I've ever known have been diagnosed with some mental illness.
Also what about class? People who receive government benefits tend to be poor. What does being poor have to do with this?
i think you pick off hard references and i agree with you and i want to say that do a good to write this post....
This is so great! You got the great point here......
Nice post, you mentioned good points i think.,keep going..
My research over the years has led me to the same conclusions.
Gun control not only does not work, but the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control also have, in general, the most violent crimes committed with guns per capita.
On the other hand, New Hampshire, which for years was the only state that did not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, also had one of the lowest violent crime rates.
And rural Middle Tennessee, where I now live, also has low rates of violent crimes, partly because the vast majority of residents in the area are seasoned hunters, and have multiple guns available, and partly because almost everyone has dogs, which are a huge deterrent.
When criminals think their victims are likely to be armed, and are fully capable of defending their own, they think twice about committing crimes there.
Not exactly rocket science.
"the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control also have, in general, the most violent crimes committed with guns per capita."
That simple correlation does not support the argument that "When criminals think their victims are likely to be armed, and are fully capable of defending their own, they think twice about committing crimes there". An alternative explanation might be that in more dangerous places with most violent crimes committed using guns, the people there voluntarily choose to impose stricter gun controls. That would not mean that gun control did not work either. It might be that the effects of imposing gun control takes slower to realise after having a long period of loose gun control laws, or it might be that the benefits are limited because people can get their guns easily in neighbouring states since there is no blanket ban. In this case, imposing strict gun control over the whole of America would be successful in reducing violent crimes committed with guns.
What about the case of Australia?
How many mass shooters have been stopped by victims or by-standers carrying guns? Florida, where the latest mass shooting happened, allows for people to carry guns.
The case of Australia is irrelevant because it's not the United States. What about Japan? What about Russia? I mean we cannot look to any other country when determining effectiveness of a US policy. We can only look at the US and see what happens when policies are tried in the US.
Gun control doesn't work in the US. Possibly because there are too many guns, along with a gun culture. Australia had less guns, did not have a gun culture, so that could explain why their policy had different effects. It's also true the war on drugs is effective in China, in Japan, in other countries. In Asia in some countries you get the death penalty if you're involved in the drug trade so I guess this means the death penalty works because it worked in Asia? No, Asians have a different culture and what works in Asia might not work in the United States.
Either show the data in which case it is a fact or this is your own opinion not based on data or evidence. Gun control already exists and it's not having an impact in the data. Gun control would not have prevented Cruz from getting his gun legally and if you think it would have how about explaining how you think it could have stopped him?
I have read a lot on this subject and agree with the view, that the problem is not the legal carrying of weapons. If you look at the statistics, the guns saved more lives in self-defense than they did. In my opinion, the threshold is the level of security in schools. Because you can put in every school or metal detectors to come up with any more safety measures. This is a very acute issue and the government must take action!!!
An 18 year old should not be allowed to buy any gun, let alone an assault rifle. It's a joke that an 18yro can buy a gun before they can rent a car or buy a beer.
In the United States 18 year olds are allowed to enlist in the military.