School shootings and gun control

[Dragline]

@Dragline
Furthermore, do we care more about several people murdered in a school shooting more so than than the same number murdered in an inner city the same day? Logically, they should matter equally, but we all know this isn't the case. I think if we were to systematically examine all shootings like the article linked suggests, it would indeed give us a clearer picture of who are the main aggressors. And then possibly we could respond to the most prevalent threats.

Actually, we do, because the victims in the former scenario are viewed as "doubly innocent". There is an unstated idea that relatively rare events like shootings where crime is low (and terrorist attacks in general) are more worrisome due to the horror/fear factor and the unpredictability . Its easier to discount victims who frequent known areas of high crime or other dangers (the singly innocent, or maybe not so innocent), because most people can avoid a known risk by staying away.

But children who grow up in violent areas of inner cities don't choose to live there; circumstance put them in harm's way, and keeps them there. I would turn that coin over and say that the suburban kids are the lucky ones who only have to worry about statistically rare events, whereas the kids in violent neighborhoods are "doubly victimized".

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that the status quo is fair or right -- I was just trying to describe it. This is also why we (as a society) seem to be more disturbed when the toddler is shot in a misdirected shooting in a high crime area than when a young adult is shot under similar circumstances. The perceived level of innocence of the victim always seems to trump other factors, especially when compared with the actual/relative risks involved.

You see this in other areas as well -- classically in the "save the children" type ads, but more recently in the promotion of animal rights/rescue. Many of the people I know who work in that sphere perceive animals as essentially "more innocent" than humans and therefore more worthy of expending resources on. (Compare kid people and pet people.)

Every time you hear somebody say that so-and-so DESERVED whatever bad outcome that has befallen them, its essentially a judgment that so-and-so was not "innocent enough" to merit sympathy.

All of the foregoing is quite subjective and usually irrational -- but it is what it is.

[jennypenny]

From the Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

I thought it was a balanced piece and did a pretty good job of summarizing the issue ...

"And so Americans are condemned to engage endlessly in futile argument—futile thanks to the legal enshrinement of private gun ownership in our founding document, as well as to a refusal to state clearly our mutually exclusive convictions: that the intrinsic cost of this right is tens of thousands of unwanted deaths and that the only way to stop these deaths is outright gun confiscation.

Perhaps, in a perfect world, the United States would never have had the Second Amendment. But such a country—one not forged in armed revolution against arbitrary rule from afar and founded upon the principle of individual liberty—would not be the United States, with all its virtues and vices. For Americans like myself with no attachment to guns but who respect the vast majority of responsible gun owners who exercise their right to own them, one can only observe gun violence, and the debate surrounding it, with a sense of dreary resignation."

[GandK]

@Dragline: I feel that way. I do feel worse when I read about a 6-year-old victim than a 60-year-old victim. If nothing else, I figure the 60yo probably had a chance to live a full life and the 6yo did not. Assuming a life span of 85, the loss of 79 years of life seems like a greater tragedy than 25 years.

As it relates to shootings (and other violent crimes), I have that empathy deficit at times, too. More than once I've thought, "You know, if you weren't in X place doing Y illegal things with Z dangerous bad guys... you would never have been shot."

[Dragline]

Yes, its only normal. As Danny Kahneman might say, its your "system one" brain at work sorting things into generalized categories of worthy/innocent and unworthy/guilty because no one has the brainpower to do an individualized analysis of every single person and their situation.

A large portion of differences in political viewpoints can be explained by differences in these subjective categorizations. Each person crafts policies in their head that they believe favor the more innocent or worthy, and thus are more fair or just in their view.

Then, at least for many if not most people, data is used to confirm the subjective rankings. That video posted above with all the charts was a good example. If you took the time to look at the cited source material, you would not see any easy way to turn the sources into the charts, as they did not appear to even cover all the years represented on many of the charts. And there was an admission that the FBI data was kind of fudged by using a proxy. But, although contradictory data from more reliable sources is a mere Google search away (see, e.g., http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137), most of the commenters accepted the charts at face value because their system one brains had already sorted the innocent/worthy from the less innocent/unworthy. The charts were just there to make them feel good about it.

Its relatively rare that policies are crafted based on things like raw risk factors because they seldom match subjective rankings.

[jennypenny]

It's no surprise that my inbox lit up all night after the WH released its talking points regarding the new executive action on gun control. Here's the official text ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... d-make-our

I'm not a knee-jerk gun owner who automatically opposes all attempts to restrict gun ownership. I'm willing to discuss specific issues to see if and where changes need to be made. I will say I'm a little concerned about the focus on mental health issues. One one hand, I understand the need to protect people who have a severe mental illness from hurting themselves or others. OTOH, there are many people (including many on this forum) who have mild issues and have benefited/would benefit from the assistance of a mental health professional. Most are not a danger to anyone; they are people who might need a little help with coping skills or occasional depression or even just help treating ADD. Are those people going to be lumped in with the psychotics?

I'm afraid this might deter people from seeing a mental health professional, especially if the issue stems from an event of some sort--like a death in the family or a postpartum issue--and the person suffering figures they can 'tough it out' instead. Also, what if a person is referred by a doctor who isn't well-trained in mental health issues and is incorrect in their assessment? Even doctors in the mental health field struggle with diagnoses. What if you simply mention to your GP that you're struggling after something like losing a parent, and they mark it in your (online/accessible/permanent) medical record?

That brings up another point that I don't like about the entire system -- everything is accessible to government agencies now. I know there's a trade-off between the right to privacy and public safety, but I don't like that all of our records are now part of a giant, co-mingled database. It used to be that government agencies had to show cause to get access to records, and they had to show why they needed each kind of record. For example, they might legally and rightfully need your tax records, but not necessarily your medical records. Now it seems like any agency can look at almost anything. I'm not comfortable with that, and not just with regard to gun ownership rights.


OT ... I find it amusing that the gun-rights constituency (generally from the right) automatically opposes all attempts at gun control and the anti-gun constituency (generally from the left) slams them for being unreasonable. The opposite is true on abortion. Any attempts to make even small changes to abortion laws are met with swift and vocal opposition from pro-choice groups that claim that any changes at all would infringe on their constitutional rights. The game is always the same ...

[Chad]

That brings up another point that I don't like about the entire system -- everything is accessible to government agencies now. I know there's a trade-off between the right to privacy and public safety, but I don't like that all of our records are now part of a giant, co-mingled database. It used to be that government agencies had to show cause to get access to records, and they had to show why they needed each kind of record. For example, they might legally and rightfully need your tax records, but not necessarily your medical records. Now it seems like any agency can look at almost anything. I'm not comfortable with that, and not just with regard to gun ownership rights.

This is probably it's own larger and broader issue. It's definitely a problem, but I'm not entirely sure how we stop it without hurting other aspects of our society/economy, and I'm not even talking about gun control with this statement. I say this, because it's not just the government that has this ability anymore. Corporations and even individuals can find a lot of this information easily, if they know where to look. There aren't a lot of physical barriers to slow down the process anymore, which is really what kept this in check in both the public and private parts of our society.

[7Wannabe5]

Having, unfortunately, personal experience with interacting with diagnosed as mentally-ill gun-owners, I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of any sort of legislation that would help to shrink that Venn diagram overlap. It's not just the case that people suffering from delusional psychosis are dangerous around guns. Plenty of people who suffer from relatively mild paranoia mixed with depression or anxiety disorders or substance addictions or rage issues are pretty damn dangerous around guns. IOW, "the little green men on Mars are telling me to shoot everybody wearing white today" is a relatively rare thought/occurrence, but "My f*cking pr*ck of a co-worker has been messing with MY sh*t in MY locker again, and I don't give a damn what I do anymore because my wife left me and I ran out of Prozac and I just drank a fifth of JD." is much, much more common.

[jennypenny]

I can see the benefits of cross-checking everything. I guess I worry about where it ends. To my mind, the slippery slope with gun control legislation isn't gun confiscation, it's the wholesale use of this kind of personal data. Sometimes I wonder if they develop policy based on the type of data they already possess as opposed to the type of data that's most useful or predictive.

The mental health one is tricky because someone may have an issue when they're young and then have that follow them around the rest of their lives, and not just wrt gun ownership. (Some school districts seem to be in the business of labeling kids because it means more federal dollars for for the school for each kid with an issue.) What if after the next mother suffering from postpartum depression kills her child, there is a public outcry for child services to automatically start a case file on all families where the mother has any 'history' of mental illness? Sure, it's a tragedy when that happens, but does it warrant child services monitoring all mothers with any kind of mental illness flag in their file? Should they all have to prove they are competent mothers? I dunno.

I guess it's also the uneven push for safety that always bugs me. The executive order says that they'll look to see if anyone on social security has been deemed mentally incompetent in any way and then take away their guns. Have they taken away their driver's license? Which is more dangerous or more likely to cause injury to someone? Why not start with that? (oh wait, because you can't get elected doing that ...)

[IlliniDave]

I guess I worry about where it ends. To my mind, the slippery slope with gun control legislation isn't gun confiscation, it's the wholesale use of this kind of personal data. Sometimes I wonder if they develop policy based on the type of data they already possess as opposed to the type of data that's most useful or predictive.

It's a baby step towards Minority Report without the fictional predictive abilities from that film--just a broad brush shot in the dark about what might happen. Aside from the legitimately questionable use of power from the executive branch, the next thing we'll begin to see is scope creep in terms of what out there in a person's digital footprint they use to disenfranchise citizens and for what rights they apply it. With this step and HIPAA's coincident acquiescence, there's basically zero chance I would ever voluntary seek any sort of mental health treatment now as it would relegate a person to second-class citizen status.

Also probably not a coincidence that it was a dramatic emotional performance by POTUS in an election year.

On Netflix I've been watching Person of Interest, so maybe I'm a little over-attuned about these things right now. But darned if it doesn't look like Samaritan is coming to life right before our eyes

[7Wannabe5]

Do you think that Charlie Sheen should be allowed to own a gun? If your answer is "Yes." then what would you do if you were Charlie Sheen's girlfriend ( a sane person lacking in common sense and over-influenced by good looks and charisma) and he had been acting a bit oddly for a couple days, and then you wake up in the middle of the night and see that he is wide awake and his eyes are very bright but a bit glazed and he is in the bed next to you cleaning his guns? Do you think that there is some government agency out there that will give you some help with this problem? Is he a danger to himself or others? What guidelines should you use to make this determination? What will likely happen if you choose to calm your anxiety and decide that he's "not really a danger." What will likely happen if you decide that he is a danger and make a phone call? Further complications might be that he is still legally married to another woman who currently resides in a different state, and his psychiatrist is not really allowed to talk to you. I guess there is nothing you can do, right? Not really your responsibility. Just get your ass out of the line of fire and watch for the results on the local news and feel more than a bit of guilty relief when after going AWOL-into-the-wild for a few days, he calls and tells you "I think it is best that we break up, because it was going to have to happen by March at the latest anyways."

[jennypenny]

I don't know much about Charlie Sheen (did I miss something?), so I'll just say in a general way that yes, he has a right to own a gun. I'm not sure how the gun is the fulcrum of that situation though. What if he's whacked out and holding a knife? or a baseball bat? or a roll of duct tape?

The girlfriend should call the police if she fears for her safety. If the police do their job correctly, they will interview her and perform what's called a lethality assessment to determine if she is at risk. If they determine she is, the system kicks in and she's advised of several places she can go and is offered transport. If it's determined that he's a threat to himself or others, he's detained and assessed. The LAP is designed to prevent escalation of abuse to a serious or deadly level. (It was developed by the people who did the Danger Assessment.) I'm pretty sure Kentucky has adopted the program. I wonder if ffj received LAP training.

I'm only mentioning this level of detail to show that there is a system in place designed to protect women. In the scenario you described, if the police don't do an assessment or she chooses to stay, she is obviously at risk of being shot, but that doesn't mean it's the fault of the gun or the system. An adequate system is already in place, but if it's not utilized, changing the system won't change the outcome.

--------------

I'm not arguing against all gun control. What I oppose are blanket policies and restrictions based on untested or misguided use of the massive amount of personal data being collected. It reminds me of the rush to 'zero-tolerance' policies that studies now show do more harm than good and push people out of the system instead of keeping them in it where they can get help if it's needed. The last thing I want to see is any policy (not just this one) that discourages people from seeking help. I can easily foresee a time when other policies based on things like lifestyle or medical history discourage people from seeing a doctor. IMO, that's taking us in the wrong direction.

[IlliniDave]

Do you think that Charlie Sheen should be allowed to own a gun? If your answer is "Yes." then what would you do if you were Charlie Sheen's girlfriend ( a sane person lacking in common sense and over-influenced by good looks and charisma) and he had been acting a bit oddly for a couple days, and then you wake up in the middle of the night and see that he is wide awake and his eyes are very bright but a bit glazed and he is in the bed next to you cleaning his guns? Do you think that there is some government agency out there that will give you some help with this problem?

Is it truly a problem that requires immediate intervention or a preventive strike from the government? She might be spooked but he hasn't actually done anything in your vignette other than acting "odd" (for him, would that even be unusual?) and cleaning a gun. If she feels uncomfortable she should leave and perhaps contact the police if she felt threatened. CS is widely perceived to be a bit of a flake and known to have domestic violence incidents in his past, so the prudent course of action for her came upstream of getting into his bed. Maybe the government should determine who she is allowed to romp with? The gist of the argument is that the public and media have diagnosed Sheen as having mental health issues (dunno if that has ever been verified by a qualified professional who examined him and entered the result into the meta database), and predicated on that armchair diagnosis he should be barred from having a firearm, no?

I don't know the details of his criminal past, and it may very well be illegal for him to own or possess firearms. In my mind a domestic violence conviction could be sufficient grounds, but I have no idea in his case what the allegations and adjudications were, and what the laws governing such things are.

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, that makes sense. The local police are the level of government that we are supposed to trust when we have any concerns about gun usage or inappropriate (non-consensual) use of duct tape. No need for further involvement by the legislators.

This isn't really related to the thread topic, but a few weeks ago I was wakened in the middle of the night because the police were banging on the door of the apartment above mine, and apparently my upstairs neighbor, a man in his late 30s or early 40s had called the police because his girlfriend, a fairly husky woman, had punched him. Are we in agreement that this is also appropriate use of police services?

[IlliniDave]

In general I would say it's within reason, domestic assault is domestic assault. That's not to say I would do it in his shoes, though. I'd be too embarrassed and would extricate myself from the situation privately if at all possible.

I have a friend who got into an argument with her (now ex-) husband when he was in a drunken stupor. She got scared after he broke a few things and called 911, and when he realized what she was doing he scratched himself on the face and arm. She wound up going "downtown" for the night. Took a few days and a couple interviews with their son before it all got straightened out. Domestic situations can be crazy and when in doubt a victim should always seek help irrespective of gender/age/relationship with perpetrator. Unfortunately it's sometimes easier said than done.

[Riggerjack]

. 7Wannabe5 wrote:
Do you think that Charlie Sheen should be allowed to own a gun? If your answer is "Yes." then what would you do if you were Charlie Sheen's girlfriend ( a sane person lacking in common sense and over-influenced by good looks and charisma) and he had been acting a bit oddly for a couple days, and then you wake up in the middle of the night and see that he is wide awake and his eyes are very bright but a bit glazed and he is in the bed next to you cleaning his guns? Do you think that there is some government agency out there that will give you some help with this problem?

The problem isn't that Charley has a gun, it is that he has a girlfriend.

As to calling the cops when fights get violent, yes, that's what they are there for. In WA, domestic violence calls require someone to be arrested.

From personal experience, my army girlfriend came home with me. She was very comfortable with hitting me, but since I had 11 inches and 110 lbs on her, it was all one way. She would hit me, I'd push her away and go for a walk. The day the cops were called, I put my fist through the wall on the way out.

The first thing the deputy saw was the cut on my knuckle, and I had no doubt I was going to jail. Luckily, she was still pissed and backed up my story, with more details. In her mind, the problem was that I wouldn't fight her. Apparently, the rules are a bit different in Korea.

They arrested her, something she felt was completely wrong. Had she been at all cagey, or more familiar with our culture, I'm sure I would have been arrested.

My fault for tolerating it up to that point. In this state, a domestic violence conviction bars access to a concealed pistol permit, and usually results in loss of firearms. But then we didn't have a gun show loophole even before the gun grabbers pushed i-454 on us.

We don't need more laws.

Fortunately, the latest presidential tirade isn't more laws. It's just politics as usual. There were no executive orders, he talked about executive actions. One is published in the federal review, and carries the weight of law, the other is calling a press conference. This was a press conference, saying that his staff will totally talk to congress. But he sounded good saying it.

[7Wannabe5]

It's interesting to hear different people's perspective on this issue. I haven't been engaged in a physical altercation myself since some squabble over a borrowed blouse with one of my sisters when I was in my early teens. I have never called the police because I was afraid somebody else was going to physically harm me. I have been directly threatened with physical violence, as in "Shut up, or I will bash your teeth in." ,and I have been frightened because maybe I said something like "If you keep drinking, I am going to leave." and then that person called me a c*nt and broke a counter-top and a chair. Also, I had a boyfriend who had been diagnosed with bi-polar 1 and he stopped taking his medication, and he literally said to me "I love you so much, if I am going out then I am taking you with me." but, luckily, he hated guns because he had been held up a few times himself. Anyways, I never call the cops. I just quiet my anxiety in the moment and then decide that I can't be in a relationship with somebody who exhibits behavior that frightens me, and then I leave.

I was curious about what the younger men on the forum raised in less sexist times thought about calling the cops if girlfriend did the hitting. When I related this incident to the older (over 50) men I am currently dating, they both immediately responded with just one word that was a direct or rhyming slang variant slur referencing female genitalia.

[Riggerjack]

I didn't call the cops, and wouldn't call the cops. But a family member did, and I had to deal with the fallout. I mentioned my story because it conflicts with the standard story, of the man getting hauled off.

I still think if she understood the possibility of how it would play out, and our stories conflicted, I'd be the one arrested.

I think in most situations where a man is getting hit at home, he should either really be into that, or he should just leave. The reason for the stereotypical storyline is that is where the damage happens. Taking the teeth out of the law for exceptional circumstances is just as wrong as assuming every guy charged with domestic violence is a wife beater who should live in a cage.

Our justice system is supposed to have judges for this.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack: Right. I don't even think somebody should have to live in a cage if they threaten to put a violent end to my right to free speech while in their company, as long as removing myself from their company remains an option. Loneliness is punishment enough. I didn't mean to imply that you were a wuss even if you did call the cops on your GF. I have two male friends who had ex-wives that hit them. One ended up eventually calling the cops. The other one eventually told her "The next time you do that, I am going to hit you back." and he did, and she stopped. The friend who called the cops on his wife also hunted her down to collect child support even though he had way more money than her, and he thought it was wrong that I didn't hunt my ex down to collect child support from him. I guess I just have a natural disinclination to involve the legal authorities in my personal business. Whether or not somebody owns a gun is ultimately irrelevant since possessing 60 lbs. more muscle is enough to make me shut up in the moment.

[Sclass]

I was curious about what the younger men on the forum raised in less sexist times thought about calling the cops if girlfriend did the hitting.

Ohh boy this reminds me of a story. (John Higgins in the house). I'm going to turn 47 in a few days so perhaps I just make the cut.

My good friend and mentor got his ass whipped by his mistress who happens to be half his age. 70 yo guys should not piss off their 35yo ballerina GFs . Dancers are strong. He was unhappy with the affection he was getting for the amount of money he was spending. So the old man brought in some "competition" and strutted down to the country club with the new gal right in front of the misbehaving girlfriend. He was hoping to see some behavioral modification.

Well it didn't go well. He came home and got whooped. She was dancing all over him with her cat claws. Then she called the cops on him. Cops came to the home. But they see my old mentor with blood starting to soak through his white shirt. Broken press on nails everywhere. They arrest her. He spends thousands over the next few months defending her from the city prosecutor. Somehow even after he didn't press charges she was getting nailed for assault and battery. She's way cuddly now.

Ummm, the decision to call the cops on a female beating me up depends on the female. The women in my life don't do that kind of thing when they get mad. They're too smart. Yes, even my mom with dementia doesn't attack.

But, if I felt like I was in danger I'd call the cops. In my mentor's case above, I'd have called the cops and had the violent ballerina hauled off for trespassing before the domestic disturbance ever happened. She was always a dangerous girl from day one.

[enigmaT120]

In general I would say it's within reason, domestic assault is domestic assault. That's not to say I would do it in his shoes, though. I'd be too embarrassed and would extricate myself from the situation privately if at all possible.

That made me laugh, as it's also somewhat how I feel. I know it's sexist, and if I ever lucked out and found a 6' goddess to worship who also knew martial arts, I would be in real trouble if she got mad at me. Fortunately they don't even look at me.