Preventing Mass Murders; It's the Person, not the Weapon

[jbg]

I made this posting as a new thread so as not to derail a current thread on the recent California rampage. This thread is intended to cover the field of mental health and neighborly relations more generally.

Am I the "resident Yankee troll"? I hope not.

As we saw in a recent (yes, U.S.) incident a student went on a pretty serious knife rampage recently.

What I think this comes down to (and I may but can't promise a thread on this issue) is a need for people generally to keep better track of their neighbors and acquaintances. Someone, particularly the administration, faculty or other students at the "college" he was attending should have noticed this guy's spiraling decline. Likewise James Holmes, Jared Lochner and other recent mass killers. The Newtown slayer may have been genuinely inaccessible but most are not.

As I've posted previously I think we overall have a mental health problem more than a gun problem. And I think that stems from the fact that many people, possibly excepting the family of the ill person, doesn't seek out mentally ill people and check out how they're doing. In the case of reclusive mentally ill people such as Jared Lochner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza what we don't know can hurt us.

If they were appropriately treated and/or confined the choice of weaponry would be irrelevant.

Recent years have seen a wave of tragic mass shootings in both of our countries, Marc Lapine, Elliot Rodger, Jared Lochner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza. There have been other school shootings as well. The "knee jerk" is to seek the removal of guns. If that were practical it would be wonderful to disinvent guns, missiles, nuclear weapons, and indeed weapons of all kinds. It's a world I would like to see. Alas, it's impossible. We are also missing the point.

All of these people, except maybe Adam Lanza, were in regular contact with other students, teachers and administrators at their respective schools. All of these people were obviously troubled. The societal problem is that it is easier to ignore people who are not sociable and not pleasant to be with than to engage them.

I am not saying it is the role of untrained people to be psychologists. Far from it. But when people are left friendless for long periods, and no one reaches out to them a tragedy will sometimes occur. It is our job, as a society, to know our neighbors, students and colleagues.

I feel that forming real communities will solve some of these problems. Trying to remove the implements of crime from people who are far beyond obeying any law of any kind is futile and useless.

Edited May 29, 2014 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I feel that forming real communities will solve some of these problems. Trying to remove the implements of crime from people who are far beyond obeying any law of any kind is futile and useless.

Agreed, as communities and mental health professionals are already doing this. We don't get headlines and manic talking heads on cable TV when crimes and accidents are prevented, but it happens every day with existing and improving prevention methods and education. Firearms risks are less than many other accepted threats in "society".

As you have stated....it's not the guns...it's the people !

[gunrutz]

We can't even keep people institutionalized for more than a couple of years after they have killed, decapitated and eaten parts of their victim, just how on earth are we going to honestly deal with and help those who haven't done anything wrong yet? I agree that the people should be the focus, but it seems that we go out of our way to allow known unstable people second and who knows how many chances at life, some of whom reoffend, and we do it to be nice, to be caring, or something. Those don't seem like policies put into place by conservatives, so allow bad people back on the street, but blame the weapon every time an unstable person kills someone, i find it hard to reconcile that way of thinking.

I am not against gun control, i would agree the gun laws in the US are too weak for their own good, but it wouldn't matter if you say lived in a country, lets call it Canada, our levels of gun crime are as we often see mentioned, much, much lower. But that doesn't matter, because every time someone is shot here the call to ban guns starts again, doesn't matter what firearm is used, it's always there somewhere. It's no different than in the states when someone goes on a rampage with an 'assault rifle', they simply must be banned, even though they acount for a tiny fraction of the total firearms homicides. That doesn't matter of course, because there is no one who knows more about firearms than people who know absolutely knothing about firearms. A repeating shotgun, your basic hunting shotgun, is just as dangerous and deadly under the right conditions, ban it, it's the only answer some will ever see.

[bush_cheney2004]

If one parses the data and history of firearms homicides in the U.S., it loosely correlates to significant changes in U.S. "society" and/or government policies. We can also separate criminal actions from mental health events that vary over a wide range, from suicides (majority of gun related deaths) to mass shootings (small fraction), PTSD, domestics, etc. I found this graph to be an interesting summary of the historical variability in general homicide rate for the U.S., regardless of weapon or device used (e.g. bomb). Guns sales and use in homicides may track well with this observed trend and the social/economic stresses on people.

Edited May 30, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

I am not saying it is the role of untrained people to be psychologists. Far from it. But when people are left friendless for long periods, and no one reaches out to them a tragedy will sometimes occur. It is our job, as a society, to know our neighbors, students and colleagues.

So were you thinking some sort of State Witness / Neighbourhood Watch Snoop program?

I'd rather invest in gun and knife control. Embed a GPS chip in every one and when they're carried anywhere near or across a line demarcating a gun and knife free public space...alarms start ringing and authorities spring into action. Anyone caught with a chip free gun or knife after a period of time to allow for retrofitting or to be turned in would face a penalty that increases in severity with the passage of time.

[jbg]

So were you thinking some sort of State Witness / Neighbourhood Watch Snoop program?

No. I 'm talking about people being mindful of their neighbors and community. Is that so radical? Edited June 2, 2014 by jbg

[On Guard for Thee]

So were you thinking some sort of State Witness / Neighbourhood Watch Snoop program?

I'd rather invest in gun and knife control. Embed a GPS chip in every one and when they're carried anywhere near or across a line demarcating a gun and knife free public space...alarms start ringing and authorities spring into action. Anyone caught with a chip free gun or knife after a period of time to allow for retrofitting or to be turned in would face a penalty that increases in severity with the passage of time.

That's a great idea. Just corrall those people, and their toys, just like they do cows etc.

[BubberMiley]

Then why the fuss about WMDs? Is this suggesting support for Iran getting nuclear weapons?

[jbg]

Then why the fuss about WMDs? Is this suggesting support for Iran getting nuclear weapons?

Derail fail.

Unless you're saying that Iran's mullahs are in need of supportive psychological help.

[BubberMiley]

Unless you're saying that Iran's mullahs are in need of supportive psychological help.

Absolutely. And, as I understand, you're saying we need to address the person behind the weapon, not the weapon. How is applying that to Iran a derailment?

[jbg]

Absolutely. And, as I understand, you're saying we need to address the person behind the weapon, not the weapon. How is applying that to Iran a derailment?

I just didn't think that you believed that the mullahs had mental health issues. I certainly think they do but you and I don't agree very often.

[eyeball]

No. I 'm talkin gabout people being mindful of their neighbors and community. Is that so radical?

No it sounds counter-productive and like a cart ahead of it's horse. Given that mental illness will strike 1 in 4 -5 people at some point in their lives what are you going to watch for? How many of the people watching out for unstable people will themselves be unstable is anyone's guess. I can't imagine anything that will make unstable and paranoid people even more paranoid and unstable than thinking everyone is watching for and out to report or get them if they find them. Seeing and reporting didn't do a thing to prevent this latest tragedy in California.

Mental illness is most certainly a medical problem that needs to be addressed with better public health policies. What we need are a lot more resources being directed towards public education and medical professionals/treatment/facilities etc etc. Public education should focus on reducing the stigmatization and sort of public ignorance about mental illness that all to often conflates mental illness with criminality and treatment with punishment. It should also focus on letting people know that if they start feeling sick that help will be available and where to find it.

As for better controls on weapons during an apparent epidemic of mental illness...that just seems like a prudent thing to do.

[eyeball]

That's a great idea. Just corrall those people, and their toys, just like they do cows etc.

I think it's more like continually trying to improve product safety.

[bush_cheney2004]

The mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators:

It is a sad commentary on the nature of public interest that the estimated 1% of individuals with untreated severe mental illness who commit acts of violence grabs so many headlines while the 25% of those who fall victim to violence generate so few. It is equally difficult to fathom how critics can find involuntary treatment more unacceptable for those in need of treatment than the high chance they’ll become victims of violence.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/our-blog/69-no-state/2030-new-study-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence

[GostHacked]

So were you thinking some sort of State Witness / Neighbourhood Watch Snoop program?

I'd rather invest in gun and knife control. Embed a GPS chip in every one and when they're carried anywhere near or across a line demarcating a gun and knife free public space...alarms start ringing and authorities spring into action. Anyone caught with a chip free gun or knife after a period of time to allow for retrofitting or to be turned in would face a penalty that increases in severity with the passage of time.

Exactly like some dystopian futuristic movies portray.

But then gain, just go into the area with an old school gun and have at it.

[GostHacked]

Derail fail.

Unless you're saying that Iran's mullahs are in need of supportive psychological help.

The US has the largest stockpile of conventional and nuclear weapons on the planet. Who really is the psycho here?

[BubberMiley]

I just didn't think that you believed that the mullahs had mental health issues. I certainly think they do but you and I don't agree very often.

Is that response intended to avoid answering my question?

[jbg]

Is that response intended to avoid answering my question?

No. I couldn't figure out what your question was. Still can't.

[BubberMiley]

Really? I thought it was simple. You appear to be arguing that weapons restrictions are pointless and that our focus should be on the individuals who commit these atrocities, not the weapons they use to commit them. I am wondering if you would apply that reasoning to Iran and its attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't attempts to limit their ability to procure weapons also pointless?

[jbg]

Really? I thought it was simple. You appear to be arguing that weapons restrictions are pointless and that our focus should be on the individuals who commit these atrocities, not the weapons they use to commit them. I am wondering if you would apply that reasoning to Iran and its attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't attempts to limit their ability to procure weapons also pointless?

Oh OK. Now I get it. But I don't think you're arguing for the targeted assassination of mullahs. Also buying a gun doesn't involve much in the way of technology. Manufacturing and using a nuke does.

[BubberMiley]

Also buying a gun doesn't involve much in the way of technology. Manufacturing and using a nuke does.

So if an automatic weapon involved more "technology," you would be in favour of limiting access to it as well?

[GostHacked]

Oh OK. Now I get it. But I don't think you're arguing for the targeted assassination of mullahs. Also buying a gun doesn't involve much in the way of technology. Manufacturing and using a nuke does.

You don't think he is arguing for those targeted assassinations, but yet you managed to type it out. So what are you thinking?

[GostHacked]

Really? I thought it was simple. You appear to be arguing that weapons restrictions are pointless and that our focus should be on the individuals who commit these atrocities, not the weapons they use to commit them. I am wondering if you would apply that reasoning to Iran and its attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't attempts to limit their ability to procure weapons also pointless?

In the end it is pointless to restrict those weapons. If a country wants to develop nuclear technology, they will. The worry about Iran getting one nuke has nothing on the now 3+ years that Fukushima has been spewing out radiation.

But if some country had not developed a nuke, it's possible that no one else would have one either. But that genie is out of the bottle. You will never be able to stuff it back in.

[On Guard for Thee]

Agreed, as communities and mental health professionals are already doing this. We don't get headlines and manic talking heads on cable TV when crimes and accidents are prevented, but it happens every day with existing and improving prevention methods and education. Firearms risks are less than many other accepted threats in "society".

As you have stated....it's not the guns...it's the people !

Maybe it's the people, with guns? But hey, when the last American shoots the secong last American, make sure he has our number and we'll come down and fix things up.

[jbg]

So if an automatic weapon involved more "technology," you would be in favour of limiting access to it as well?

If you read my opnening post I'd be in favor of eliminating weapons, or at least their public circulation, if it were feasible. I'm quite sure there are too many guns in circulation to restrict them in that manner. Thus, restrictions bind law abiding people, not nuts or criminals. I doubt Elliot Rodger said to himself "I need to comply with California weapons law before I butcher as many people as I can."

You don't think he is arguing for those targeted assassinations, but yet you managed to type it out. So what are you thinking?

Iwonder what other solution he has for that particular fruitcake.