Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#941

Post by pc86 »

xtracto wrote: post #809
engineeringwoke wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that violates the tight seal that the nuclear family has relative to society in the United States is universally hated. All the problems start in the family but you are not allowed to go there here, probably because of religion. It's just the way we are, unfortunately.

While most of the comments here centre on the 2nd amendment, this small thread is the only one that touches what matters. Why are kids plotting mass shootings? It's not because they have access to weapons. It's because something is VERY broken in their family nucleus and values. I understand your point that there's no way the government can police family education. But what I would suggest is to make parents and lega…

This is a joke, right?

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#942

Post by pvg »

engramps wrote: post #718
pvg wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serbia is smaller in population than NYC and has a fairly recent history of war. NYC hasn't had school mass shootings either. Mass shootings have happened in Serbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDiti%C5%A1te_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Ivan%C4%8Da_shooting Serbia's gun laws are much closer to those in NYC than to those in Texas. It's not really much of a comparison or illustration that the pro…

Neither of those serbian shootings were in schools. NYC has had shootings though not that many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shootings_in_New_York_... Also isnt there recent history of people going to different states to buy guns to shoot people in another state? Its not like there are border police checks

The argument was that Serbia - a tiny, war-traumatized country -tells you something about current or potential US gun regulation. My response is that even if you allow for that degree of cherrypicking, the comparison doesn't you get you anything that supports the GP's position, in fact, it gets you the opposite.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#943

Post by lliamander »

mahastore wrote: post #938
lliamander wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

Quoted post unavailable.

> It will not deter the person who is hell bent on killing others and have no regards for life including his own self.

It absolutely will. The vast majority of mass shooters target gun free zones, for obvious reasons. Just because they expect to die eventually doesn't mean they want to die right away. They want to be famous and feel powerful by killing as many people as possible. That is denied them if they are killed or wounded straight away.

> The best thing is to stop EASY PEASY access to guns that shoot more than one round at a time. The only guns licensed folks should be able to carry are ones that shoot one round and need to be reloaded again manually. Other guns should be simply banned for the GENERAL public.

- There is virtually zero chance of this happening

- There is zero evidence that policies which constrain the ammo capacities of guns used by law-abiding citizens has any effect on homicide rates

- Enacting such a policy would make guns significantly less effective for self-defense.

> This solution that has been proposed for years i.e for teachers and volunteers to carry concealed firearms is THE M0ST stupid solution that humanity has ever come up with.

If you could demonstrate some actual knowledge of the subject at hand, your opinion of whether some policy is "stupid" might actually matter to me.

There are gun control advocates in this discussion who have demonstrated some knowledge of this issue, and I respect their opinions more for it.

> It seems that some sections of our humanity aspire to live in a world where your right to LIVE depends upon how quick you are with your reflexes or how BIG of a gun you have.

It's really quite comical what you think is going on in the heads of other people.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#944

Post by spicymaki »

lliamander wrote: post #914
BobbyJo wrote: post #685

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye…

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

You are making bad assumptions here:

Imagine the chaos of multiple people with guns trying to take down an assailant with the police involved. Who are the good guys here? Friendly fire happens with cops accidentally shooting hostage victims occasionally and they are well trained.

Do civilians really know how to deal with hostage scenarios?

Do teachers want to carry firearms to protect elementary school students?

Are the school districts going to pay for training and armament?

What if a teacher attacks the children in their class? What if a student carries a weapon to the school and creates a hostage situation? (You eliminated a gun free zone).

Assailants can be better armed than teachers and they can wear armor, which teachers/security personnel will not be equipped with. (See Buffalo massacre)

These are just off the top of my head. I would like to hear a security analyst take on it.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#945

Post by lliamander »

spicymaki wrote: post #944
lliamander wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

You are making bad assumptions here: Imagine the chaos of multiple people with guns trying to take down an assailant with the police involved. Who are the good guys here? Friendly fire happens with cops accidentally shooting hostage victims occasionally and they are well trained. Do civilians really know how to deal with hostage scenarios? Do teachers want to carry firearms to protect elementary school students? Are…

Here's one qualified person's explaination:

https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun...

Edit: and let me just respond to one thing

> You are making bad assumptions here

I'm not just making assumptions. This is the conclusion I come to from reading firearms experts like the one I just linked, sociological analysis of gun ownership, use of force law, etc.

I'm not saying a chaotic situation like that couldn't happen, but that can be prepared for, and the result would still be a significant net positive.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#946

Post by simon1ltd »

lliamander wrote: post #914
BobbyJo wrote: post #685

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye…

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

I looked up something quickly, to see if it was still true.

In the UK, where you're not allowed to use firearms to defend yourself, home invasions where someone is home is 64%. In the US, where it is permissible, home invasions where someone is home is 27.6%.

You're over twice as likely to be robbed while you're home in the UK as you are in the US. I'm sure the factors are complex, but knowing that you're actually risking your life when you break into a home in the US has to be one of the factors.

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/home-insurance/burglary-statist... https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/burglary-statist....

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#947

Post by Gatsky »

mmcgaha wrote: post #810
Gatsky wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have learned that some Americans consider it crucial to arm themselves in case there is a tyrannical government in the future. This seems nuts to almost everyone else in a first world country, and probably many other Americans. But these people, who are not in fact nuts or cretinous, actually believe this and consider it of paramount importance. In one sense, the point can't be argued. My view: If the US population…

> I have learned that some Americans consider it crucial to arm themselves in case there is a tyrannical government in the future. OK but you realize that some in this case is a small percentage. Most people just want to defend their homes from intruders, defend their property from animals, hunt a few days a year, plink on the weekends, or just don't want to turn in the cherished firearm that was passed down in the f…

I really don't know what most people want, but the armed civilian militia reason is espoused by multiple commenters on HN, so I assume it isn't that much of a fringe opinion. None of the reasons you list require automatic or semi-automatic rifles or eg. the arsenal the Las Vegas hotel shooter was carrying.

I guess it is possible that the reasons people actually want guns, and the reasons people say they must have guns may be different.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#948

Post by Gatsky »

foxyv wrote: post #864
Gatsky wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have learned that some Americans consider it crucial to arm themselves in case there is a tyrannical government in the future. This seems nuts to almost everyone else in a first world country, and probably many other Americans. But these people, who are not in fact nuts or cretinous, actually believe this and consider it of paramount importance. In one sense, the point can't be argued. My view: If the US population…

Schools are already pretty buttoned up. But you would be hard pressed to secure them to the point where a shooter couldn't just blow away the first guard and walk right in. Similar to the grocery store shooting. Even prisons need huge sally ports and clear zones to prevent stuff like ram raids and car bombs. Securing EVERY school this way would be nearly impossible. Especially since we can barely staff them in the fi…

You make good points, it would be difficult and expensive. An armed single entry gate was what I had in mind. But it wouldn't be completely useless or even harmful, like arming teachers would be.

It's also true that the shooter could just go the mall or a cinema and get a similar result. Attacking the school does seem to have a particular significance however.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#949

Post by mahastore »

lliamander wrote: post #943
mahastore wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> It will not deter the person who is hell bent on killing others and have no regards for life including his own self. It absolutely will. The vast majority of mass shooters target gun free zones, for obvious reasons. Just because they expect to die eventually doesn't mean they want to die right away. They want to be famous and feel powerful by killing as many people as possible. That is denied them if they are kille…

No post body was provided.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#950

Post by MockObject »

pjc50 wrote: post #582
bifrost wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its because buying a gun is a civil right. Smoking is not. That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.

> buying a gun is a civil right Yeah, this is the point of insanity; so long as people continue to believe this, there will be a school shooting in the US every few weeks. That's what people mean by "the US has chosen this".

Except, we've believed this for generations, but the mass shooting epidemic is rather new.
Post reply on HN