Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#211

Post by xenophanes » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:08 AM UTC

rauljara wrote: post #49

"Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward." Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards. Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (wh…

Wake me up when "the majority view of modern psychology" provides a refutation of Szasz.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#212

Post by bootload » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:11 AM UTC

"... The Secret Service’s landmark study of school shooters in 2002 determined that 78 percent of those shooters had experienced suicidal thoughts or attempts before mass murder. ..."

With respect to Columbine, the same study noted this observation about targeted violence in schools.

'... Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack ...' [0]

The relationship between bullying and targeted violence appeared to be a serious enough problem for the Secret Service to consider and investigate.

[0] Fein, R.A. Ph.D., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W.S. Ph.D., Borum, R. Psy.D., Modzeleski W., Reddy M., Ph.D., "Threat Assessment in Schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to create safe school climates", Chapter III, P17, United States Secret Service & United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 2002. (pdf, 754Kb) ~ http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_guide.pdf

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#213

Post by etherael » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:15 AM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #205

etherael wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally Australian here; our gun laws are stupid and largely ineffective, there is currently a war between various outlaw biker gangs going on, they mostly use guns. The Port Arthur massacre actually used weapons that were already illegal at the time and not but a month ago an m4 with underslung grenade launcher was confiscated in a Sydney suburb by police. No other reasonable interpretation of available data exis…

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." A typical remark from gun-loving Americans. They seem to miss a couple of things: if guns are outlawed, and you catch someone with a gun, that indicates they posess the gun with criminal intentions (i.e., their objection can actually be an advantage); if lots of people have guns and normal people can buy them, it makes it that much easier for criminals to obtain th…

It does to the extent that criminals are demonstrably perfectly able to acquire firearms despite firearms regulations. You could of course claim it would be even worse in the absence of strong firearms laws, but there are plenty of cases which contradict this position, also. Switzerland jumps to mind.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#214

Post by lotharbot » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:33 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #195

Ygg2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no. Emotions help us by allowing quick shortcuts in decision. Without them a person loses ability to think within normal limits. Remember last time you wrote your signature on a contract. Imagine taking half an hour to write your signature ? Impossible, well without emotion you will completely rationally debate whether or not to use blue, red or black pen, which ink color is better, etc. Here is a quote: For…

I wish that went more in depth. It seems like a metareasoning reminder that taking time to decide is inefficient would turn into a quick choice. Unless someone without emotions is somehow incapable of picking random numbers.

> " Unless someone without emotions is somehow incapable of picking random numbers."

My wife once suffered from a mental illness that nerfed her emotions. I noticed her once, standing immobile in the kitchen. She'd been there for about 5 minutes. She wanted to make a peanut butter sandwich, but couldn't decide whether to get the knife or the bread first.

Someone without emotions is incapable of caring enough to make the decision. They might get stuck on the decision as to which color pen to use, and random numbers wouldn't help -- they wouldn't care enough to decide "I should just use an RNG because this decision is arbitrary". Someone with normal emotions would recognize that pen color doesn't matter while signing the contract matters; it is the emotion of caring that makes you capable of deciding that one decision isn't worth the effort while another is.

As NY Times columnist David Brooks once wrote, "People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth."

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#215

Post by grecy » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:53 AM UTC

lancefisher wrote: post #202

harshreality wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't use 5.56mm nato for deer either. The point was suitability (for hunting) and relative "power" or "lethality" (as much as I hate those terms because they incite caliber wars) of the rifle Holmes used compared to what is typically used for hunting. Typical hunting calibers for medium and large game (regardless of whether the hunt is in the U.S. or Africa) are .308 or .30-06 on up. Some specialized .2xx calibe…

I used a .270 for years hunting deer and elk. I can assure you they are effective for distances up to 400 yards. Also, read about Jack O'Conner who was a proponent of the .270 for hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer)

I don't doubt the .270 is very capable.

Here in the Yukon, it illegal to use anything less than 300 caliber for Bison.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#216

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:12 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #154

harshreality wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood. By "assault rifles" do you mean the colloquial definition of black semi-automatic firearms with pistol grips and detachable magazines? Or the technically accurate def…

For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the Unite…

I'm not sure how you can even ask this question - obviously, restrictions reduced the freedom, by definition, that's why they are restrictions! You may mean Australians don't care about their freedom being reduced - or even gladly accept reduced freedom as the price of greater safety - but asking for some special argument for reduction of freedom doesn't make any sense - it's there by definition, you don't need any special argument.

>> one reason is that Australians like to be free of being shot to death by crazy people in public places.

Any statistics to back it up? Note that Australia has about 1/14 of US population, so if US had mass shooting every year - then same level of violence in Australia would have one incident every 14 years. Of course, since these incidents are random, that could mean with high probability there can be 20 or 30 year period where the same level of risk would produce no incident at all. That's of course not counting differences in population densities, etc. which also influence the data.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#217

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:18 AM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #214

Dylan16807 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish that went more in depth. It seems like a metareasoning reminder that taking time to decide is inefficient would turn into a quick choice. Unless someone without emotions is somehow incapable of picking random numbers.

> " Unless someone without emotions is somehow incapable of picking random numbers." My wife once suffered from a mental illness that nerfed her emotions. I noticed her once, standing immobile in the kitchen. She'd been there for about 5 minutes. She wanted to make a peanut butter sandwich, but couldn't decide whether to get the knife or the bread first. Someone without emotions is incapable of caring enough to make…

This is legitimately interesting but in the end it's very much away from the original point. Okay, caring/having motivation matters immensely. Even if you practice and learn logical prioritizing you still need to care enough to implement it. You won't get anything done if you see no problem with sitting still for hours on end.

But almost all other emotions can be ignored. When people talk about making decisions without emotion they mean without fear, anger, sadness, joy, disgust, trust, anticipation, surprise. You don't need any of those to arrive at a solid decision. Having a goal is something else. As far as wikipedia is concerned "Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion."

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#218

Post by noonespecial » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:23 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #207

japhyr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gun control != ban on guns

Did you properly fill out your government-mandated speaking request form 18764(a), and sign it under penalty of perjury, before submitting that comment? Of course, your speech isn't banned . These forms are just necessary to make sure we know who you are before you speak, and to force you to testify that you haven't committed other unrelated crimes. The only time we actually would ban your speech is if you fill out t…

Don't forget to include you check for the registration and recording fees plus the permit issuance fee so that we can make sure that you are sufficiently wealthy to be granted the right to speak.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#219

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:29 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #163

harshreality wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These bad actors are so rare that pointing to lack of an event in 16 years in Australia (population less than 1/10 that of the U.S.) does not mean very much. There was a lesser event in 2002 in Australia: the Monash University shooting. [1] The freedom to use firearms for sport or self defense is lost. Some people value that freedom more than you do. Aren't there still exceptions in Australia for members of gun clubs…

>China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. And how many more could that guy have killed with a gun? In any field of endeavour people are more effective when using better tools, and a gun is a tool designed and optimized for killing. Just because we can't make killing impossi…

Gun is also a tool designed and optimized for self-defense. You may be willing to accept being defenseless in order to reduce risk of very rare events but not everybody wants that. I, for one, would prefer to accept this microscopic risk and be able to defend myself if more frequent situation - such as home invasion, encounter with a violent criminal intent on harming me, etc. - arises.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#220

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:37 AM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #205

etherael wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally Australian here; our gun laws are stupid and largely ineffective, there is currently a war between various outlaw biker gangs going on, they mostly use guns. The Port Arthur massacre actually used weapons that were already illegal at the time and not but a month ago an m4 with underslung grenade launcher was confiscated in a Sydney suburb by police. No other reasonable interpretation of available data exis…

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." A typical remark from gun-loving Americans. They seem to miss a couple of things: if guns are outlawed, and you catch someone with a gun, that indicates they posess the gun with criminal intentions (i.e., their objection can actually be an advantage); if lots of people have guns and normal people can buy them, it makes it that much easier for criminals to obtain th…

The key word there is if. If you catch a criminal with a gun, he'd usually be holding it illegally within pretty much any current US law. The problem is that catching those criminals before they do harm is problematic - because until they do, you don't know who they are. And doing random searches on law abiding citizens just in case they are hiding something would probably be too much even for Brady campaign.

Evidence shows that in countries where private possession of guns were banned - like USSR - the criminals did have guns and did use them to kill people. Government restrictions rarely make something wanted inaccessible - prohibition failed miserably, war on drugs did the same. War on guns would inevitably fail too, but would bring enormous amount of victims among regular citizens - just like the ones mentioned above did.