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

Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#51

Post by ComputerGuru »

mathgeek wrote: post #33
Udik wrote: post #13

"Several past studies have found that media reports of suicides and homicides appear to subsequently increase the incidence of similar events in the community, apparently due to the coverage planting the seeds of ideation in at-risk individuals to commit similar acts" I've suggested before on HN that active shooter drills- which are apparently widespread now in US schools- might be themselves a source of contagion. B…

This is a fine line to tread, without a doubt. It’s the same “if we don’t give them the idea, maybe some of them won’t think of it otherwise” thinking that has been a theme throughout the history of education. Similar thought process to sex education, leaving out certain anti-government parts of history, etc. (and those are just examples in the US, let alone stricter education systems).

You’re making it seem like it’s a super risky and tenuous approach, but it’s long been understood that discussing “why suicide is a bad idea” with certain populations increases the odds of suicide in the group.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#52

Post by gonzo41 »

westmeal wrote: post #36
gonzo41 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one point before i get down voted into obscurity. but an effective regulation of firearms would go a long way to resolve this issue.

I don't think you should get downvoted for sharing your opinion, but who do you really think would benefit from regulating firearms? There is a very good reason the constitution provisioned firearms and I think people are starting to forget.

if you think people with automatic rifles are going to be anything other than a minor annoyance to an organized army you're in for a shock. On this very site there's been articles about the gorgon stare. Rifles don't compete against that technology.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#53

Post by MobileVet »

throwaway082729 wrote: post #37
cheez wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…

The right wing people seem to be ok with a dictatorship if it gets them what they want. Left wingers are less likely to open guns so this point is moot. Also what chance do these guns have against the army's artillery.

‘You are bringing a musket to a drone fight’ - Jim Jeffries

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#55

Post by XorNot »

cheez wrote: post #21
xienze wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Any additional limits. There are already plenty of laws on the books around gun control, it’s disingenuous to pretend as though none exist.

This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…

In Afgahnistan, AK-47s are so common that the US has air-striked weddings due to celebratory gunfire.

Which should probably tell you something about the assumption about the accessibility of the guns, and the likely outcome of your fantasy there...

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#56

Post by Ygg2 »

amelius wrote: post #39
JordanFarmer wrote: post #29

This is a sad effect of national media attention (Click bait and headline bait). I watch the news sometimes and wonder if we'd all be better off if it didn't exist... Obligatory mention that There were more murders in Chicago this week and it gets no media headlines.

Ultimately it's all because of ads. If we all had to pay for our news, then we'd be more cautious and reluctant about clickbait headlines. And media would not be in a race to the bottom, affecting news quality.

I doubt this. Reason clickbait works is because it's more attention grabbing. It's more attention grabbing because it appeals to human innate fears.

And even if clickbait is banned and subscription mandatory, media would be in a race to the bottom. Just a slightly different one.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#57

Post by tempguy9999 »

kcmastrpc wrote: post #31
MobileVet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating firearms like every other object in our world is a false equivalency. They are created to kill, period. I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt. But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration. In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than tho…

> orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?

As the US allows private guns to prevent government tyranny, in people's views wouldn't it also be right to allow privately owned cannons, assorted artillery, explosives and the entire military toolkit (so long as they could pay for it)? After all it would greatly help civilians throw off oppression, and that's what it's all about.

This isn't sark, just pointing out a reasonable logical destination for the reasoning.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#58

Post by nabla9 »

romaaeterna wrote: post #40

Things that we can do about this: 1) Firearm control - complicated political issue, with reasonable people on both sides of the issue. And even if there were federal (executive, legislative, and judicial) political unanimity on action (there is not and can't be for decades), it remains a larger practical problem than in any country that has so far banned guns. State and city-level action has not proven very effective…

5) Media policy.

Terrorism and lone wolf massacres feed trough 24/7 catastropheporn in the news.

Let's face it. Our society is entertained by news reporting. Discussing it with others is fun. May be a taboo to say it aloud.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#59

Post by MobileVet »

kcmastrpc wrote: post #45
acdha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that…

You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-... Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)

> magazine limits are political theater imho

Wow. Seriously?

The best chance of subduing (by any means) an attacker is when they aren’t actively shooting at you. That only happens when they need to stop to reload or change weapons.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#60

Post by ChrisLomont »

acdha wrote: post #32
ChrisLomont wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.

> 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that…

The phrase “well-regulated” is part of “well-regulated militia,” and means orderly or disciplined, in the same manner a regulator in electronics keeps current managed or a regulator in mechanics keeps spin precise. It does not mean government regulation, and does not apply to the individual portion of the Amendment.

It’s only recently that people claim regulated means government regulated instead of how the term was used when written, as clearly explained in writings of the times.

Note that 45 or so states, modeling their constitutions after the Federal one, and not misrepresenting this phrase as you do, also include personal right to bear arms. This is further evidence of how the term you misrepresent and selectively misquote is meant.

That you have to spin it against the original meaning as written by Founding Fathers in the Federalist papers, as detailed in Congressional Research Reports, as evidenced in numerous State, Federal, and recent Supreme Court cases, shows the absurdity of this misrepresentation.

If you're honestly interested, here [1] is the text of a study commissioned from the 97th Congress on the topic, with plenty of historical citations on the meaning of the terms you selectively misquoted. It gives the history of how the term came to be in the constitution from common law, clearly showing they did not use it as you claim.

[1] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeM...

Post reply on HN