Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by acdha » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #60

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…

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…

Which CRS report are you referring to? I’m assuming not the one which recognizes that as a modern development:

“Before the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right generally had been understood by federal courts to be intertwined with military or militia use.”

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf

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

#72

Post by beatgammit » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

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…

> We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past.

This reminds me of the suicide study discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point.

People seem to want to be famous, and recent events remind at-risk people that committing a mass killing is a quick way to be noticed. This is part of your #2, but I think it can be improved without abuse.

I think that if we can drastically reduce the reward for committing these acts, they'll decrease. I don't know the proper solution here, and I'm definitely not suggesting 1st amendment restrictions, but perhaps police can work with the media in a way that we can improve the reporting of these events to reduce copy cats without impacting the ability of police to investigate the crime.

That being said, we also need to determine whether any proposed cure is better than the disease. #1 and #2 enter a dangerous constitutional area, #3 has arguably caused more problems than it solved (helps organized crime), and #4 is a huge expense without proven results. The average person's risk of being involved in one of these events is vanishingly small, but you wouldn't think it from watching the news. Before jumping to solutions, we need to quantify the benefit and the cost in a way that the average person understands, and that is a very hard task.

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

#73

Post by romaaeterna » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #58

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.

That was actually point 4, if you were to read the post.

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

#74

Post by Juliate » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

kcmastrpc wrote: post #61

newshorts wrote: post #54

Is this only happening in the United States? How frequently is this happening in other countries?

The US isn't even in the top 100 when it comes to homicides. I haven't been able to find statistics on "mass murders" which include firearm, arson, bombs, knife, etc attacks. All the media and sensationalist headlines have drowned out any hope I had of quickly researching this issue. Here's what I've found so far: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-27/map-here-are-countrie...

Right.

So, indeed, compare USA's violence score with: * those of the countries where the USA have put their own violent influence to steer benefits back to them (Central & South America). * or those where another white supremacist ideology has been prevalent and is being actively fought against (South Africa).

But, surely, don't compare with countries that would be good reference to compare against (aka, friends with which you ought to have shared some common history, like, Europe).

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

#75

Post by ChrisLomont » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #71

ChrisLomont wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which CRS report are you referring to? I’m assuming not the one which recognizes that as a modern development: “Before the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right generally had been understood by federal courts to be intertwined with military or militia use.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf

The next sentence after the one you quoted: " Still, there had been ample debate in the lower federal courts and political discussion over whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, versus a collective right belonging to the states to maintain militias."

It's also the meaning more clearly laid out in the 45+ states constitutions explicitly naming a personal right, since they modeled their Constitutions after the Federal one. The distinction between the two is a very modern dichotomy. And I listed the text of the CRS report above.

Wikipedia has a decent summary of US legal cases [1]. Note the Supremes ruled it was individual in 1939 according to this summary.

Here's a summary of state Constitutions [2]. Note how many explicitly give personal, mot militia, rights to bear arms. These are modeled after the meaning of the Federal Constitution as those states saw it when adopting their Constitutions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in...

[2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

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

#76

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

tempguy9999 wrote: post #57

kcmastrpc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by jrnichols » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

MobileVet wrote: post #59

kcmastrpc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would agree that it's political theater. A few of the shootings, the criminal didn't empty the magazine anyway. (I'm purposely not mentioning the shooters names or the incident.) Others, the criminal simply carried extra "California legal" magazines or extra firearms.

Reloading time is negligible. There are many youtube videos showing this. It takes no time to switch to a different weapon.

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

#78

Post by klez » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

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)

In my humble, outsider (i.e.: non-US) opinion, when weapons get involved (on any side), things escalate. In other words, would something like the Kent University massacre have gone differently if protesters were armed (not considering the ideological weirdness of such a scenario)?

I see what's good in the argument that people should be able to respond to tyranny with force, but I'm wondering how often this could actually happen on such a big scale that it would matter instead of being crushed by the State in a matter of hours or days, at best.

And I furthermore wonder whether weapons being legal would matter much in such a situation.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

MobileVet wrote: post #53

throwaway082729 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by cheez » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

MobileVet wrote: post #53

throwaway082729 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He's a brilliant comedian, but he doesn't understand that people have successfully fought off the might of the US army in recent decades. That's why China colonizes economically.