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

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

Post by kcmastrpc »

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.

If you have enough money you can actually own and operate fully automatic weapons, cannons, flame throwers, artillery, etc.

... and if you're the leader of a large enough nation, the US will even sell you planes and tanks.

In our shortsightedness we are dismissing the future possibility of foreign invasions, domestic tyranny, and civil war. Let's consider the former; if the US has registration laws and China invades/wins, then all of a sudden Chinese officials have the addresses of every potential source of violent dissent in their hands. I realize the threat of invasion isn't really practical today, but with policies we put in place today we'd effectively be putting our ancestors in the worst possible situation in the event they ever had to defend themselves against tyranny whether foreign or domestic.

I understand that gun violence sucks, but regulation/registration has consequence - we may see benefit, some of it we may never see but our children will (for a rather recent example, see Venezuela). Our communities are living with these monsters, we are ignoring them because our lives have become so centered around live news, social media, and debating over the internet instead of talking to each other.

Banning guns, knives, bats, fertilizer, whatever isn't going to stop this epidemic - and doing so will just prevent ourselves from being able to prevent those who are determined to do so.

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

#82

Post by nabla9 »

romaaeterna wrote: post #73
nabla9 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You frame it as psychological intervention to stop killers.

But media and audience live in symbiotic relationship with killers. Everyone gets value from the killings.

How do you break the profitable and addictive value chain?

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

#83

Post by otakucode »

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.

If there were no media headlines, then the amount of murders would fall if headlines were the causal effect. You're undoing your own point.

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

#84

Post by tempguy9999 »

mgkimsal wrote: post #70
tempguy9999 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"so long as they could pay for it" what if they can't pay for it? are gun manufacturers now violating the "equal protection" clause? they're denying people the ability to exercise a constitutional amendment simply based on their ability to pay.

Currently it doesn't matter whether they can pay for it or not as legally they can't have it (gov't tyranny?)

So let's ignore the cost; in principle, for defence against an out of control government for which guns are needed, are USAians who are pro gun also pro the idea private citizens owning serious artillery, explosives, tanks etc?

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

#86

Post by romaaeterna »

beatgammit wrote: post #72
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…

I think that controlling psychological rewards is more of a psychological intervention than a political intervention, but I'm agreed. (A political intervention would be called for if we were looking at IRA type events in Ireland, for example, with substantial networks devoted to providing practical support.)

One thing that I've begun to think is that as a nation our overall social climate has declined over the past few years, post-social media and iphones. It's hard to imagine that social climate issues wouldn't be related to a change in violence. (But maybe it's just my post-2015 family dinners and nobody else's!)

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

#87

Post by otakucode »

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…

Other things we could do: Remove all cameras from schools. Remove police from schools. Remove metal detectors from schools. Restore ability for students to leave campus during the schoolday. Stop persecuting the most vulnerable kids on the basis of nonsensical 'warnings signs' lists derived from no rational basis or evidence.

Restore as much autonomy to especially adolescent students as possible while still accomplishing education. Stop driving kids into a corner and making them feel so desperate and trapped that they're willing to throw their own life away just to do a little damage and escape.

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

#88

Post by tomatotomato37 »

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.

Sure, they could even use it against enemies of America too. One of the other rights the Constitution gives Congress along with the right to declare war is the right to issue letters of marque, meaning it is still legal today for the US government to give any random citizen the right to raid a foreign state

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

#89

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

MobileVet wrote: post #14
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.

Laws yes, substantive laws... debatable. More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach. Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.

Because we take the right to bear arms very seriously in the US. In our constitution that right is enumerated second, just after the one about freedom of speech and religion. Licensing is a mechanism of control over who can and cannot exercise this right, and such mechanisms are often abused to suppress minorities and dissidents, which is contrary to the reason the right is enumerated in the first place. Similarly this is why people sometimes oppose mandatory background checks; though you will find much broader support for voluntary background checks by private citizens [0].

Limiting magazine capacity is opposed because it is an ineffectual restriction that largely serves to annoy hobbyists. Many proposed restrictions are like this. That's one of the reasons people encounter so much resistance to proposals, because they're often obviously rooted in ignorance and have little regard for their side effects. For instance, since "history of mental illness" is one of the things that could be used to restrict one's ability to purchase firearms, many enthusiasts who may be suffering from mental health issues will not seek treatment.

[0] In many states I can sell a firearm to another individual without involving a licensed middleman (FFA), but I do not have access to the system they use for background checks (NICS).

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

#90

Post by romaaeterna »

nabla9 wrote: post #82
romaaeterna wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You frame it as psychological intervention to stop killers. But media and audience live in symbiotic relationship with killers. Everyone gets value from the killings. How do you break the profitable and addictive value chain?

There really isn't that much profit involved in this coverage. It seems much more likely that it's being driven by accident rather than by any nefariousness on the part of our evil media overlords.
Post reply on HN