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

91–100 of 125 posts

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

#91

Post by beatgammit »

MobileVet wrote: post #8

It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world should owning a device intended to kill be unlimited?

If you look at gun crimes and gun enthusiasts, most gun crimes are not committed by gun enthusiasts, and most gun enthusiasts are willing to go through the hoops required to get a concealed weapons license, which requires a background check and training.

Most gun enthusiasts I know hate gun bans because they hurt responsible gun owners far more than criminals. Many gun enthusiasts like "tactical" weapons and mods, and these are precisely what these bans hit. They've already shown willingness to go through hoops, so I think a different approach is in order.

I believe all weapons should be legal, but more dangerous weapons should certainly be harder to get. Automatic weapons, for example, should require more training and secure storage than handguns, and some handguns should require more training and secure storage than hunting equipment.

Some proposals:

- guns unlikely to be used in crimes (single shot hunting rifles and shotguns, revolvers) should require ID + quick background check (submit name to police database for smoke test) to purchase - larger magazines, semi-automatics, and self defense ammunition require passing a basic gun safety course and access to secure storage for protected items (e.g. home safe) - automatic weapons require regular inspection by some local authorities that checks correct storage habits

And so on. I think most gun enthusiasts would be okay with this, provided independent third parties can do the checks (gun club, dealers, etc). Gun owners would then bring documentation showing that they're allowed to buy firearms of a given class. Everything should be as anonymous as possible (separate ID from proof of compliance and require a warrant to link the two).

That being said, most proposed legislation seeks bans, not reasonable regulation, so it's understandable that gun enthusiasts push back.

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

#92

Post by GVIrish »

MobileVet wrote: post #42
GVIrish wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some 2nd amendment supporters think there should be no limitations but in my experience that is not the majority. Most people agree with background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, bans on felons buying guns, etc. Many are against the return of the assault weapons ban and banning of higher capacity magazines. In general I find that many 2nd amendment supporters are fearful of an expansion of gun control law…

Agreed, but the majority are not setting the policy agenda.

Yep, gun lobbying groups have succeeded in convincing lawmakers to be hardliners despite what most gun owners and non-gun owners actually support.

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

#93

Post by mauvehaus »

beatgammit wrote: post #91
MobileVet wrote: post #8

It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world should owning a device intended to kill be unlimited?

If you look at gun crimes and gun enthusiasts, most gun crimes are not committed by gun enthusiasts, and most gun enthusiasts are willing to go through the hoops required to get a concealed weapons license, which requires a background check and training. Most gun enthusiasts I know hate gun bans because they hurt responsible gun owners far more than criminals. Many gun enthusiasts like "tactical" weapons and mods, an…

A lot of what you wrote is reasonable, but it should be clarified that in the United States, at least, (which is presumably the country many of us are talking about) private ownership of automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since the 1930s to the point that it's nearly (but not quite) impossible to own an automatic weapon as a private citizen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

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

#95

Post by tomatotomato37 »

Juliate wrote: post #74
kcmastrpc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a false equivalence; The foreign policy of the state has nothing to do with the levels of violence between its citizens.

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

#96

Post by acdha »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #75
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mode…

Yes, especially the next sentence you didn’t include:

> Pre-Heller, the vast majority of lower federal courts had embraced the collective right theory.

Similarly, it would be useful if you discussed the reasons why the founders chose not to include any of the proposed individual rights language in the second amendment draft. It was a deliberate choice not to and there’s plenty of historical context available.

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

#97

Post by beatgammit »

romaaeterna wrote: post #86
beatgammit wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

I'm sure there's a good study out there on the impact of social media on social connectedness, and I'm guessing it's a negative correlation. People seem to be using social media as an alternative for real social interaction, which increases rewards (more eyeballs) and decreases consequences (no "real" friends; can always find a community to approve of you).

I'm not sure what the solution here is, but I'm worried that we'll trample our rights in attempting to solve the problem without actually solving it.

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

#98

Post by beatgammit »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #51
mathgeek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but it still needs to be discussed.

Framing suicide as a bad solution to a problem reaffirms that it is still a solution, and gives room for the individual to justify away the taboo aspects (my situation is different because...). I don't know the right, ethical approach and I'd prefer to leave that discussion to psychologists, but we absolutely need to address it so people know what to look for in loved ones who may be at risk.

Personally, I think some people who may consider suicide are terrified of death in other situations. For some reason, suicide is different than dying in some other manner. Maybe it's about control, maybe it's a cognitive disconnect, IDK. What I do know is that it's a problem that we need to address through eduction, I'm just not sure on the best way to do it. Ignoring the problem seems to just push it online where the information can't really be controlled, so I think parents need to learn how to broach the subject.

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

#99

Post by nabla9 »

romaaeterna wrote: post #90
nabla9 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did not assume neferiousness, but profit and value is there. TV-networks get more voewers and money.

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

#100

Post by beatgammit »

mauvehaus wrote: post #93
beatgammit wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at gun crimes and gun enthusiasts, most gun crimes are not committed by gun enthusiasts, and most gun enthusiasts are willing to go through the hoops required to get a concealed weapons license, which requires a background check and training. Most gun enthusiasts I know hate gun bans because they hurt responsible gun owners far more than criminals. Many gun enthusiasts like "tactical" weapons and mods, an…

A lot of what you wrote is reasonable, but it should be clarified that in the United States, at least, (which is presumably the country many of us are talking about) private ownership of automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since the 1930s to the point that it's nearly (but not quite) impossible to own an automatic weapon as a private citizen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

And I think it should be made more accessible.

Automatic firearms are so restricted because they didn't think a complete ban would be upheld by the courts, yet the restrictions are essentially a ban since I cannot reasonably get access as a mentally stable (I hope) person without any record.

Automatic weapons are fun, and at least in my area, I can rent them at local shooting ranges. But going the extra step and buying them it apparently way more difficult. The net result is that only the military, police, and criminals have automatic weapons, so average gun owners are the only real people affected. It makes sense that gun owners are against new regulations, because these regulations seem to just restrict their rights without solving anything.

Another silly thing is that guns tend to get restricted based on how they look, not on how dangerous they are. "Tactical" guns are considered "assault weapons", while the exact same gun without the trimmings are considered "hunting equipment" and not subject to the same restrictions. Does a pistol grip and some black plastic/metal decorations really make a gun more dangerous? No, but they make a gun more fun to own.

It seems people aren't really interested in actually solving problems, they're just interested in looking like they're trying to solve problems, and the average voter isn't educated enough about guns to recognize reasonable regulations. IMO, we should be educating people about guns instead of trying to ban them. Perhaps we need to include gun training in our K-12 education since it's part of the Constitution. IMO, respect for guns is the biggest deterrent to gun crime.

Post reply on HN