Chris
12-20-2013, 05:05 PM
Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown (http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/27/1088767913510297.full.pdf+html) is a fact-based assessment of mass shootings and solutions.
Mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school, a Colorado movie theater, and other venues have prompted a fair number of proposals for change. Advocates for tighter gun restrictions, for expanding mental health services, for upgrading security in public places, and, even, for controlling violent entertainment have made certain assumptions about the nature of mass murder that are not necessarily valid. This article examines a variety of myths and misconceptions about multiple homicide and mass shooters, pointing out some of the difficult realities in trying to avert these murderous rampages. While many of the policy proposals are worthwhile in general, their prospects for reducing the risk of mass murder are limited.Mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school, a Colorado movie theater, and other venues have prompted a fair number of proposals for change. Advocates for tighter gun restrictions, for expanding mental health services, for upgrading security in public places, and, even, for controlling violent entertainment have made certain assumptions about the nature of mass murder that are not necessarily valid. This article examines a variety of myths and misconceptions about multiple homicide and mass shooters, pointing out some of the difficult realities in trying to avert these murderous rampages. While many of the policy proposals are worthwhile in general, their prospects for reducing the risk of mass murder are limited.
Now that piqued my interest, it was going to debunk a lot of commonly help myths about mass shootings and solutions to the problem. I should have pain more attention to the final concluding sentence and stopped reading.
The paper debunks the following myths factually and rationally:
Myth: Mass Murderers Snap and Kill Indiscriminately
Myth: Mass Shootings Are on the Rise
Myth: Recent Mass Murders Involve Record-Setting Body Counts
Myth: Violent Entertainment, Especially Video Games, Are Causally Linked to Mass Murder
Myth: Greater Attention and Response to the Telltale Warning Signs Will Allow Us to Identify Would-Be Mass Killers Before They Act
Myth: Widening the Availability of Mental Health Services Will Allow Unstable Individuals to Get the Treatment They Need and Avert Mass Murders
Myth: Enhanced Background Checks Will Keep Dangerous Weapons Out of the Hands of These Madmen
Myth: Restoring the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons Will Prevent These Horrible Crimes
Myth: Expanding “Right to Carry” Provisions Will Deter Mass Killers or at Least Stop Them in Their Tracks and Reduce the Body Counts
Myth: Increasing Physical Security in Schools and Other Places Will Prevent Mass Murder
Myth: Having Armed Guards at Every School Will Serve to Protect Students From an Active Shooter and Provide a Deterrent as Well
Now each of those is worthy of looking at in depth and discussing, but, again, each of those common explanations and solutions is debunked with facts and logic. One is left with what seems like an intractable problem, searching for other solutions.
Then the paper throws all that out and comes to a wholly unfactual, illogical, self-contradicting non sequiturs:
The fact that gun control, expanded psychiatric services, and increased security measures are limited in their ability to prevent dreadful mass shootings doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting, there was momentum in Washington, D.C., and in various state legislatures to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer.
Gun restrictions and other initiatives may not stop the next mass murderer, wherever he or she may strike, but we can enhance the well-being of millions of Americans in the process. Besides, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least, it will reduce the debilitating feeling of helplessness.
Many of the well-intentioned proposals coming in response to the recent spike in mass shootings may do much to affect the level of violent crime that plagues our nation daily. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of crime in its most extreme form. Of course, taking a nibble out of the risk of mass murder, however small, would still be a worthy goal for the nation. However, those who have suggested that their plan for change will ensure that a crime such as the Sandy Hook massacre will never reoccur will be bitterly disappointed.
Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious. Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.
Feel good politics is amazing, simply amazing.
Mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school, a Colorado movie theater, and other venues have prompted a fair number of proposals for change. Advocates for tighter gun restrictions, for expanding mental health services, for upgrading security in public places, and, even, for controlling violent entertainment have made certain assumptions about the nature of mass murder that are not necessarily valid. This article examines a variety of myths and misconceptions about multiple homicide and mass shooters, pointing out some of the difficult realities in trying to avert these murderous rampages. While many of the policy proposals are worthwhile in general, their prospects for reducing the risk of mass murder are limited.Mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school, a Colorado movie theater, and other venues have prompted a fair number of proposals for change. Advocates for tighter gun restrictions, for expanding mental health services, for upgrading security in public places, and, even, for controlling violent entertainment have made certain assumptions about the nature of mass murder that are not necessarily valid. This article examines a variety of myths and misconceptions about multiple homicide and mass shooters, pointing out some of the difficult realities in trying to avert these murderous rampages. While many of the policy proposals are worthwhile in general, their prospects for reducing the risk of mass murder are limited.
Now that piqued my interest, it was going to debunk a lot of commonly help myths about mass shootings and solutions to the problem. I should have pain more attention to the final concluding sentence and stopped reading.
The paper debunks the following myths factually and rationally:
Myth: Mass Murderers Snap and Kill Indiscriminately
Myth: Mass Shootings Are on the Rise
Myth: Recent Mass Murders Involve Record-Setting Body Counts
Myth: Violent Entertainment, Especially Video Games, Are Causally Linked to Mass Murder
Myth: Greater Attention and Response to the Telltale Warning Signs Will Allow Us to Identify Would-Be Mass Killers Before They Act
Myth: Widening the Availability of Mental Health Services Will Allow Unstable Individuals to Get the Treatment They Need and Avert Mass Murders
Myth: Enhanced Background Checks Will Keep Dangerous Weapons Out of the Hands of These Madmen
Myth: Restoring the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons Will Prevent These Horrible Crimes
Myth: Expanding “Right to Carry” Provisions Will Deter Mass Killers or at Least Stop Them in Their Tracks and Reduce the Body Counts
Myth: Increasing Physical Security in Schools and Other Places Will Prevent Mass Murder
Myth: Having Armed Guards at Every School Will Serve to Protect Students From an Active Shooter and Provide a Deterrent as Well
Now each of those is worthy of looking at in depth and discussing, but, again, each of those common explanations and solutions is debunked with facts and logic. One is left with what seems like an intractable problem, searching for other solutions.
Then the paper throws all that out and comes to a wholly unfactual, illogical, self-contradicting non sequiturs:
The fact that gun control, expanded psychiatric services, and increased security measures are limited in their ability to prevent dreadful mass shootings doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting, there was momentum in Washington, D.C., and in various state legislatures to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer.
Gun restrictions and other initiatives may not stop the next mass murderer, wherever he or she may strike, but we can enhance the well-being of millions of Americans in the process. Besides, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least, it will reduce the debilitating feeling of helplessness.
Many of the well-intentioned proposals coming in response to the recent spike in mass shootings may do much to affect the level of violent crime that plagues our nation daily. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of crime in its most extreme form. Of course, taking a nibble out of the risk of mass murder, however small, would still be a worthy goal for the nation. However, those who have suggested that their plan for change will ensure that a crime such as the Sandy Hook massacre will never reoccur will be bitterly disappointed.
Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious. Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.
Feel good politics is amazing, simply amazing.