The Violence Project - Anatomy of a Mass Shooter

[Rationalist]

I don't think that the system is really set up to deal with these issues appropriately. If someone is picked up on a mental health issue as previously noted, the system does not go out of its way to really determine if they are dangerous. Many people, with the possible exception of those with dementia, can give a psychologist the appropriate answers so that they are released, based on a rather perfunctory assessment. Unless their loved ones are willing and/or able to pay for a "real" assessment, it's likely that these people will simply be released unless there is truly objective evidence. This process is easier if the individual has a family doctor who knows them well, but today, how many family doctors know their patients all that well? Then, when you are dealing with online posts, it's even more unlikely that the individual will be somehow compelled to undergo any kind of psych assessment. So how can this due process take place?

I'd be ok with expanding the assessment, but no seizure should take place without something like a warrant. To be fair, for me, this isn't just about guns. I'm against most civil asset forfeiture methods as well. I think the cops have too much leeway in seizing property as it is.

[Chris]

Oh I'm sure many are tired of this topic yet some things remain to be addressed for those who make too much of it in support of red-flag laws.

Here is Jillian Peterson giving a presentation on the study.



In the presentation, this model is discussed:



It is discussed as a pathway to mass shooting. Pathway, to me, suggests causation, which, per the above discussion, has been tossed out, there is no causation, only correlation. Yet Peterson presents it as a pathway, and supportive of red-flag laws. I'll return to this in a bit.

In the video she explains the source of the data. She admits definitions vary. The WaPo counted from 1999 to 2018 a total of 220 school shootings. The FBI, who defines mass shooting as 4 or more deaths, counted 6. Peterson and team decided to redefine things and counted those they felt were intended to be mass shootings and came up with 45. She doesn't provide any criteria and their paper says nothing of this selection process. It taints the data and the findings.

OK, so back to pathway. Peterson returns to this and acknowledges it's not causative and that no action is merited unless the potential mass shooter threatens it. This is a key point that hasn't come up in any discussion of this topic. Peterson is not advocating any sort of intervention unless the person, who has experience some childhood trauma, is suicidal, finds scripts, and threatens to access people, location and firearm for a mass shooting.

[donttread]

Reading the report.

19% of mass shooters had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons prior to the event. That would suggest more than a "comme ci, comme ça" kind of psychological evaluation...67% had a history of mental illness. Keyword there is "history" because it would not account for undiagnosed or unrecognized psychopathology. Only 20% had taken psychotropic medication which is fairly significant because medication is often the first line treatment simply for convenience and 20% is incredibly low given the number who have a known history of mental illness. Thought disorders were more common than mood disorders... Interesting.

In terms of firearms, I was right in the other thread about what it meant. 77% of shooters obtained firearms legally (access and availability) while 13% illegally purchased firearms and 19% stolen firearms (includes borrowing from family/friends). This is important in terms of the research conclusions. The authors suggest that this data can inform potential legislation because laws regarding "assault rifles" are basically irrelevant since most mass shooters use handguns (77%).

... and Red Flag laws come up a few times, for the record.

Interesting numbers on the psychiatric data. Do you think it's possible that their pathology is misdiagnosed early on ?( not the providers fault, if they are fed bull$#@! they'll diagnose bull$#@!) That would possibly point to either feeling that the medication would not work or knowing it would not work.
It is certainly a low number whereas 67% is high. Well it's not high by my standards, but that's another matter. LOL

[Trump Gurl]

The study was conducted by a group called The Violence Project

Does it explain why Leftists and Liberals are the most violent people in America today?

[MisterVeritis]

The study was conducted by a group called The Violence Project, a nonpartisan think tank founded by psychologists at Minnesota's Hamline University, with the goal of reducing violence in society. The study consisted of several components, which included the creation of a a database of the 171 shootings — defined per FBI guidelines as involving the killing of four or more people in a public setting — that have taken place between 1966 and 2019. The database is coded on 99 “life history variables,” including mental health, trauma, and “interest in past shootings.” You can find the database here.

The study also explored larger sociological factors in the areas where the shootings occurred, exploring crime rates, inequality, and prevalence of household guns. Furthermore, the authors of the study conducted interviews with incarcerated shooters to determine what led to their actions.

In looking at the shootings, the authors of the study identified four key traits that tied together the perpetrators. Typically, they concluded, shooters had experienced childhood trauma, had identified a personal grievance, and had developed a “script” based on prior cases. They also, of course, could get their hands on a gun.

One wonders why this group limited itself to only guns as the murder instrument. Might they have an anti-gun agenda?

The murder instrument should have been nothing more than a variable to consider. This so-called nonpartisan group is not antiviolence. They are anti gun-violence.

[Dr. Who]

One wonders why this group limited itself to only guns as the murder instrument. Might they have an anti-gun agenda?

The murder instrument should have been nothing more than a variable to consider. This so-called nonpartisan group is not antiviolence. They are anti gun-violence.

I don't know. I haven't explored their history. Perhaps it is primarily focused on anti-gun violence.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I wonder if this "non partisan" study addresses that.

This clique of psychobabblers should be granted no respect. It is dangerous to hand this problem over to unmanly weaklings. Rejecting this decades-long emasculating influence, I search for the truth in going just the opposite way from what these nerdy creeps tell us to.

Weirdos who become psycho killers should have been bullied mercilessly from childhood on. As our untouchable ruling class knows very well, that won't make them hate their oppressors; it will make them hate themselves. If the social consequences of their creepiness don't drive them to change and instead drives them to suicide, they won't take anyone with them. All pride must be stripped from these inferior mutants, or else they will blame others for their problems and kill them.

[The Sage of Main Street]

So were very few of the shooters, based on more than one scientific review.

What if the commonality between all of the above is early childhood trauma and nobody caring about the kids acting out until it's over the top and in the cases of those with the money, they are sent to shrinks to get some mental health help but are really just put on SSRIs until they calm down, at which point everyone starts ignoring them again? What if it's about unaddressed childhood trauma combined with a fatalistic but an ultimately self-absorbed attitude to life that is exacerbated by the shallow and mean partisan politics that surround them? What if the truth is that these kids, whether in the hood or in middle class families are just the canaries in the coal mine and a warning about selfish shallow parenting within the context of a selfish shallow society? Many people think that they are good parents because they give their kids everything that they ask for, but their time and interest.

Touchy-Feely Self-Righteous Decadents Would Protect These Freaks From Bullies Instead of Stripping Them of the Mutant Pride That Makes Them Kill

Your delusion about the innocence of children reminds me of what I was told by survivors of the Killing Fields of Cambodia, that the authorities would believe any accusation made by a child.

[stjames1_53]

It is my understanding that the provisions of Red Flag laws vary from state to state. However, in all cases there is an ex parte hearing before a judge. There is also an opportunity for the subject of the order to essentially appeal the ruling. The timing for the adversarial hearing has been the subject of much debate, with some suggesting that it should be within 48 hours. I take it that you object to the initial ex parte hearing. However, an adversarial hearing in place of an ex parte hearing would require that the subject have the time to prepare some kind of defense, and if that person is potentially about to kill a great many people or even commit suicide, what you might be accomplishing is simply giving them the opportunity to act sooner than later while they still have access to firearms they own and the ability to legally purchase them.

you do know that in many States, the guns are seized first, then a hearing is held.
How hard is it to get something back from any government once it has been taken away?

[Trump Gurl]

Who got served.

(Yes that's a joke.)