The Violence Project - Anatomy of a Mass Shooter

[Chris]

Just for your edification, there is only one line in the black text with links that is my text or rather paraphrasing:



Otherwise my comments are all in blue.

I also tried to find the actual study, but it doesn't seem to be available. Therefore I tried to find as many different reviews of the study as possible, including some from the university itself in order to capture as much of the study as possible, rather than rely on a single review. Links to all of the various reviews are included.

I don't see what is circular about a study of mass shooters to determine whether there are identifiable commonalities and/or specific red flags to watch for. If you expand the scope of the study too far afield, it loses focus and you end up drawing in criminally motivated behavior, family disputes, as well as acts of domestic terrorism. While there may well be overlap in some respects, that is best examined after studying these groups in isolation.

Additionally, how people choose to commit these acts is an important factor. If you look up rampage killers in the US, you will find a list of 100 people since the 1880's. In 92% of the rampages, firearms were the chosen method of killing. Only one case involved explosives (the earliest one) and the rest were various combinations of knives, machetes, blunt force trauma or crashing a plane or bus in an attempt to kill all aboard. Methodology is all over the place in this list. Some confined their killing to a single day and others took place over periods up to three days. Some were found to be mentally unfit to stand trial, others were criminals who went on a rampage and others still were simply angry and seeking some form of vengeance.

Assuming that supporting red flag laws in some form or another automatically expresses an anti-gun stance is short-sighted. There are in fact some people, notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment, who should not have access to weapons, not only for the sake of the individual concerned but also for the safety of the general public. Certainly people contemplating mass murder should be among that contingent.

I don't see what is circular about a study of mass shooters to determine whether there are identifiable commonalities and/or specific red flags to watch for.

That is not what I said was circular. Try again:

That's not exactly what Vice or Who said. And again, well, duh, the study studies those with access to those three things, they shoot people in a location. The study's methodology limits its cohort to just those people. It's circular.

Additionally, how people choose to commit these acts is an important factor.

The study says that? I don't see where.

red flag laws

Did the study or I say anything about red flag laws? No.

if you want to participate in this thread, confine your comments to the scope of the subject matter.

And that's The Violence Project.

Your thread though so you can drift all you want I suppose.

[Dr. Who]

That is not what I said was circular. Try again:

It's not a circular argument. It's not assuming that all people with specific characteristics will commit mass murder in a specific location without examining whether all people with the same characteristic also commit mass murder in various locations. That would be circular.

It is examining the traits of mass shooters who commit these acts in a specific location to determine what traits they may have in common.

The study says that? I don't see where.

How can include both the chosen location and the means, both of which are examined by the study.

"The Violence Project also identified five profile categories of shooters. This includes K-12 shooters, who are usually white males who plan their actions and steal guns from their family, compared with college shooters, who are more likely to be suicidal, non-white, and to write a manifesto. Other profiled groups include shooters at places of worship, commercial locations, and workplaces." https://www.mic.com/p/new-study-on-m...ators-19366339

"This is also the first database to look closely at how many shooters obtained their guns. The majority of mass shooters use handguns (seventy-seven percent) and twenty-five percent used assault rifles. Of the known data, seventy-seven percent of shooters purchased at least some of their guns legally, thirteen percent made illegal purchases, and nineteen percent stole guns."https://www.hamline.edu/news/MassShooterDatabase/

Did the study or I say anything about red flag laws? No.

"Peterson’s team looked closely at the mental health of the shooters and found that about 80% of them showed signs of a crisis leading up to the event.She believes that’s where a red flag law, which gives police the authority to temporarily remove weapons, could be beneficial."https://kstp.com/news/local-research...2019-/5557861/

Your thread though so you can drift all you want I suppose.

Again, confine your comments to the topic.

[Chris]

It's not a circular argument. It's not assuming that all people with specific characteristics will commit mass murder in a specific location without examining whether all people with the same characteristic also commit mass murder in various locations. That would be circular.

It is examining the traits of mass shooters who commit these acts in a specific location to determine what traits they may have in common.

How can include both the chosen location and the means, both of which are examined by the study.

"The Violence Project also identified five profile categories of shooters. This includes K-12 shooters, who are usually white males who plan their actions and steal guns from their family, compared with college shooters, who are more likely to be suicidal, non-white, and to write a manifesto. Other profiled groups include shooters at places of worship, commercial locations, and workplaces." https://www.mic.com/p/new-study-on-m...ators-19366339

"This is also the first database to look closely at how many shooters obtained their guns. The majority of mass shooters use handguns (seventy-seven percent) and twenty-five percent used assault rifles. Of the known data, seventy-seven percent of shooters purchased at least some of their guns legally, thirteen percent made illegal purchases, and nineteen percent stole guns."https://www.hamline.edu/news/MassShooterDatabase/




"Peterson’s team looked closely at the mental health of the shooters and found that about 80% of them showed signs of a crisis leading up to the event.She believes that’s where a red flag law, which gives police the authority to temporarily remove weapons, could be beneficial."https://kstp.com/news/local-research...2019-/5557861/
Again, confine your comments to the topic.

It's not a circular argument. It's not assuming that all people with specific characteristics will commit mass murder in a specific location without examining whether all people with the same characteristic also commit mass murder in various locations. That would be circular.

Do you deliberately ignore what I post when you respond to me?

What I posted:

...the study studies those with access to those three things, they shoot people in a location. The study's methodology limits its cohort to just those people. It's circular.

1) The study's question limited the cohort studies to those with access to people, locations and firearms.
2) The study's answer found as a commonality those with access to people, locations and firearms.

That's circular.


You:

how people choose to commit these acts is an important factor.

Where?

Other profiled groups include shooters at places of worship, commercial locations, and workplaces.

That's not how. The study didn't study how.


The study nor I mention red flag laws.


Before you twist up my point any further, let me repeat what the study found, taken from the study's website.

On the Violence Project web site I have found their statement of the commonalities:

1. Trauma: Mass shooters have experienced childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age
2. Crisis: Mass shooters reach an identifiable crisis point becoming angry, despondent, and suicidal.
3. Script: Mass shooters study other mass shooters to find validation for their method and motive to kill.
4. Access: Once mass shooters commit to their plan, they need access people, places, and firearms.

#4 is circular. It is not causative. In order for a mass shooting to occur, the shooter needs access to people, places, and firearms. The study was limited to those people.

Substitute access to people or places for firearms and demand laws to make access to people and places illegal, and you begin to realize how absurd the anti-gun crowd's conclusion is.

[Cletus]

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.

It may be okay for you to strip Americans of their Constitutional protections without due process, but it is not okay from my perspective. As most Red Flag laws are written, all it takes is for some person, not even necessarily a person with intimate knowledge of the person in question, to report him to authorities as a potential threat. No evidence is presented. No examination or evaluation of the target subject is required or even permitted. Someone says "Dr Who possesses firearms and I believe she is a threat to society" and the cops raid your house and take your property. Then, it is up to YOU to prove you are not a threat to society.

That goes against everything upon which our system of justice is based. It is bad law. It is evil. Every American should be opposed to such laws. It is only a small step to go from guns to dangerous "publications" or "public utterances". Freedom is not without risks. As Benjamin Franklin famously said... "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Dr. Who]

Do you deliberately ignore what I post when you respond to me?

What I posted:



1) The study's question limited the cohort studies to those with access to people, locations and firearms.
2) The study's answer found as a commonality those with access to people, locations and firearms.

That's circular.


You:



Where?



That's not how. The study didn't study how.


The study nor I mention red flag laws.


Before you twist up my point any further, let me repeat what the study found, taken from the study's website.

On the Violence Project web site I have found their statement of the commonalities:

1. Trauma: Mass shooters have experienced childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age
2. Crisis: Mass shooters reach an identifiable crisis point becoming angry, despondent, and suicidal.
3. Script: Mass shooters study other mass shooters to find validation for their method and motive to kill.
4. Access: Once mass shooters commit to their plan, they need access people, places, and firearms.

#4 is circular. It is not causative. In order for a mass shooting to occur, the shooter needs access to people, places, and firearms. The study was limited to those people.

Substitute access to people or places for firearms and demand laws to make access to people and places illegal, and you begin to realize how absurd the anti-gun crowd's conclusion is.

It's your argument that is circular. You start by raging about the anti-gun crowd and start making baseless assumptions about the study's motives. Guns may not be causative but they are still part of the profile, thus access is relevant to their ability to carry out their mission. Trauma; Crisis; Script and Access are not a list of causes, they are a list of Commonalities. Only you keep insisting that Access is a "cause" hence your misguided conclusion that the study is circular. The study has never claimed to have established causation.

[Dr. Who]

It may be okay for you to strip Americans of their Constitutional protections without due process, but it is not okay from my perspective. As most Red Flag laws are written, all it takes is for some person, not even necessarily a person with intimate knowledge of the person in question, to report him to authorities as a potential threat. No evidence is presented. No examination or evaluation of the target subject is required or even permitted. Someone says "Dr Who possesses firearms and I believe she is a threat to society" and the cops raid your house and take your property. Then, it is up to YOU to prove you are not a threat to society.

That goes against everything upon which our system of justice is based. It is bad law. It is evil. Every American should be opposed to such laws. It is only a small step to go from guns to dangerous "publications" or "public utterances". Freedom is not without risks. As Benjamin Franklin famously said... "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

While I don't claim any special knowledge of what evidence must be presented to the court to establish that someone is a threat to society, I do know that the courts do not simply rubber stamp every such claim, ergo there must be some evidentiary basis for the petition. Any court that would simply grant such a petition without applying at least the same rigor as it would take to establish probable cause would be in violation of a number of legal standards.

[Chris]

It may be okay for you to strip Americans of their Constitutional protections without due process, but it is not okay from my perspective. As most Red Flag laws are written, all it takes is for some person, not even necessarily a person with intimate knowledge of the person in question, to report him to authorities as a potential threat. No evidence is presented. No examination or evaluation of the target subject is required or even permitted. Someone says "Dr Who possesses firearms and I believe she is a threat to society" and the cops raid your house and take your property. Then, it is up to YOU to prove you are not a threat to society.

That goes against everything upon which our system of justice is based. It is bad law. It is evil. Every American should be opposed to such laws. It is only a small step to go from guns to dangerous "publications" or "public utterances". Freedom is not without risks. As Benjamin Franklin famously said... "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Nor does the Violence Project study even support such laws. It says if we look at people who are mass shooters we find three commonalities. It does not say that people with those commonalities, even with access to people, locations and firearms, will become mass shooters. To somehow draw that conclusion would be to apply far too broad a brush in taking away people's liberties with no due process.

[Chris]

It's your argument that is circular. You start by raging about the anti-gun crowd and start making baseless assumptions about the study's motives. Guns may not be causative but they are still part of the profile, thus access is relevant to their ability to carry out their mission. Trauma; Crisis; Script and Access are not a list of causes, they are a list of Commonalities. Only you keep insisting that Access is a "cause" hence your misguided conclusion that the study is circular. The study has never claimed to have established causation.

Indeed it is my argument that the fourth commonality is circular. It stands as is because you have failed to address it. The above also sidesteps addressing my argument. I did not say it's circular because it's not a cause, I said it's a circular commonality because the study limited itself to a cohort of that commonality.


"You start by raging...."

"if you want to participate in this thread, confine your comments to the scope of the subject matter." and "Again, confine your comments to the topic."

[Common Sense]

Studies like this aren't an a la carte menu.

The study presents 4 commonalities. You can't choose to accept three and disregard the fourth because you don't like it. You certainly can't claim the fourth can't be discussed simply because you feel it's invalid.

[Peter1469]

Funny, I didn't even see that mentioned in the OP. I wonder if this "non partisan" study addresses that.

Link