User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 101 to 103 of 103

Thread: The Violence Project - Anatomy of a Mass Shooter

  1. #101
    Points: 10,219, Level: 24
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1407
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,371
    Points
    10,219
    Level
    24
    Thanks Given
    1,811
    Thanked 1,397x in 972 Posts
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    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.

  2. #102
    Points: 462,918, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397504
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,123
    Points
    462,918
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,564
    Thanked 45,079x in 33,156 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by Chris; 11-29-2019 at 01:04 PM.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  3. #103
    Points: 119,053, Level: 83
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 597
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    81026
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    40,114
    Points
    119,053
    Level
    83
    Thanks Given
    6,521
    Thanked 12,991x in 9,826 Posts
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    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

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO