Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Maybe part of that perception is that auto deaths seem somewhat proportional to the number of cars on the road, the miles/ hours driven and the perception that the primary purpose of driving a car is deemed beneficial and or productive.

Sure, I mean there were only 1300 kids that died in vehicle accidents in 2009, and they tend to die singly or in small groups, so it's not such a big deal, right? Certainly not newsworthy or deserving of a national period of mourning. Same with the 700 that die each year from drowning, many in backyard pools and hot tubs. Those things are far too relaxing and convenient to strictly regulate, I hope.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by Felix87

There was an interesting article on PoliceOne referencing a speech by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He makes the point that we have over lapping methods of mitigating risk relevant to fires in schools, fire alarms, extinguishers, fire drills, fire resistant materials, etc. The result being that there have been no school related fire deaths in 50 years. We do not train for an active shooter scenario and are in denial about it happening.

The other statement he makes that I agree with is that an unarmed person is not Security.

Article here.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/

It can be funny how we come full circle to other subjects on this forum. In the article you have referenced about Grossman, he references John Giduck's book Terror in Beslan, which we all know to be a crock. Grossman makes some good points but his credibility is on shaky ground when he quotes fakes.

[Richard]

An interesting piece on mass killers - self-loathing, perceived injustice, location.

Richard

Why Spree Killers Kill Themselves
Wired, 18 Dec 2012

With the Sandy Hook shooter dead, we may never fully understand why he gunned down 26 random strangers at a public school. Even when such killers have survived, their self-explanations have done little to shed new light on acts the rest of us can only grasp as psychotic. Inevitably, we are left with the bare facts of the attacks themselves to frame our understanding.

Such facts may be bare. But they are far from silent.

I recently conducted a study (currently in review) using binary logistic regression statistical tests and data from the 2010 NYPD report of all identity-known active shooter incidents (n=179) in the U.S. between 1966-2010.

Here’s what I found: In about half of the “rampage” incidents (more than two casualties), the shooters killed innocent victims … and then committed suicide.

Why are some mass shooters more likely to kill themselves? If we go beyond the armchair psychology and diagnostic labels in the coverage of this horrific tragedy, the data from past rampage shootings (see also this paper and this related paper) may partially reveal some motivations.

It’s about self-loathing and perceived injustice. And location matters.

Psychologists have long theorized that there’s a connection between rage against others and rage against the self.

According to my findings, the shooter’s likelihood of committing suicide or suicide by cop appears to be 1.16 times higher (controlling for the attacker’s age and sex) for each additional victim that is killed. This suggests that those who have the most rage toward others – and therefore end up killing the most victims – would also feel the most guilty and ashamed about their crimes. They are therefore more likely to engage in “self-punishment” via suicide or suicide by cop. After the initial explosion of rage causes them to open fire, active shooters who see many dead or dying victims around them may feel a correspondingly higher need for self-punishment than shooters with fewer victims.

Besides killing more victims, active shooters who arm themselves with more weapons are possibly fueled by a more powerful sense of “injustice” and hopelessness than other active shooters. For each additional weapon a rampage shooter brings to the crime scene, his or her likelihood of dying is 1.76 times higher. This would also explain why they’re more likely to end up killing themselves.

Criminologist Jack Gibbs’s theory of social control suggests that when an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its responsibility to control the behavior of others and thus protect that individual’s rights. Unable to rely on broader instruments of social control, the murderer tries to “correct” past injustices by employing his or her own direct control over others, which manifests itself through violence.

Anecdotal evidence supports the theory’s application to many active shooters, who indeed claimed to have attacked in response to past injustices. Perhaps the same offenders who have the least hopeful perception of social control mechanisms – and thus need to exercise the most direct control themselves – also feel like they have the least to live for, because society is so terribly unjust. This interpretation would dovetail with previous theories of suicide that suggest that hopelessness is one of the most common reasons why people seek death.

These same concepts help explain why active shooters who attack in open commercial locations are particularly likely to end up dead. Because attack location makes a difference: Shooters who struck at sites such as shopping malls, department stores, and restaurants were 4.19 times more likely to die as a result of their attacks (compared to those in the NYPD’s “other” location category).

The biggest difference between attacking at open commercial sites and attacking at other locations is the nature of one’s victims: at open commercial sites, victims tend to be far more random and representative of a cross-section of society.

Gibbs’s theory of social control applied here suggests that offenders who attack random victims at open commercial sites are responding to perceived failures of social control at a societal level, and are thus the most universally hopeless about their future. In contrast, offenders who target victims at schools or office buildings would be responding to failures of social control at a much smaller level, and would not be as hopeless about society at large and therefore would have less desire to die.

The guilt, shame, rage, and self-loathing generated by active shooters who kill random victims may be even more overwhelming than the feelings experienced by offenders who kill a subset of victims at a specific location they view as particularly oppressive and corrupt.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12...ll-themselves/

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Razor

Sure, I mean there were only 1300 kids that died in vehicle accidents in 2009, and they tend to die singly or in small groups, so it's not such a big deal, right? .

I did not raise the motor vehicle comparison, I replied to it pointing out it isn't really a valid comparison. As you do too. And I disagree with your claim that children dying in autos, private swimming pools or any way deemed Preventable does not garner attention, alarm and review. In my observation of a preventable child's death the ultimate aim is to hold "someone accountable". And we see legislation.

For example: a child wanders into a neighbors yard, and enters a swimming pool and drowns. Although the child is trespassing the pool is deemed an attractive nuisance (assistance please, legal pros). As a result, Homeowners are required to have a fence and post signs. Insurance companies require separate coverage for pools in exsisting policies. Industry changes are mandated (as in the case of kids (few) who got trapped on the filtration systems at the bottom of pools and spas). Innovations such as trampoline like pool covers and floating alarms go on the market. After a 911 call about a kid drowning there is full response by emergency and law enforcement. And it is all over the news.

You are right though that kids die indivually and in small groups in most unintended situations. Which raises the question: with the exception of weapons (particularly guns) are there other instruments of unintended death (that being unintended by the manufacturer) similar to guns?

I don't think so.

I am not for banning guns no matter what some may say. I am also not for being a Swiss cheese messenger either. But, I think things have changed (as they did following the Reagan shooting) and I think that change in the public perception of the problem and desire for change will be demanding and long lasting.
I think falling back on the tried and true pro-gun arguments will not be effective in the future. Second Amendment Advocates, the NRA, you need to bring a solution to the conversation or get left behind.

[Streck-Fu]

I think falling back on the tried and true pro-gun arguments will not be effective in the future. Second Amendment Advocates, the NRA, you need to bring a solution to the conversation or get left behind.

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association?

[Guy]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

It can be funny how we come full circle to other subjects on this forum. In the article you have referenced about Grossman, he references John Giduck's book Terror in Beslan, which we all know to be a crock. Grossman makes some good points but his credibility is on shaky ground when he quotes fakes.

Grossman endorsement of John Giduck...

Anyways, here's an interesting blog post:

Now I’ll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an intended victim of an active shooter.

You’re having lunch with your family at a mall food court. It’s a pleasant afternoon, no different than any other day you’ve visited the mall. Bored, unarmed security guards on Segways patrol the walkways. You barely notice them as your family discusses your son’s upcoming school play.

Suddenly you hear a scream. You look toward the sound and see a woman running in terror. At first you’re just curious; you aren’t sure what’s happening. Then you hear gunshots. Rapid gunshots, six or seven in a row. Dozens of people are suddenly on their feet, running and screaming.

You follow your first instinct and drop to the floor with your family. The gunshots keep coming. You hear the high-pitched crash of tables and chairs being knocked over by fleeing shoppers. Looking under tables, you see motionless bodies strewn about the floor. Everyone you see who’s still on their feet is running. Everyone, except one person.

One pair of legs is walking slowly, with determination, turning back and forth. You can’t see the upper body above the tables, but with every gunshot, a shell drops by the pair of legs. You’re looking at the shooter. Your breath catches in your throat as you have a sick realization: he’s moving toward you. Toward your family.

Adrenaline saturates your blood. You force yourself not to panic because you know your family needs you now, more than ever. You grab your children and pull them close. A desperate thought crosses your mind, and you know it’s fantasy even as you think it.Is someone making a movie or something?

Ten feet away, a woman and child are huddled under their table. The woman screams, “We’ve got to get out of here! Oh my God, we’ve got to get out of here!”

You look toward the shooter’s legs. They’re closer now, maybe thirty feet away. You stay silent, not sure if the woman is right. Should you get up and run, or stay where you are?

Near the shooter, a shrill voice shrieks, “No, please! Don’t shoot me!” The man answers with gunshots. Another body falls to the floor.

The woman ten feet away grabs her child’s hand, lurches to her feet and runs. A voice yells “Bitch!” and more shots are fired, four or five in no more than two seconds. You hear something heavy and soft slam to the linoleum floor. A child’s voice screams in terror. Another shot is fired, and the scream is silenced.

You look to the shooter. Less than twenty feet away. He takes another step in your direction. You don’t know if he’s seen your family yet, but if he hasn’t, he will soon. You close your eyes, say a prayer to your God, and make your decision.

Cowards, Mass Murders And The American Public

Stay safe out yonder folks.

[Destrier]

A responsible response would be to allow educators, with concealed permits, additional training, and willing to accept the added responsibility to carry in schools. Or to have armed law enforcement at each school. Even with such measures, the best you will accomplish is to reduce reaction time to assaults. You will never be able to stop a determined individual from harming others regardless of the tool-method used. You can only limit the time it takes to react to them and thus reduce the time the criminal has to harm others.

Until you can look into a mans soul and determine if he is going to commit such acts.

I for one would rather our citizens have a chance to defend themselves compared to the alternative.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association?

Well there are a lot of dead people.
We've eliminated cars and swimming pools as the proximate cause.
Guns that did not belong to the alleged shooter were found at the scene
The owner of the guns was found dead at the alleged shooters residence

So I think guns played a part. I think gun security played a part, I think mental illness diagnosis and treatment played a part.

I think, in the coming sea-change in the conversation about guns, rights and violence all interested parties need to bring some part of a solution to the conversation,
Those who don't are going to be left out.

And, your post IMHO, reflects a continued reliance on the old tried and true . . . which I think a growing number of Americans will not consider as true anymore.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Destrier

A responsible response would be to allow educators, with concealed permits, additional training, and willing to accept the added responsibility to carry in schools. Or to have armed law enforcement at each school.

Public schools in Dallas had a police officer on campus during school hours and many of the private schools had security officers on campus. The JHS and HS campuses had assigned officers - the elementary schools always had an officer parked in their vehicles on campus, not assigned but the police departments had their patrol officers take scheduled breaks by parking in the school parking lots and providing continuous and visible coverage.

There are many small, rural communities and schools which cannot afford this level of security and I can see allowing one or two staff/faculty CCW.

The petitions showing up at The White House now want educators to be allowed CCW like airline pilots. Based upon my experiences with the education community, that is - in general - one scary thought.

During my tenure as a teacher and high school principal, I was involved in having to physically remove two teachers who had gone bonkers - ranting and screaming about, making threats and scaring the hell out of the students and their peers, throwing and kicking stuff - one of them took police intervention to remove - and if they had been allowed CCW...

Richard

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

IME, only as it relates to being the tool at hand. Are lofty thinkers - on any side - willing to go deep enough into dark places to understand the reality that is:

- the medical community cannot guarantee protection from unstable individuals doing harm to innocent people in supposedly safe places.

- a government at whatever level (Fed, local LE) cannot guarantee protection from unstable individuals doing harm to innocent people in supposedly safe places. (In fact case law has shown they have no obligation to do so*.)

- attempts to legislate behavior (e.g., gun-free zones) have failed to alter the behavior meant to be mitigated.

Regardless of the duration or nature of "the conversation" against what are results measured, and can that be known except over time? Or is the measurement to be that something/anything was done, measured against an electoral clock or the next SOTU address?

MSM has no self-serving interest in reporting on a true conversation even were it to occur so, as Dozer suggests, some folks better get the wax outta their ears and arm themselves with facts.

___________________________
* DeShaney v. Winnebago County: "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services."

[afchic]

I read the Daily Beast every morning, just like I read NRO. I found this article to pretty much sum up how I feel about what happened last week.

It is a little lengthy, but worth the read.

BLUF: There is NOTHING we can do to prevent this type of tragedy. The things that could prevent this are UnConstitutional, and only effect people that are going to follow the law anyway. If someone wants to do harm to a large gorup of people, they are going to do it, regardless of the precaustions we choose to implement.

The author states that just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-massacre.html

[booker]

Originally Posted by Richard

There are many small, rural communities and schools which cannot afford this level of security and I can see allowing one or two staff/faculty CCW.

Richard

I live in a small, rural community that cannot afford the security you spoke of for the larger Dallas schools. However, the local law enforcement, most of whom have kids on one or more of the local schools, have always taken it upon themselves to have a presence, even if it is sitting in their cars doing paperwork during the school day. This occurred before the Virginia Tech incidents, which only served to reinforce the trend. However, we are of a different mindset than the next county over, where the parents complained of the cops being on site (liberal college professors...). I don't know of any police that would complain of such a duty, and as illustrated above, most take it upon themselves to do it. Is this the answer for all schools? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

It can be funny how we come full circle to other subjects on this forum. In the article you have referenced about Grossman, he references John Giduck's book Terror in Beslan, which we all know to be a crock. Grossman makes some good points but his credibility is on shaky ground when he quotes fakes.

Grossman has been pimping Giduck's book since at least 2006. I was at the Academy in El Paso when Grossman was a guest speaker for our class. He gave a presentation which centered around his two books, On Killing and On Combat, but that also included a portion in which he touched on some of Giduck's book and Giduck's "solutions" for securing our schools. At the end of the presentation, he held a book signing and "happy snaps" period. On the table for sale were On Killing, On Combat, and Terror at Breslan

Grossman has Giduck's book for sale on his website and he also wrote the foreword for Giduck's book. It is not surprising that he has some "skin in the game" in continuing to pimp Giduck as being something other than an asshat...

http://www.killology.com/books.htm

[98G]

Reuters

On Tuesday, the National Rifle Association made its first comments after the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shootings.

The National Rifle Association said on Tuesday it is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions" to prevent future massacres like the Connecticut shooting on Friday, marking a sharp change in tone for the nation's largest gun rights group.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters - and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement sent to reporters.

The NRA plans a news conference on Friday after staying silent out of respect for families in Newtown, Connecticut, and as a matter of common decency, the statement said.

[koz]

Originally Posted by Richard

The petitions showing up at The White House now want educators to be allowed CCW like airline pilots. Based upon my experiences with the education community, that is - in general - one scary thought.

During my tenure as a teacher and high school principal, I was involved in having to physically remove two teachers who had gone bonkers - ranting and screaming about, making threats and scaring the hell out of the students and their peers, throwing and kicking stuff - one of them took police intervention to remove - and if they had been allowed CCW...

Richard

Airline pilots who "CCW" are actually credentialed federal law enforcement officers under the FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer) program. The gun used is issued to the pilot. Before even being admitted into the program, the pilot has to see a shrink. Also recurrent training is also required, unlike a CCW.

Like any group there are some bad seeds. But at every PD, Secret Service , FBI, etc... there are people who shouldn't be in that position. Give the teachers the proper screen and training.