posted January 08, 2013 12:51 PM            

December 18, 2012, 2:42 pm

By James Alan Fox

Even before the death toll in last Friday’s school massacre in Newtown, Conn., was determined, politicians, pundits, and professors of varied disciplines were all over the news, pushing their proposals for change. Some talked about the role of guns, others about mental-health services, and still more about the need for better security in schools and other public places. Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.

Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.

Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.

Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.

Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.

Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.

Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.

Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.

Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.

In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown school shootings, there seems to be great momentum to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer. Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough.

posted January 08, 2013 01:15 PM            

randall, your source is ONE of the two juni found...and the other completely destroys the premise that "all agree".

posted January 08, 2013 01:28 PM            

If not, common sense will never prevail.

posted January 08, 2013 01:34 PM            

these MILITARY WEAPONS have little place in the home of anyone who is not outright paranoid. apparently they are also lax in keeping them safely locked up away from their kids, though the AVERAGE age over the 30 years of these shooters is 35. most of the weapons were obtained legally.

but it is more about the attitude being passed around. many of these shooters were equivalent to suicide bombers, ie they shot themselves too. so the culture they are surrounded by is guilty too...

but sorry, putting guns in every school just sounds like the first step to having guns everywhere. i don't want my kids going to a school that feels the need to be armed to the teeth.

posted January 08, 2013 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
but sorry, putting guns in every school just sounds like the first step to having guns everywhere. i don't want my kids going to a school that feels the need to be armed to the teeth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
as one mother asked, do we respond to a child hitting another with a brick on the head with giving ALL the children bricks just in case?

perhaps we should just make markmanship a kindergarten subject?

---

While I'm not fond of the idea of arming teachers or hiring security guards, it doesn't look good if you're implying that anyone but the looniest are advocating now that children be armed as it appears to be an exaggeration of what was actually said by some to argue it more easily (known as a "straw man"). Champions of all issues should remember that, I lost count of how many times I cringed because somebody said something I believed in but had to then hurt their valid points by using grossly exaggerated numbers or refuting a straw man (it's like when someone is caught cheating at a game, suddenly all the games won legitimately are called into question). And both sides of the gun debate are notorious for doctoring the facts as well as using logical fallacies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
and it must be pointed out that generally speaking those bystanders who have tried to stop these shooters with their own weapons have been shot too.

---

I've heard of it the opposite happening more often than not (the only one I clearly recall where the CCW permit owner was shot himself was because he shot at the mass murderer who was wearing body armor and somewhat concealed while he was in plain view without any cover as if he were at a shooting range rather than gunfight, though I vaguely recall 1 or 2 other shootings with similar results). One mass shooter was stopped by a CCW permit holder and it was very lucky because the mall had a sign banning guns, even by those with valid CCW permits, so it's good a permit holder ignored it along with the mass murderer who was counting on the sign being respected by everyone inside (and that incident also resulted in some malls removing their "no guns" signs, btw). Another gunman shooting up a church was also stopped by a CCW permit holder and given the ammo the murderer had and how packed the church was the defender is credited with saving countless lives for having her own gun in church.

Also, the Virginia Tech shooting (with police arriving and leaving again in the middle of it!), left scores shot while the Appalachian Law School shooting (less than a hundred miles away, IIRC) left I think a half dozen shot because the gunman was stopped by students with guns (and unfortunately they had to go out to their vehicles to get their guns, there would've been even less shot if they'd had their guns on their person).

And as for the myth of everyone being armed resulting in chaos and people shooting everyone else, that has never happened, not when armed students stopped a gunman shooting from a tower in Texas, and not even in this instant (if that myth was likely to happen, it would've happened here and it didn't):
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

posted January 08, 2013 07:03 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 08, 2013 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all." --Ronald Reagan

---

that quote is such a stupid statement coming from an american. the last war you had on your soil was the civil war, right? how long was that? 150 years ago?

in france, the last one was the 2nd world war, and before that the 1st. american talking about the need to defend themselves makes me laugh when you don't know what war really is. you never had it at home. ok yes, 150 years ago, when weapons were baillonnettes.

you could argue that the first world war was a trench war and therefore not affecting the population but civilian made up the army then. as for the second world war, having a gun or 2 would not have made a difference face to the nazi army. the allied managed to kill the beast because the nazi were fighting 2 wars (one in the east, one in the west) and because those opposing forces were coordinated under us and uk commendment. resistance in france did what it could but in no way it would have been able to subvert the tidal wave on its own. I doubt americans would be stronger in that sense, and I doubt their desire to be free from oppression is stronger than that of the french back then. if not because individual freedom is the root of our culture, at least because nationalism was extremely important in europe.

all there is here is fear! the truth is no matter how many assault weapon every american would have, they still would have to get coordinated. that is just another problem. it is fine on tv shows like V, where things are clear cut and the opponents are aliens but when it happens inside, it gets complicated. no really you've seen too many movies.

as for the political solution, I agree with IQ' views, in my country I support (enrolled in the party) of the center, a very good guy, genuine, intelligent... perfect. well, last presidential election he scored a little 3%. sad. It will not affect my determination to vote for him next time. I hope he tries again. here we can have several candidates for the presidentials. basically anyone can run. so the first round eliminates every contestants but 2 who go to the next round that decide the winner. may be indeed the concept of bipartism is a source of the problem/solution.

posted January 08, 2013 08:14 PM            

quote:

---

The gun has been called the great equalizer

---

if you read that in the morning, you spit your coffee

quote:

---

meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person

---

quote:

---

It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed.

---

quote:

---

When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution;

---

quote:

---

a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free.

---

quote:

---

If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

---

to sum up: more weapon=fear, no weapon=trust

posted January 09, 2013 01:55 AM            

you see, the revolution started in 1789, and the people had an enduring republic from 1871 with the third republic (the current republic is the fifth).

for those interested n french history since the revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_long_nineteenth_century