Mass Killings - You Get What You Want in Society

[Islander]

Yes,

 

 

The genie long ago left the bottle with respect to firearms. In Canada we have pretty stringent firearms laws but little control over the minds of the deranged people who mass murder others. They emptied the mental health facilities in the 1970's in both Canada and the US and the authorities cannot lock someone up simply because they suspect that an individual may be thinking irrationally.

. 

 

We don't want people shooting children of course. What we do want is to not do what is required to stop it. In other words, we have a tremendous tolerance for this kind of killing, and it will increase until our tolerance level is reached, and then we will provide the feedback that stops it. The premise might be offered that it is "unstoppable." But that's not rational. What is usually meant by that is, "it isn't stoppable unless we (_________fill in______). 

 

Just examine each of the cases. You find the same features are present in each case. A deadly mix of half a dozen circumstances. To me, the most interesting feature is that the perps are not criminals until the very moment they pull the trigger. Society has a large "criminal" justice system. But when a person is not a "criminal" that system is of no value. 

 

I can't imagine how high out tolerance may be. But, I fear it is a LOT higher than yet exhibited. 

 

Man has been killing their fellow man for thousands of years, it started with pointy sticks or rocks. If all the guns resident in the US disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow people intent on mayhem would just use available other means.

 

 

Most of the health departments in the developed world started de-institutionalizing their less dangerous mentally ill patients around the world in the 1950s and 1960s, when new antipsychotic drugs became available.

 

Here's some info on it:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

 

This allowed the various governments to close their expensive mental hospitals and save lots of money, but over time it became apparent that there were no net savings, because the mentally ill patients in many cases could not organize themselves to eat and pay rent.  Replacing hospital care with a prescription and a pension was an experiment that failed.

 

Expecting low-functioning patients to be responsible for themselves was a mistake.  Many of the patients wound up living on the streets.  Some higher-functioning street people would introduce them to street drugs, and then they'd have a drug problem to go along with their mental problems.  Before long, they'd have physical health problems as well, from living on the street.

 

When they had a medical problem, they didn't have family doctors in most cases, so they'd have to go to the emergency department, which became quite costly over time.

 

However, those people are not usually the ones who commit gun massacres.  In most of those cases, the person is middle class and may even have a supportive family.  I'm stereotyping here, but according to recent news reports, the people who snap and start shooting people are typically males in their twenties or in their forties, and may or may not have a history of violence.

 

As for the idea that someone intent on murder would just find another means if guns were unavailable, this is true in some cases.  However, guns make it so much easier to kill, and automatic weapons make it easier to kill larger numbers of people.  Ending the easy availability of guns would not eliminate murders, but it would greatly reduce the number of people killed or maimed.

 

Apart from the determined killers, there are the impulse killers, who would likely not kill the faithless lover or crooked business partner if they had to make a plan, and only had a shovel or a big knife with which to do the deed.  Taking away the convenience of firearms would really cut down on the numbers of lives lost and ruined.

 

To reduce the terrible numbers of people killed or crippled, there is no "magic bullet" in terms of laws or medications or public policies, but each step in the right direction could improve things a great deal over time.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Islander

[Islander]

 

The NRA has a lot of speaking points, but jobs are one of the ones that most people can relate to.  There are many gun factories in America, and lots of hardworking taxpayers are employed in those factories.

 

However, those skilled workers could be using their talents and energy making other kinds of things.  When I lived in rural Quebec, 30 km. from Quebec City, there were not many local jobs.  I moved to Toronto after graduating from high school, and Toronto and its surrounding area has lots of jobs, since it's a manufacturing and management centre for central Canada.

 

I've stayed in touch with some of the folks in Quebec that I grew up with.  One of them worked for a long time at an ammunition factory.  It was originally called Dominion Arsenals, but was later bought by C-I-L, a name likely familiar to gun fans.  It closed in 1991.

 

Anyway, he worked on the .50 calibre line, making machinegun cartridges all day, every day.  It's great to have a steady job that pays okay, especially when it's only about 15 minutes from home.  However, earning a living by making pointy things that do a great job of killing people kind of got to him.  These are not some kind of generic widgets that are neutral on a "helps/hurts people" spectrum, they're products that are designed to kill someone, no matter what he's hiding behind.  That's what heavy machineguns are for.

 

My point (at last!) is that there is a psychological and emotional cost to working in the arms industry.  Those skilled workers could be making medical equipment, performance car parts, or even hi-fi gear.  They would be healthier and happier.

 

In a related note, what brought an end to the death penalty in the UK?  I wasn't able to find a link today, but I remember reading that the workplace health and safety regulations were factors.  More than a few of the executioners had problems with their marriages and with alcoholism.  Eventually, the costs of the death penalty were seen as too high, while its deterrent value was in doubt.

 

 

And now an American former executioner is speaking out against the death penalty:

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/exvirginia-executioner-now-opposes-death-penalty

 

 

Near the bottom of this next page, he mentions that PTSD is a problem for every member of the execution team.

 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/how-do-you-get-a-job-as-an-executioner-in-america-526

Couple of nits in your points above:

 

For someone to make medical equipment, car parts or audio equipment, economics dictate the current demand would have to be greater than the existing supply of such items/equipment. The displaced ammunition workers' would most likely end up making widgets, strangling chickens for the Colonel or unemployed as very few people are very skilled on an automated ammunition line. 

 

I would doubt that many workers' in the arms/munition industry are feeling guilty or paying an emotional job related price unless they only employ rather irrational people. There is little difference between producing widgets and munitions. 

 

 

Of course, jobs don't pop up out of nowhere, but that's where the visionary industrialists come in, with their new inventions that make life easier for everyone.  Elon Musk, anyone?

 

Auto manufacturing is a field that can generate lots of jobs.  I knew a male nurse who left the healthcare trade to work on a Honda automotive assembly line in southern Ontario.  The pay was better and the work was less depressing.

 

Breweries also employ lots of people.  Sometimes, even advanced science can be done there, as you can see in this very short video about cloning.  The subtitles are in various non-English languages, but it's easy to see what's happening.

 

Red Elvises Heineken Commercial:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZHWRBhD4O8

 

As for skills, I worked for a time in a bottlecap factory.  The lines were automated to some extent, and machine vision systems had been installed that could do quality control inspections while the lines were running.  Each of the old lines had employed four or five semi-skilled people, but the new lines could be run by one skilled millwright, also known as an industrial mechanic.  The millwright could not only operate the several machines on the line, he could troubleshoot and repair them, plus change them over to run a different size or style of product when a different order would come in.

 

Even with the higher wages paid to the more skilled worker, it's easy to see how eliminating the semi-skilled jobs saved a lot of money.

 

In regards to the emotional effects of working in a munitions factory, I admit that a sample of one person really limits the accuracy of any conclusion that can be drawn.  However, he was a fairly tough guy, and it did seem to bother him.

 

Working in a slaughterhouse would certainly be worse than making ammunition.  A co-worker of mine did a two-week rewiring job in a slaughterhouse, and said he couldn't eat meat for a couple of years after that.  He also said that the people working there were kind of creepy and odd.

[Taz]

I talk to people all over the world every day,,,They think we are crazy,,,, ON another thred on this forum,, The person that started the threads Avatar,, Had a automatic weapon Pictured,,, The European readers of the Klipsch forum thought it was in poor taste,, I felt that way too,,, Talking to some one in Sweden said to me ,,,"you get what you pay for"...He says,,, You have a militia and a police force,,But you still feel unsafe,, SO you still buy a weapon,,  He said its like giving a innocent child matches,,

 

I presume that is my Avatar you mention.  I don't expect everyone to be able to identify a firearm when they look at a picture.  I know I can't.

 

It is not a automatic weapon.  It is an Australian Arms SAP.  Often referred to as a Tasmanian Devil.  SAP stands for semi auto pistol  

 

Who cares what people in other countries think?

 

Keith

Agreed.  I don't presume to tell Canadians what to think or what they need to change.  Most Canadians that I've met are Good people.

 

And how do our young men come back...?  Phisicly and mentaly damaged for life,,,...

I worked a number of years in a V.A. Hospital.  Worked with both Physically and Mentally damaged individuals.  It is sad to see what has happened to these young men.

 

 

 

 

 They emptied the mental health facilities in the 1970's in both Canada and the US and the authorities cannot lock someone up simply because they suspect that an individual may be thinking irrationally.

 

 

 

For Ontario, and possibly other provinces. But in Ontario, it was actually the mid 90's and not the 70's when the Conservative Harris Govt that allowed many people with mental health issues to be released without supervision. It was due to the transferred costs from provincial onto the municipal level that could not withstand the influx onto their resources..

The Ontario mental heath act was overhauled shortly after that included MHA forms(in particular forms 1&9), allowing detaining people who were a danger to themselves and others, so they could "lock up" potentially dangerous people for psychological assessments and possible further detainment.

 

 

If someone is deemed a danger to themselves or others here at home, it is legal for police to take them into custody and place them in a mental hospital.   They are then entitled to a hearing where a Judge determines if they need to continue to be held.

 

I've worked with patients that were a danger to self and others and were released.  Only to cause harm to themselves and others.

 

I've also worked with patients that I would bet my life that they were not a danger to self or others.  But a doctor would convince a judge that they were.  They would be locked up in the Mental health ward on a 180 day hold.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Taz

[Jeff Matthews]

Ending the easy availability of guns would not eliminate murders, but it would greatly reduce the number of people killed or maimed.

 

Sure.  If we could just wave a wand and decree a new law, "Marijuana shall henceforth be illegal."  Wait...  My mistake.  That's the War on Drugs, not the War on Guns.

 

I agree that in ordinary, daily life, as between a hand gun and a pitchfork, you'd probably see more handgun murders than pitchfork murders.  However, the OP was talking about mass murders by mentally-disturbed people.  I am thinking crazed, determined people will find whatever shocking ways they can to commit their shocking acts.  Perhaps bombs made in pressure cookers, etc.

 

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.  (This would be a bit like what is going on in the M/E with ISIS and the like.)  That would be frightening.  If an armed criminal could be assured that all the rest of us pigeons were unarmed, that would make for some rather emboldened criminals, I would think.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

Wait a second.  They have heavy restrictions and require strict licensing.  Certainly, the criminals don't have guns there...

[CECAA850]

What about Switzerland?

[Guest thesloth]

You can't make sense of crazy, it just doesn't work and you end up making yourself crazy in the process. The general populations rights are then impeded on to try and control the crazies. As stated above, they will just get guns illegally or make bombs from everyday household items. Stopping the press from covering the shootings will be a more effective deterent then removing guns from law abiding citizens. The majority of these people do want attention and want the world to see what they are capable of.

[Wolfbane]

As to the involuntary commitment process and state laws in our relatively free societies:

 

The hurdles, as they should be, are rather high and the time frame for securely holding someone, assuming you are successful in having their current mental condition assessed in the 1st place, is as short as 24 to 48 hours in most Canadian jurisdictions. After which they get out, say 99 times out of 100. Frequently with an additional grudge to ponder. 

 

At the end of the day, if someone is intent on mass murdering a group of people they use whatever means is within their particular abilities (e.g. Oklahoma and Timothy McVeigh).

 

You can and should have background checks before selling anyone a firearm or a ton of fertilizer, etc. but you cannot un-ring a bell once it has chimed.

[Jim Naseum]

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA. So, saying there is no way to prevent it misses the data. The USA is unique with thee number of these mass killing.

Therefore, what's different?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Guest thesloth]

Therefore, what's different?

 

Probably our educational system.

[MercedesBerater]

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

(They still have LESS guns than we do... And they are all trained as a military. We have a military PLUS all the civilian gun owners)

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 45.7 guns per 100 residents (ranking below only the United States, Serbia, and Yemen in this measurement).

[Jeff Matthews]

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA.

 

That's a myth.  For whatever reason, we want to perceive Europe as being more "civilized" than us.  Take a look at their track-record. 

[MercedesBerater]

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA. So, saying there is no way to prevent it misses the data. The USA is unique with thee number of these mass killing.

Therefore, what's different?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

[Jim Naseum]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with criminals getting guns. It has nothing to do with criminals at all. Shooters are generally indistinguishable from anyone else on the street until they snap.

Why are so many schools involved?

Why so many males and so few females involved?

The age group is very narrow.

Most have a dozen guns, not just one.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

Anyway, he worked on the .50 calibre line, making machinegun cartridges all day, every day.  It's great to have a steady job that pays okay, especially when it's only about 15 minutes from home.  However, earning a living by making pointy things that do a great job of killing people kind of got to him.  These are not some kind of generic widgets that are neutral on a "helps/hurts people" spectrum, they're products that are designed to kill someone, no matter what he's hiding behind.  That's what heavy machineguns are for.

I'd bet good money that way more people have died in this country due to being strangled by speaker wire than being shot by a 50 cal machine gun.

[Jeff Matthews]

Why are so many schools involved?

Why so many males and so few females involved?

The age group is very narrow.

Most have a dozen guns, not just one.

 

 

Schools are involved because many of these shooters are disenchanted teenagers.  That's where they go to express themselves - i.e., to shoot all the people they hate every day.

 

Males have more testosterone than females.  That one's a no-brainer.

 

The age group is very narrow because most people grow into adulthood and adjust more normally to dealing with frustration and anger.

 

I don't know whether it's true that most have a dozen guns as opposed to one gun; however, the number of guns owned might be an indicator of obsessive-compulsive behavior in the individual.

[Jim Naseum]

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA.

That's a myth. For whatever reason, we want to perceive Europe as being more "civilized" than us. Take a look at their track-record.

The rates per capita of this kind of killing is 10 to 50 times higher than similarly wealth nations. 10 to 50 times higher. No myth.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Americans are in denial about the difference between the USA an other wealth countries.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

Americans are in denial about the difference between the USA an other wealth countries.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Look at Switzerland, Norway and Finland in the chart in this short article:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/