@Churbs: The Time article lists the dates covered by the study, so I wouldn't exactly call them misleading there. The problem is that so little valid research is actually done on this particular subject. Also, I wonder if you could clarify your intent in using the term "regular homicide?"
@Everyone blaming news outlets: Unfortunately, there is very little concrete evidence linking seeming copycat killers to media coverage. Often, so-called copycats are discovered to have been planning violence for long periods of time prior to such coverage.
I've been hunting for studies that conclusively prove a media link. So far, the online evidence I've found is shady at best and often cites "experts" but no hard data. More commonly I see mixed data compiled to show inconclusive results.
This isn't to say that media outlets have no responsibility or no guilt in regard to seeming copycat slayings -- only that the cold, hard facts suggest a tangential and highly contestable link to media coverage. Certainly there is not enough evidence to show causation, even if it exists to show correlation. And further evidence would be needed to show the media is responsible for primary causation.
The larger question is what to do about it. News coverage is necessary. The temptation is to self-censor, but that also presents several problems: First, that ignorance isn't bliss, it's just ignorance.
Second, it might be a greater injustice to color the Connecticut story in hard blacks and whites, dehumanizing it with a "just the facts" approach to coverage. The common complaint is that the media is "sensationalizing" the shootings, but they are sadly a sensational event. There's nothing small about 27 violent deaths for innocent children. Those dead kids deserve every second of attention they have received from every hundred million viewers in the past couple of days. It would be wholly inappropriate to give this story only a three-minute segment and move on.
On the other hand, there have already been other shootings reported in public spaces today, including a fatality in an Alabama hospital and a southern California mall shooting that ended without injuries.
Were NBC, CNN, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post responsible for those?
There is a legal concept that says that, for example, city workers trying to fix a broken sewer pipe can't be held responsible if your basement floods in the course of their work, because they are conducting a good-faith effort to address a larger problem.
The same principle applies to the media. You simply cannot hold a newsgroup responsible if, in the course of telling the truth (no matter how distasteful you may find that truth to be), a mentally ill person reacts criminally.
@Churbs: The Time article lists the dates covered by the study, so I wouldn't exactly call them misleading there. The problem is that so little valid research is actually done on this particular subject. Also, I wonder if you could clarify your intent in using the term "regular homicide?"
As opposed to spree killings, which are far more unusual.
@Churbs: The Time article lists the dates covered by the study, so I wouldn't exactly call them misleading there. The problem is that so little valid research is actually done on this particular subject. Also, I wonder if you could clarify your intent in using the term "regular homicide?"
As opposed to Spree killings, which are far more unusual.
Your point makes no sense. I'm going to need a reference proving that anybody has ever been killed with a chewy fruit-flavored candy, let alone that particular brand.
As opposed to spree killings, which are far more unusual.
I understood that -- but are you suggesting the pathology of a person who is willing to murder one person is somehow better than the pathology of someone willing to kill several? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out why you want a different classification.
Regular homocide is usually a personal thing. The murderer wanted the victim specifically dead. Sprees are usually motivated by hatred for a group of people or demographic, and the victims usually don't have any history with the murderer.
I understood that -- but are you suggesting the pathology of a person who is willing to murder one person is somehow better than the pathology of someone willing to kill several?
Whether or not he's suggesting it, I expect that that is very often the case. As Greg said, the motivations are usually quite different.
Another more important distinction is probably premeditated vs. not, though.
You two answered very quickly. I can only assume you have a vast knowledge of criminal psychology and didn't really need to do any research to come to your conclusions
The heart of my question isn't whether the mode of the pathology is different, but whether by definition anyone who commits murder is mentally ill, regardless of how many victims they take. There seems to be a lot of scholarly and non-scholarly talk about it, with differing opinions.
This study talks about a link between schizophrenia and homicide convictions, but admits the problem is a shifting definition of mental illness: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16449701
Yeah, given how fucked up my mind is biochemically and neurologically, I can't and didn't mean to weigh in on how the two compare. I'll leave the judging to the people with fully developed and tested moral codes.
You two answered very quickly. I can only assume you have a vast knowledge of criminal psychology and didn't really need to do any research to come to your conclusions
Yes, sprees are not mentioned here, but I think you'll agree that it's unlikely for sprees to be caused by arguments, as a general rule. I think casting aspersions on us as you just did is rather poor form.
The heart of my question isn't whether the mode of the pathology is different, but whether by definition anyone who commits murder is mentally ill, regardless of how many victims they take. There seems to be a lot of scholarly and non-scholarly talk about it, with differing opinions.
As for the issue of mental illness and murder, humans have a long, dense history of murder, and while it's possible that almost all such cases have been related to mental illness, that is not something one should believe without good evidence for it.
Now, of course you could change the term "mental illness" so that homicide is considered one by definition, but I don't see how that is constructive. Was slavery a mental illness? Was human sacrifice a mental illness? Is war a mental illness?
You two answered very quickly. I can only assume you have a vast knowledge of criminal psychology and didn't really need to do any research to come to your conclusions
Yes, sprees are not mentioned here, but I think you'll agree that it's unlikely for sprees to be caused by arguments, as a general rule. I think casting aspersions on us as you just did is rather poor form.
The heart of my question isn't whether the mode of the pathology is different, but whether by definition anyone who commits murder is mentally ill, regardless of how many victims they take. There seems to be a lot of scholarly and non-scholarly talk about it, with differing opinions.
As for the issue of mental illness and murder, humans have a long, dense history of murder, and while it's possible that almost all such cases have been related to mental illness, that is not something one should believe without good evidence for it.
Now, of course you could change the term "mental illness" so that homicide is considered one by definition, but I don't see how that is constructive. Was slavery a mental illness? Was human sacrifice a mental illness? Is war a mental illness?</blockquote War, slavery, and humam sacrifice were cultural developments, so participating in them would not be considered a mental illness. Are unrelated homicides a part of ordinay culture in the US or are they an anomaly?
Are unrelated homicides a part of ordinay culture in the US or are they an anomaly?
I wouldn't say the homicides themselves are a part of the culture (though they may be part of certain subcultures, particularly those racked by poverty and drug abuse).
However, I do think an argument could be made that they are an outgrowth of a greater and more pervasive culture of violence. It's a similar idea to the feminist concept of "rape culture", and indeed there are direct connections between the two ideas. As a bare minimum, it's an issue that warrants research, and a discussion that needs having.
I like that idea. Well no, I don't, but it's interesting. How do we go about examining the culture surrounding violence? Where do we look for the roots of murder?
I like that idea. Well no, I don't, but it's interesting. How do we go about examining the culture surrounding violence? Where do we look for the roots of murder?
Let's start that discussion off with a specific question (and this is open-ended, not rhetorical; I don't know the answer). According to this article, the South is the most violent region in the U.S. by a significant margin. Why is this the case?
Let's start that discussion off with a question (and this is open-ended, not rhetorical; I don't know the answer). According to this article, the South is the most violent region in the U.S. by a significant margin. Why is this the case?
I'd like to see that compared to two pieces of data: one is a population map of gun owners in the US, and two is what happened in California in '06 to make that number dip (and yes, it was definitely California, considering they're the most populous state in the region, IIRC the country).
There are over 280 million guns in the US, 88.8 per 100 people. Ignoring all social and political forces at work, the notion that we could get rid of private gun ownership is laughable.
Here's an interesting idea: How about we blame the people who picked up guns and went on shooting sprees?
We can and we do. That, however, does nothing to help prevent future shootings.
We could find the people who are going to pick up guns and go on shooting sprees and stop them.
Also, mandatory and thorough testing and possibly psychological evaluation for gun ownership. Due to the Second Amendment you might not be able to restrict actual ownership on the basis of such tests, but you sure as hell could use it to find out who to keep an eye on.
Here's an interesting idea: How about we blame the people who picked up guns and went on shooting sprees?
We can and we do. That, however, does nothing to help prevent future shootings.
We could find the people who are going to pick up guns and go on shooting sprees and stop them.
What I want to get at with the argument from culture is that there are more effective methods than that. If the root cause has to do with characteristics of societal (rather than individual) behavior, then people who are going to kill will continue to spring up as a result of those societal norms. If we change those norms to create a culture of peace, then murder will drop.
I like that idea. Well no, I don't, but it's interesting. How do we go about examining the culture surrounding violence? Where do we look for the roots of murder?
Let's start that discussion off with a specific question (and this is open-ended, not rhetorical; I don't know the answer). According to this article, the South is the most violent region in the U.S. by a significant margin. Why is this the case?
The Atlantic has a good article on this. It points to a study examining the south's "culture of honor" and how it relates to violence:
Southerners do not endorse violence in the abstract more than do Northerners, nor do they endorse violence in all specific forms of circumstances. Rather, they are more likely to endorse violence as an appropriate response to insults, as a means of self protection, and as a socialization tool in training children. This is the characteristic cultural pattern of herding societies the world over. Consistent with the culture-of-honor interpretation, it is argument-related and not felony-related homicide that is more common in the South...
However, the study notes that school violence is not an outgrowth of that culture:
However, the state-level demographic variables that we examined-- which included temperature, rurality, social composition, and indices of economic and social insecurity--were unable to account for the association between culture of honor and our school-violence indicators, and also were inconsistent predictors of the school-violence variables across the two studies.
I want my damn thread back, make a fucking gun control thread.
I screwed the rear sight back on the Mini-14 and went shooting today with it. I forgot how much fun it is to shoot that gun. It really makes me question all the time, effort, and money I've spent on my AR15. I tried the .22 WMR cylinder in my Single Six and that had more of a pop than I was expecting and a nice fire ball. The range was only 20 yards long, but at another range I think those could go out to 50 yards with no trouble. Might need a bench rest, but it's definitely accurate enough. That will have to wait until the new year, cause the longer range is out by the mall and I'm not going anywhere near that until after the holiday. We also shot my roommate's new carry gun, a Ruger LCP in .357 magnum. The .38 spl rounds weren't too bad, but the .357 magnum loads were nuts! You really feel that in the web of your hand. Also shoot a little 12 ga shotgun. Don't know what it is about slugs, but even though we were only using 2.75" shells the recoil was nuts. After the first shot I crouched down a little and leaned way into it to keep it under control.
Funny story though, the range I went to was also a gun shop. There was a guy with 3 AR15s laid out out in front of him that I walked up to. He said, "You better buy one of these before they ban them." I said, "I've already got one, you're kinda late to the party." :P
As opposed to spree killings, which are far more unusual.
I understood that -- but are you suggesting the pathology of a person who is willing to murder one person is somehow better than the pathology of someone willing to kill several? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out why you want a different classification.
Cheese and Greg pretty much covered what I was thinking, but essentially, yes. One would think there is at least some notable difference between bludgeoning your wife to death with a golf trophy in a moment of blinding rage, or even the premeditated murder of a single person who has slighted you in some real or imagined way, and collecting up a bunch of weapons and ammo, walking into the local mall, and opening fire on a bunch of randoms with whom you've never had any interaction with the intent to kill as many people as possible.
With how assured of your conclusion you are, you must have some sort of cause in mind, however? Something that makes every person who has committed homicide a potential Anders Breivik or Charles Whitman?
Also, mandatory and thorough testing and possibly psychological evaluation for gun ownership.
I've been talking about that for the better part of a decade. It's a damned good idea. Sure, it might not entirely eliminate risk, without a clear and definite cause it's hard to say what will, but I don't doubt that it will lessen the risk significantly.
EDUIT - WUB bought up a different issue outside the forum that reminded me of another measure I'm in favor of - If you're going to have ANYONE allowed to concealed carry, then there should be MANDATORY training, with a 95%-100% pass grade. You fail? No concealed carry. And I'm not talking about New York Police training, here, I mean actually teaching people, Along with mandatory refresher courses every few years(Hey, if I had to re-certify when I was flying for yelling at people and first aid, you can bet your left bollock that you should be re-certifying for carrying a firearm), and randomized re-testing.
Whilst lying in bed and musing I came to the conclusion that double barreled guns need to be more common. There is something cool about having twice the amount of barrels, or even three times regardless of practicality.
Whilst lying in bed and musing I came to the conclusion that double barreled guns need to be more common. There is something cool about having twice the amount of barrels, or even three times regardless of practicality.
I know man, I love those safari guns that have like 2 shotgun barrels with a rifle barrel on top.
I just really liked the idea of having one big magazine that fed both barrels, or maybe even quad barrels. It would be heavy as hell but man would it be cool. The safari guns are fascinating the history that surrounds them is amazing.
I had a double barreled shotgun. That hurt like a mofo to shot cause the gun was so light.
One of the main guns I shot was a double barreled shot gun. Do you prefer over under or side by side?
Comments
@Everyone blaming news outlets: Unfortunately, there is very little concrete evidence linking seeming copycat killers to media coverage. Often, so-called copycats are discovered to have been planning violence for long periods of time prior to such coverage.
I've been hunting for studies that conclusively prove a media link. So far, the online evidence I've found is shady at best and often cites "experts" but no hard data. More commonly I see mixed data compiled to show inconclusive results.
This isn't to say that media outlets have no responsibility or no guilt in regard to seeming copycat slayings -- only that the cold, hard facts suggest a tangential and highly contestable link to media coverage. Certainly there is not enough evidence to show causation, even if it exists to show correlation. And further evidence would be needed to show the media is responsible for primary causation.
The larger question is what to do about it. News coverage is necessary. The temptation is to self-censor, but that also presents several problems: First, that ignorance isn't bliss, it's just ignorance.
Second, it might be a greater injustice to color the Connecticut story in hard blacks and whites, dehumanizing it with a "just the facts" approach to coverage. The common complaint is that the media is "sensationalizing" the shootings, but they are sadly a sensational event. There's nothing small about 27 violent deaths for innocent children. Those dead kids deserve every second of attention they have received from every hundred million viewers in the past couple of days. It would be wholly inappropriate to give this story only a three-minute segment and move on.
On the other hand, there have already been other shootings reported in public spaces today, including a fatality in an Alabama hospital and a southern California mall shooting that ended without injuries.
Were NBC, CNN, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post responsible for those?
There is a legal concept that says that, for example, city workers trying to fix a broken sewer pipe can't be held responsible if your basement floods in the course of their work, because they are conducting a good-faith effort to address a larger problem.
The same principle applies to the media. You simply cannot hold a newsgroup responsible if, in the course of telling the truth (no matter how distasteful you may find that truth to be), a mentally ill person reacts criminally.
Another more important distinction is probably premeditated vs. not, though.
The heart of my question isn't whether the mode of the pathology is different, but whether by definition anyone who commits murder is mentally ill, regardless of how many victims they take. There seems to be a lot of scholarly and non-scholarly talk about it, with differing opinions.
Here's an interesting look at it in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/are-all-murderers-mentally-ill/67295/
Here's another from Time:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/31/mass-murder-and-mental-illness-the-interplay-of-stigma-culture-and-disease/
This study talks about a link between schizophrenia and homicide convictions, but admits the problem is a shifting definition of mental illness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16449701
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/cfi/101-120/cfi110.html
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/12.htm
Yes, sprees are not mentioned here, but I think you'll agree that it's unlikely for sprees to be caused by arguments, as a general rule. I think casting aspersions on us as you just did is rather poor form.
As for the issue of mental illness and murder, humans have a long, dense history of murder, and while it's possible that almost all such cases have been related to mental illness, that is not something one should believe without good evidence for it.
Now, of course you could change the term "mental illness" so that homicide is considered one by definition, but I don't see how that is constructive. Was slavery a mental illness? Was human sacrifice a mental illness? Is war a mental illness?
However, I do think an argument could be made that they are an outgrowth of a greater and more pervasive culture of violence. It's a similar idea to the feminist concept of "rape culture", and indeed there are direct connections between the two ideas. As a bare minimum, it's an issue that warrants research, and a discussion that needs having.
Why is this the case?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control
Southerners do not endorse violence in the abstract more than do Northerners, nor do they endorse violence in all specific forms of circumstances. Rather, they are more likely to endorse violence as an appropriate response to insults, as a means of self protection, and as a socialization tool in training children. This is the characteristic cultural pattern of herding societies the world over. Consistent with the culture-of-honor interpretation, it is argument-related and not felony-related homicide that is more common in the South...
However, the study notes that school violence is not an outgrowth of that culture:
However, the state-level demographic variables that we examined-- which included temperature, rurality, social composition, and indices of economic and social insecurity--were unable to account for the association between culture of honor and our school-violence indicators, and also were inconsistent predictors of the school-violence variables across the two studies.
Where do school shootings come from?
I screwed the rear sight back on the Mini-14 and went shooting today with it. I forgot how much fun it is to shoot that gun. It really makes me question all the time, effort, and money I've spent on my AR15. I tried the .22 WMR cylinder in my Single Six and that had more of a pop than I was expecting and a nice fire ball. The range was only 20 yards long, but at another range I think those could go out to 50 yards with no trouble. Might need a bench rest, but it's definitely accurate enough. That will have to wait until the new year, cause the longer range is out by the mall and I'm not going anywhere near that until after the holiday. We also shot my roommate's new carry gun, a Ruger LCP in .357 magnum. The .38 spl rounds weren't too bad, but the .357 magnum loads were nuts! You really feel that in the web of your hand. Also shoot a little 12 ga shotgun. Don't know what it is about slugs, but even though we were only using 2.75" shells the recoil was nuts. After the first shot I crouched down a little and leaned way into it to keep it under control.
Funny story though, the range I went to was also a gun shop. There was a guy with 3 AR15s laid out out in front of him that I walked up to. He said, "You better buy one of these before they ban them." I said, "I've already got one, you're kinda late to the party." :P
With how assured of your conclusion you are, you must have some sort of cause in mind, however? Something that makes every person who has committed homicide a potential Anders Breivik or Charles Whitman? I've been talking about that for the better part of a decade. It's a damned good idea. Sure, it might not entirely eliminate risk, without a clear and definite cause it's hard to say what will, but I don't doubt that it will lessen the risk significantly.
EDUIT - WUB bought up a different issue outside the forum that reminded me of another measure I'm in favor of - If you're going to have ANYONE allowed to concealed carry, then there should be MANDATORY training, with a 95%-100% pass grade. You fail? No concealed carry. And I'm not talking about New York Police training, here, I mean actually teaching people, Along with mandatory refresher courses every few years(Hey, if I had to re-certify when I was flying for yelling at people and first aid, you can bet your left bollock that you should be re-certifying for carrying a firearm), and randomized re-testing.