Now that the knee jerk reactions seem to be quieting down...

[pipoman]

Once again the conversation will slowly quiet, and the next time, all of the unworkable, unpopular, unconstitutional 'ideas' will reemerge.

Once again we have had days of endless gun control advocacy, and nearly no threads about the actual cause of these incidents.

Maybe looking at the dates of spree killings? Of coarse this is Wiki, if there is a better source bring it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

1-1927
1-1949
1-1951
1-1958
1-1966
1-1975
1-1985
1-1986
1-1987
1-1989
1-1991
2-1993
1-1999
1-2002
1-2005
2-2007
1-2009
1-2010
2-2011
3-2012

That is 6 spree killings in the 57 years between 1927 and 1984...and 19 spree killings in the 27 years since 1985.

Interesting, huh? What has changed?

Well..The US has always, since long before 1927, had a lot of guns...including semi-automatics, and including extended magazines.

1981 Ronald McRaygun was president.

1980: The National Mental Health Systems Act, which asserted that the federal government would continue to shape mental health policy but assume less of the burden of paying for treatment, is passed.
1980: The New York State Insanity Defense Reform Act increased the OMH's responsibility for caring for and evaluating criminals deemed not responsible by reason of insanity.
1980's: The OMH created new initiatives designed to meet the specific needs of mentally ill African-Americans and Latinos, develops outpatient programs for the elderly/Alzheimer patients, mentally ill criminals, and people with AIDS.
Early 1980's: Seeking to cut federal expenditures, the Reagan administration directed the Social Security Administration to pare the SSI and SSDI rolls. Social Security administrators responded by developing definitions of mental illness that diverged from those used in the past and those employed by mental health professionals. The resulting dislocations ultimately produced a public outcry that compelled the administration and Social Security to back down.
1981: The 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repealed the provisions of the National Mental Health Systems Act, cut federal mental health and substance abuse allocations by twenty-five percent, and converted them to block grants disbursed with few strings attached. New York State, which used block-grant monies to fund community-based programs, and other states have to cut mental health programs.

-snip-

1993: The Clinton administration's efforts to create a national health insurance program were notable for their relatively generous provisions for mental health care. However, Republicans and many Democrats in Congress rejected the plan and the administration shied away from advancing any other bold policy initiatives.

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_health_mh_timeline.shtml

The above time line is very interesting..very interesting..It appears that since the colonial period in the US we have funded and housed people with severe mental disorders..right up to 1981. After 1981, without funding, most states reduced the number of mental hospital beds to only accommodate the wealthy and people ordered into their care AFTER commission of a criminal act. Parents, siblings and spouses could contribute to an involuntary commitment if the person was believed to be a danger to themselves or others. People who acted strangely who were taken into custody could be held for psych evaluation. If the person was deemed a danger to themselves or others they could be held until they were no longer a danger.

Now, if a person wants inpatient mental health services and can't pay out of pocket, it is impossible to get inpatient services. Some health insurance will pay for very limited mental health services. The only way to get these services is after commission of a crime.

Which is the most 'reasonable' area to concentrate political action on? Gun control? Firearm regulation is not perfect, but there is more regulation than it has ever been, since 1927. Or funding for mental health and addiction services? which is sorely lacking and corresponds almost exactly with the increase of spree killings.



,

[demosincebirth]

1. Originally the NRA was an organization for sensible gun ownership. What the hell happened?

[cthulu2016]

2. "there is more regulation than it has ever been, since 1927"

Guns are more regulated today than in, say, 1996?

Which post 1981 spree-killings were perpetrated by de-institutionalized mental patients?

[pipoman]

6. Did I say

'guns are more regulated now than 1996'? No, I did not.

Which post 1981 spree killers have not had friends, family, or acquaintances state they are shocked, that the person was so normal? Which haven't been later deemed mentally ill or disturbed? I told how I came to my conclusions, please tell how you have come to the conclusion that my theory is incorrect.

[cthulu2016]

21. Yes, you did say that. But you may not have intended to.

"Firearm regulation is not perfect, but there is more regulation than it has ever been, since 1927."

[loli phabay]

3. i ama ctually surprised there are so few, it just dosent seem like that much time has passed since

VT and now.

[pipoman]

7. I find it interesting how many have happened in other

'safer' nations. The list on Wiki has what they are saying is a complete list from around the globe.

[truedelphi]

4. Actaully the list is rather incomplete - after all,

During Prohibition, there were tons of "spree killings," so I don't think Wikipeda contributors are handling this correctly. One of the reasons that the government ended Prohibition in the early thirties was because the people were sick and tired of how the the mob was using their "gats" to get more and more control, and the streets in the cities were getting bloodier.

But overall, I think your thoughts on this are brilliant. The modern day spree killings do seem to be related to mental illness.

Thank you for posting this.

[pipoman]

9. I was curious

if someone would name incidents not listed. I can't think of any, every one I could think of was on the list.

[LeftinOH]

17. There seem to be a few spree killings missing from the list:

1984 San Ysidro McDonalds massacre (one of the worst ever)

2009 LA Fitness Gym massacre (in Pennsylvania)

...and those two were just the ones I could think of -there are surely more.

[truedelphi]

18. I didn't notice the St Valentine's murders of 1929 on the list.

And I also googled the expressions "Prohibition" + gangland killings + Chicago and got a lot of references.

And if you add PBS + Ken Burns to the expression, you will find some gruesome photos of people killed in a restaurant in Detroit, and a dead body in a tavern and others.

My dad was a young man growing up in Chicago during Prohibition. He was basically in his teens and early twenties, and he talked about how people ducked for cover when cars backfired on the city streets.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

5. What else happened in the early eighties?

Cable news.

[pipoman]

10. I don't disagree that there are certainly other factors

which may contribute. Some of those other factors actually incite people with mental instability I believe. Illusions of grandeur, etc.

[Locrian]

12. I think you've got it (part of it)

Culture of violence, feeling of isolation, at the same time publicity, 'fame', mental illness(?)

Guns.... sure. But if there was some other horrific 'event' / method that got huge publicity and attention, then *that* would be the new standard for the rest of the nut-jobs to follow.

Someone mentioned 'terrorism' on a post and it *is*. And there are many ways to create that fear / attention / etc.


How we stop it will be extremely complicated, and likely involve very 'boring' and 'un-simple' solutions like better access to mental health, less violent and aggressive culture options, more ways for people to interact on a basic human level, ???

[Fumesucker]

8. Right wing talk radio started in the 80's, or at least came to prominence..

Remember "America Held Hostage" during the Clinton administration?

[quaker bill]

11. Correlation is not causation

Other factors should be subject to the same analysis so an analysis of variance can be run.

People who shoot up movie theaters are defined as insane 100% of the time, (because nearly everyone sees this as an insane act) this biases sampling. There are lots and lots of people with mental issues who don't own guns and never shoot anything up. In fact it is pretty clear that the vast majority of folks with mental issues don't ever go on killing rampages, or the news would be far more colorful.

It would be decidedly good if all of them had access to appropriate treatment, but I am very much unsure that this would solve the problem you are addressing.

[pipoman]

14. And I am positive

that there are no constitutional gun control regulations (most of the gun control suggestions bandied about lately wouldn't pass any constitutional challenge) which would have any effect at all.

This is a theory. Addressing the theory by making mental health services available to anyone who needs them may or may not reduce these incidents, no matter how you slice it making those services available would be good for many, many people. Also, I can't think of one of these killers who hasn't had almost every person who knows them state that the person did have mental issues....many have people who love them try to get them help without success. Also, based on past gun legislation both legislation still in effect and that which has fallen off the books, I've seen none which has had any real effect. One benefit of having some mechanism allowing for petitioning by loved ones for involuntary commitment would add that person to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which (if the system works correctly) would automatically put the person on the list of prohibited firearms purchasers.

My position isn't that this would stop all of these...we'll likely always have some. my position is that making mental health and addiction services available and fund it would have more effect than all of the gun control mania suggested hereabouts over the days since this latest tragedy.

[quaker bill]

19. I get that it is a compare and contrast

As I say, I am all for mental healthcare availability, as far as that is concerned, physical healthcare too.

I am not convinced that the lack of mental healthcare access has anything to do with mass shootings. I am very much not clear that people in a psychological flux headed toward such an act have any real interest in effective treatment.

Using your stats for instance one could run simple population density (people/square mile) against the frequency of mass shootings and probably find a strong correlation. I would bet one could run the firearm density #of guns/person against the stat and find a strong correlation.

It is all lovely to rationalize, you know: "it is not the presence of guns, it is the lack of mental healthcare" but it is an experiment with little data to support it leaves people at risk. How many people's lives are you willing to toss at your theory? That is a real question.

Of course the real answer is "I will keep my unfettered right to keep and bear firearms regardless of the body count." That my friend is the final answer, correct?

[pipoman]

24. The final answer is that there is no final answer..

There is no "unfettered right to keep and bear firearms", on the contrary, the right is subject to several thousand regulations. There will be no unconstitutional regulation of firearms. There will be no repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore wouldn't it be far more constructive to concentrate ideas of change on those things, which regardless the effect on this one issue would benefit society as a whole without infringing on enumerated civil liberties? There is far less quantifiable evidence that gun availability has any impact on the number of these than there are many other social factors. It is also very demonstrable that with the dramatic gun regulation put in place over the last 80 years or so, there has been no real effect on these incidents with any of them...including the NICS which has denied gun sales to literally millions of people.

On a side note about the NICS, I find it alarming that with the millions of NICS denials has been almost no enforcement. If someone is denied a firearm transfer there is almost always the criminal offense of perjury. Prior to an NICS check, the buyer has to fill out a Form #4473. This form asks questions about criminal and mental background, drug use, etc. If you answer yes to any of those questions, the firearms dealer is supposed to deny the sale without ever calling NICS. Lying on the 4473 is purjury as stated on the form. Additionally, if NICS denies a transfer the FBI and BATFE knows that this prohibited person is actively trying to buy a gun. They have the person's name, telephone number, address, etc...yet less than 1% of NICS are ever even investigated. Why would that be? A huge percentage of denials have committed a crime in signing the 4473 if nothing else..but I suspect many ineligible people trying to buy guns are trying to but them for less than legal reasons.

[joeybee12]

13. Unrec...

Technically yours is not a knee-jerk reaction, but a flase cause and effect analogy leaving out data that doesn't fit your theory. Guns are the problem. They aren't the only problem, but the unfettered access to them is.

[pipoman]

15. Really?

Then why the phenomenal increase in these since 1985? Prior to 1993 anyone could walk into any gun store almost anywhere in the nation and walk out with their weapon of choice with no background check, no id, no questions asked. ..cash and carry. Since 1993 NICS has denied millions of firearms sales which would have previously happened without question. NICS (Brady Bill) was by far the most significant gun control legislation passed since 1934, perhaps ever..yet numbers have actually increased since 1993...what does that say about gun control as a cure for these things?

[Lurks Often]

16. I don't believe it is any one thing,

but a combination of things and that combination differs from mass murderer to mass murderer.

I am fairly certain that the FBI and other entities have done studies that compared mass murderer to mass murderer to see what common factors exist among them. If there are common factors in what causes a mass murderer to decide to commit such a horrific crime, then we need to address those causes.

Blaming any one thing, be it violent video games, violent movies, firearms, etc is simplistic.

[EX500rider]

20. Another reason would be population growth..

1900-76 million
1950-152 million
2000-283 million
2011-311 million

Not surprising if twice the population had twice the incidents.

Obviously the growth in sprees has been beyond that so other factors are also at play.

[grantcart]

22. Spree killing?

You do realize that the murders in Colorado do not meet your narrow definition

A spree killer is someone who embarks on a murderous assault on two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders".[1]

It only covers those assaults that occur in MORE than one location. It doesn't include serial or mass murders.

Here is the list of rampage killers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas

which is not to be confused with school massacres which has its own classification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres

or workplace killings that, again, have their own claissification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Workplace_killings

which is not to be confused with family spree killings or familicide, which has its own classification

including its own sub groups of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_familicides_in_the_United_States


So yes the number of "spree killings", meaning multiple killings at more than one location is not siginificant. That doesn't include the shootings in Aurora CO, or most of the others of hundreds of incidents where there are multiple victims, covering many categories.

[pipoman]

23. Interesting..and why I posted this

I am certainly open to flaws in my theory. I wrote the op in about 1/2 hour, I wasn't presenting it as a thesis, instead an idea. Thanks for pointing this out.

Interesting that there were 62 "rampage killers" (which, apparently, is a combination of 'spree killers' and 'mass murders') in the 117 years between 1863 and 1980 and 54 rampage killers in the 31 years between 1981 and 2012 almost double the rate...

The same applies, that during 20 of the 31 years the NICS has been in place and has denied access to guns to millions based on their criminal history and/or mental health history, while in the years prior to NICS guns were cash and carry..yet the numbers continued to rise. I believe that the correlation between lack of mental health services is much more distinct and demonstrable than the continuous meme that it's all about the guns.

[grantcart]

28. I believe that the very narrow classification that is represented in spree

killing renders your OP moot as it is based on a spectacularly low statistic on a very particular definition which in fact doesn't represent what most people are going to think it is.

I also find the comment on 'knee jerk' reactions to be condescending and not DU worthy. While there is a lot of emotion in some of the reactions it doesn't mean that those emotions are not based on solid facts and arguments.

I have found it difficult to find good faith interlocutors among 'gun enthusiasts' here who are willing to stay on point in the discussions. I raised the issue in Meta and used this thread as an example.

[pipoman]

30. So

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

if the debate isn't about gun control it isn't "on point"...is that it? What does this even mean? "I have found it difficult to find good faith interlocutors among 'gun enthusiasts' here who are willing to stay on point in the discussions." How about an example to help me understand what you are referring to?

Did you not even read my response to your post? Not enough contrition for ya?

"I also find the comment on 'knee jerk' reactions to be condescending and not DU worthy." LOL..because everyone knows that nobody on DU is condescending, huh? LOLOL Is that condescending as in, say...failure to acknowledge contrition? Then there's this.."I raised the issue in Meta and used this thread as an example."..A laugh a minute I tell ya...Now your taking this thread over to that bastion of non-condescension, huh? :ROFL:

I have found the gun control advocates completely disconnected from reality both in their proposals and in their inability to grasp the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are other reasons and causes for these incidents. The proposals have ranged from simply irrelevant to completely unconstitutional. There are no "solid facts" behind any of the repeated memes.

Gun control is completely dead. Why do you hate the idea of looking for actual doable answers rather than beating a dead horse?

[Zyzafyx]

25. It isn't just an individual phenomenon

Our society itself is mentally ill.

[Javaman]

29. +1 nt

[leveymg]

26. Gun regulation or mental health services? Not an either/or policy choice.

Has there always been too many crazy people with guns in America? The question and your post answers that mystery.

[pipoman]

31. Not really..

I haven't seen a single gun control idea proposed here which has a chance of even receiving debate. Most are unconstitutional, cost prohibitive, or demonstrably without effect. There will be no new gun control any time soon...none. Who is going to object to improving access to mental health services (couched in the discussion about these types of incidents)? No, gun control advocates aren't interested for fear of success. The only chance gun control has is a knee jerk in response to one of these tragedies...to gun control advocates it would be tragic if something other than gun control drove their pet cause out of public debate.

[uponit7771]

27. Then that's a reason for both gun control and mental help