Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gun control becomes impossible (Page 33)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38   
Author Topic: Gun control becomes impossible
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
There are alot of shootings with multiple deaths that are categorized differently. Someone killing their two business partners, or their wife and her lover then then themselves doesn't meet the standard, nor does someone killing their whole family.

The standard for what?

quote:
The mother/son one was in your following post, I didn't think you'd included it (not sure), but it was a convenient example.
No, the two shootings at gun ranges were not included in the list of mass shootings. I had passed by them in putting together the list, and were relevant to the post I attached them to, so I put them there.

quote:
quote:
I would submit that the shooters are more likely to look for a place where lots of people are, rather than being concerned about whether or not that place is a gun free zone.
Honestly, you and Tom both made this point, but I don't see as particularly meaningfull. The studies of mass shootings require that they be in a place with lots of people, in some cases the shooter goes to more than one place looking for people. If they didn't go to a place with people it wouldn't be a mass shooting, hence it's almost a definitional element. What good does it do to say that Tennis Players can be found on tennis courts if you're interested in the grass versus clay breakdown?
There were two claims to the common thread between the original 30 shootings listed. One was that they almost all took place in gun free zones. The other was that they took place where the shooter had a perceived reason to strike. The data collection was intended to determine if a mass shooting was more likely to take place in a gun free zone, or to be targeted. (I added the other 20 because I came across them in my research and they were mass shootings, which seemed relevant to the topic of mass shootings. Seneca helped by adding one more mass shooting that I had missed.)

quote:
But there are a lot of places with lots of people that are not necessarily gun free zones. There is some element of target selection beyond just a group of people that seems to lead to the coincindence of choosing the gun free zones.

And I should point out, if my analysis of your stats held true on a bigger scale, it would prove Seneca correct. If gun free/not gun free is irrelevant in targetted killings and gun free is a selector in non-targetted killings, then gun free zones would in fact be detrimental to irrelevant as a protection mechanism. [Edit - from mass killings]

The question was which is more common in mass shootings, a particular target, or a gun free zone.


quote:
quote:
(The Fort Worth shooting could be classified as targeted, he went into a Baptist church shouting anti-Baptist stuff, but it isn't clear that he had anti-Baptist sentiments before he showed up at the church, he could have pulled up and seen the name of the church and plugged that into his pile of invective, so I left it as not targeted)
I think you have a identified a problem with your selection criteria on targetted versus non-targetted. Some people would require that the person have a known grievance with specific people at the location to consider it targetted, pulling into a Baptist church because it happened to be in your way and you hate Baptists, may not qualify by all measures.
That is why I left it off the list of targeted shootings. I just wanted to point out that there was some evidence suggesting that it may have been targeted, but not enough to conclusive list it as targeted.


quote:
quote:
Either way, mass shootings are much more likely to be targeted than to take place in a gun free zone, which was the original question the data was meant to address.
The original question was whether people select gun free zones for attacks. I don't think it's very relevant to the question if people who are targetting specific people do it at gun free zones or not. Presumably targetted killings are going to occur irregardless of whether someone has a soft gun free policy or not.

I think the more relevant question is whether for the random actor is there a draw to the gun free zone over other populated spots. There definitely seems to be, though the increase of school shootings in the last few years is going to make this correllation exist even if isn't the true cause. I certainly would not be surprised for instance to discover that the causation is the increased media coverage/noteriety of attacking a school rather than the unarmed nature of the people there. But I don't think you can just dismiss the correllation.

You need a more comprehensive study to make that kind of determination, and you need a carefull set of standards for what data goes into it to be sure you're not getting a confounded result.

I agree that if we are discussing random acts of violence, then the question of gun free zones is more important. I would also contend that mass shootings are more often targeted than random, so ignoring the larger part of the problem would be misleading.

Like complaining that a college football team has a weak schedule when you only look at their out of conference opponents. You ignore the majority of the teams they play and get a skewed view of their strength of schedule.

(And I absolutely agree with you that the increased media coverage/noteriety is a factor. We have written testimony from several school shooters saying exactly that. This is one of the reasons that I listed the shootings by location rather than by shooter.)

I agree that a more comprehensive study would give us more clear answers, but no one is paying me to do one [Smile] However, the difference is large enough that this quick run through pretty clearly indicates that the common thread in mass shootings is a target rather than the gun free status of the location.

[ June 10, 2014, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You realize that the status of gun free zone is very likely part of the targeting calculus, if not the deciding factor, right? Who in their lives has just ONE place and ONE group of people that is a source of frustration for them? I can't imagine someone living 15-35 years of life and having only one...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You realize that the status of gun free zone is very likely part of the targeting calculus, if not the deciding factor, right?
I realize nothing of the kind. I think only a very particularly narrow-minded sort of person believes that to be the case, in fact.

Now, I'm not saying that shooters won't take the difficulty of killing a large number of people into account when they set out to do so. "I'm going to storm the Pentagon by myself, with a handgun," said almost nobody ever, after all. But when you're trying to decide where to shoot a bunch of people, your primary consideration isn't going to be "how likely are people in that area to be carrying guns," but rather "where will the people gather, where will they run, how will I approach, and what will the news say?"

Mass shooters have an emotional connection to their act; they're making a statement. They're almost always deliberately committing suicide. They're not researching state gun laws and looking for stickers.

[ June 10, 2014, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who in their lives has just ONE place and ONE group of people that is a source of frustration for them? I can't imagine someone living 15-35 years of life and having only one...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of all the factors that might lead someone to prioritize their targets, I strongly suspect the presence of a gun-free zone is a non-issue.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After all, when someone is out of shape and wants to go on a hike, they choose Mt. Everest 9 times out of 10 right? [Roll Eyes]

These psychos have goals, or else they wouldn't have motivation to get out of bed.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you think the Millers, after shooting two cops, ran into WalMart? Were they looking forward to shooting a concealed carrier? What was their motivation?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
You realize that the status of gun free zone is very likely part of the targeting calculus, if not the deciding factor, right?

Why would they even care, except if their explicit intention was to game for an effective suicide.
(To the extent that there's any meaningful planning at all into the actual location if it's not a targeted event, rather than just happening to be where they were when something pushed them over the edge.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
You realize that the status of gun free zone is very likely part of the targeting calculus, if not the deciding factor, right?

Why would they even care, except if their explicit intention was to game for an effective suicide.
(To the extent that there's any meaningful planning at all into the actual location if it's not a targeted event, rather than just happening to be where they were when something pushed them over the edge.)

Why would they care? Because they didn't want to die the moment they pulled out their gun or fired their first few shots. They wanted to get some things done before they died.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
The standard for what?

Go back and look at the link Al provided to the study. The standard for what constitutes a mass killing for the studies purpose. There are some 12-14K homicides a year, the link Al provided covered less than 200 people last year. Seneca's list of 30 appeared to me to be essentially an anecdotal collection attempting to cover the same group, though Al's study had over one hundred in it.

Bringing it random links to things that would have been excluded doesn't add anything, you'd need to compare it to a more relevant study/list.

I was trying to get clarity about whether your additional examples were on the same topic, but from your response I'm kind of doubtfull about that now.
quote:
There were two claims to the common thread between the original 30 shootings listed. One was that they almost all took place in gun free zones. The other was that they took place where the shooter had a perceived reason to strike.
You missed the third and primary reason they were on this list. They were mass shootings. It was not just a list of everyone shot in a gun free zone. Nor are all multiple killings deemed massed shootings.
quote:
The data collection was intended to determine if a mass shooting was more likely to take place in a gun free zone, or to be targeted.
Why? Has anyone made an argument that mass shootings are more likely to be random than targetted? Except for pyschotics who engages in non-targeted mass shootings?
quote:
(I added the other 20 because I came across them in my research and they were mass shootings, which seemed relevant to the topic of mass shootings. Seneca helped by adding one more mass shooting that I had missed.)
So how did you define mass shootings? Did you include gang violence, which noone else has? Did you include home invasions? Or targetted murder? Did you include intrafamily murder?

Consider a single type of killing, a person murders their whole family and kills themselves in their home. That would be a targetted killing is a zone that clearly wasn't gun free. Including it however, provides no usefull information on whether or not gun free zones increase risk, it just distorts the data pool.
quote:
The question was which is more common in mass shootings, a particular target, or a gun free zone.
Did someone ask that?
quote:
That is why I left it off the list of targeted shootings. I just wanted to point out that there was some evidence suggesting that it may have been targeted, but not enough to conclusive list it as targeted.
Which is why I've been trying to get you to explain your criteria, so we can understand what your findings mean.
quote:
I agree that if we are discussing random acts of violence, then the question of gun free zones is more important. I would also contend that mass shootings are more often targeted than random, so ignoring the larger part of the problem would be misleading.
Your own conclusions would indicate that gun free zones are irrelevant as a protection against targetted killings.
quote:
Like complaining that a college football team has a weak schedule when you only look at their out of conference opponents. You ignore the majority of the teams they play and get a skewed view of their strength of schedule.
More like considering their home and away when they never play out of conference games on the road. You could see a clear pattern in the OOC portion that is distorted by including the in conference portion (where the pattern doesn't repeat becuase the team doesn't have a choice). You can see it even more at the high school level, where some teams are so powerful they actually buy their opponents "home" games away and end up playing all their games in their own stadium.
quote:
(And I absolutely agree with you that the increased media coverage/noteriety is a factor. We have written testimony from several school shooters saying exactly that. This is one of the reasons that I listed the shootings by location rather than by shooter.)
I didn't say it was a factor, I said it wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't suprise me if gun free zones were the cause. It would surprise me if gun ownership caused mass killings (though there's a necessary definitional correlation stemming from the impossibility of kiling someone with a gun you don't have).
quote:
I agree that a more comprehensive study would give us more clear answers, but no one is paying me to do one [Smile] However, the difference is large enough that this quick run through pretty clearly indicates that the common thread in mass shootings is a target rather than the gun free status of the location.
Which I think adds nothing since its not an either/or between targetted and gun free status.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, Seneca, what location with a lot of people do you believe is so likely to be full of guns that a typical mass murderer would believe that he'd die the moment he fired a few shots?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
You realize that the status of gun free zone is very likely part of the targeting calculus, if not the deciding factor, right?

Why would they even care, except if their explicit intention was to game for an effective suicide.
(To the extent that there's any meaningful planning at all into the actual location if it's not a targeted event, rather than just happening to be where they were when something pushed them over the edge.)

Why would they care? Because they didn't want to die the moment they pulled out their gun or fired their first few shots. They wanted to get some things done before they died.
If they were that lucid, then they wouldn't be shooting in the first place, unless dying was their objective.

Better bet, if it was a consideration at all, that they'd figure since they'd be the one with a gun already out, that they could shoot anyone else that tried to pull a gun in the process of drawing. That's probably an edge case though. Odds are they aren't thinking about much beyond their immediate pain though.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they were that lucid, then they wouldn't be shooting in the first place, unless dying was their objective.
That's a big speculation and doesn't seem to follow common-sense or basic path-of-least-resistance logic.

quote:
Better bet, if it was a consideration at all, that they'd figure since they'd be the one with a gun already out, that they could shoot anyone else that tried to pull a gun in the process of drawing. That's probably an edge case though. Odds are they aren't thinking about much beyond their immediate pain though.
If that were true why get in a motor vehicle and travel to a remote location far away from their house at all? Why not just walk out the front door and start shooting? Your explanation doesn't fly.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
That's a big speculation and doesn't seem to follow common-sense or basic path-of-least-resistance logic.

Neither does shooting a lot of people in the first place. You're presuming a heck of a lot by suggesting that they're apparently perfectly rational except for that one little thing, rather than losing their grip in general.

quote:
If that were true why get in a motor vehicle and travel to a remote location far away from their house at all? Why not just walk out the front door and start shooting? Your explanation doesn't fly.
Why start shooting in the first place at that point? If the place is far from their starting point (which is what I assume you actually mean by "remote" there, since you don't have many mass shootings at places that could actually could be considered remote) then you're almost certainly looking at a targeted event, even if it's not clear what the reason for targeting was.

In any case, trying to apply your logic for what you might do if you were trying to maximize the body count to the actions of someone that's lost their grip enough that they're actually going out and shooting is insanely presumptuous. The best reports that we have of motivation from those that survived to be interviewed is, effectively, that they anted attention, not that they actually cared about how many people they could shoot before they were stopped or even that they cared about personally surviving the event.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My assumption is that even in areas that are not "gun free" there will be very few civilians carrying guns. Is this impression incorrect? It looks like something like 10% of Utahns have a concealed carry permit and of the handful of people that I know who own such a permit, none regularly carry. One woman, for instance, trains for marathons only takes it when she's jogging in remote areas at night. Her husband got a permit with her but doesn't even own a gun himself.

Given that the number of people actually carrying is apparently substantially below 10% even in a state with liberal concealed carry laws, I can't imagine that this would ever be a significant factor in planning an attack. Personally, if I were going to shoot up a mall I'd be much more concerned about how many armed security personal the mall had than whether it was a "gun free zone". There's also the fact that shooting sprees are highly emotional acts which rarely include a lot of careful deliberation. If I wanted to kill a lot of people and not be killed in the process I'd be using bombs or poison or some other method that obviates the need to even care who might be armed.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My assumption is that even in areas that are not "gun free" there will be very few civilians carrying guns. Is this impression incorrect?
No. A tiny, tiny minority of Americans actually carry. Those that do are likely to own at least five guns.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

Better bet, if it was a consideration at all, that they'd figure since they'd be the one with a gun already out, that they could shoot anyone else that tried to pull a gun in the process of drawing.

And usually they are right until police show up or they have to reload.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who in their lives has just ONE place and ONE group of people that is a source of frustration for them? I can't imagine someone living 15-35 years of life and having only one...
If you mean how many people have more than one sub-group of people they want to slaughter, I would think that's a very small number.
quote:
Why would they care? Because they didn't want to die the moment they pulled out their gun or fired their first few shots.
You really think if they were intent on shooting people that someone with a gun would open fire in the midst of whatever crowd the shooter was in? Do you think instead that a bystander would pull a gun on a heavily armed shooter and tell him to put down his weapon "or else"?
quote:
That's a big speculation and doesn't seem to follow common-sense or basic path-of-least-resistance logic.
How big do you think your speculations are? I would say out of all proportion to any underpinning of logic or fact.

Think a little harder.

Seriati:
quote:
Bringing it random links to things that would have been excluded doesn't add anything, you'd need to compare it to a more relevant study/list.
See what I mean about wanting to have statistics your own way [Smile] ?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think instead that a bystander would pull a gun on a heavily armed shooter and tell him to put down his weapon "or else"?
To be fair, that appears to be exactly what happened with the Millers. Of course, that bystander was then shot and killed.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder what is the proper way to honor a citizen who throws himself in front of a pair of heavily armed crazed neo-Nazis who are obviously intent on going out in a blaze of glory. Not with the Nobel, I would guess.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Too early to add today's high school shooting to the list?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't know that it was a mass shooting yet, AFAIK. So yeah.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seriati:
quote:
Bringing it random links to things that would have been excluded doesn't add anything, you'd need to compare it to a more relevant study/list.
See what I mean about wanting to have statistics your own way [Smile] ?
Honestly no. There isn't a single valid study that doesn't have constraints on the data it includes. Granted, for a lot of them it's all the data available on a topic, but its still limited by topic. Flooding a pool that even in your study only included 100 events in 15 years with 20 "new" events on an undisclosed basis is not going to be conducive to a better understanding. And you'll note, I agreed with Tom about Seneca's anecdotal 30 not being helpful to his cause in the first place.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like we have some answers from the shooter in Seattle last week that sheds some light on this subject.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Prosecutors-to-seek-life-sentence-against-SPU-shooting-suspect-262567051.html

quote:
Police say Ybarra had about 50 additional shotgun rounds and told investigators he planned to shoot as many people as possible and then kill himself with the hunting knife if officers did not shoot him first.
quote:
Satterberg said Ybarra had kept a journal that "clearly established his intent to commit an act of mass violence," and that he decided on Seattle Pacific University shortly before the attack after also considering Central Washington University and Washington State University.

Ybarra scouted out the campus before the attack, and was even shown around by helpful students and a staff member who did not know his intentions. He said he checked for possible escape routes students might use in attempting to flee the building and chose birdshot ammunition because he thought it would spread wider and cause more damage than buckshot, court papers say.

In his journal Ybarra also expressed an admiration of perpetrators of other acts of mass violence. He did not know any of the victims he shot and was not targeting anyone specifically.

His interests were maximizing his kill count and it's no surprise he picked a gun free zone, among 2 other gun free zones he had in mind, then scouted it out to find ways to minimize the ability of his victims to escape him.

There was no specific affinity he had for that location or anyone there, he wanted an area with as many unarmed victims as he could get and then scouted that place to know the escape routes so he could pre-empt his victims running away from him.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
His interests were maximizing his kill count and it's no surprise he picked a gun free zone...
And yet, for all the description we get of his plans, there is no mention of that being a concern. Rather, he -- as I said in this very thread -- looked for traffic patterns, considered his ammunition, and mentally evaluated escape routes. What non-gun-free-zone do you think he would have considered, if gun free zones weren't a consideration? What sites did he rule out because guns might be present?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Public parks, state parks, national parks, busy intersections in rush hour traffic, public transit centers in rush hour traffic, a crowded public metro bus, etc. All would have yielded him more open space avenues with longer-distance escape routes or more bottlenecked escape routes.

It takes a very selective view to look at his statements and see how they did not translate into his shopping for the most helpless victims possible in an area where he would only eventually face POLICE, and NOT ARMED CIVILIANS.

quote:
Police say Ybarra had about 50 additional shotgun rounds and told investigators he planned to shoot as many people as possible and then kill himself with the hunting knife if officers did not shoot him first.
He clearly wanted a situation in which only police would be the ones he'd expect to respond and shoot at him, NOT civilians.

I think that conclusively proves he was looking for a gun free zone.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Go back and look at the link Al provided to the study. The standard for what constitutes a mass killing for the studies purpose. There are some 12-14K homicides a year, the link Al provided covered less than 200 people last year. Seneca's list of 30 appeared to me to be essentially an anecdotal collection attempting to cover the same group, though Al's study had over one hundred in it.

It looks like I didn't go back far enough. I entered the thread around the discussion of the common thread between the mass shootings in the US where it was claimed that the location of the shooting in a gun free zone was the commonality. When I worked back from there I found a link to 30 shootings and an unsupported claim that 24-27 of those 30 shootings took place in gun free zones. So I started working with that list. I was unaware that there was an earlier list in the thread.

quote:
Bringing it random links to things that would have been excluded doesn't add anything, you'd need to compare it to a more relevant study/list.
I agree, my original intention was only to verify the gun free zone claim made about the original list and to add whether or not targeting was taking place. I added the other 20 because I came across references to them as I was researching the original list of 30. The original list of 30 provided no information about why they were on the list and it seemed odd to leave out other mass shootings during the same time period. So I added the other 20 and reported on both the original 30 and the more complete list of 50 (now 51 with Seneca's addition of the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting).

quote:
I was trying to get clarity about whether your additional examples were on the same topic, but from your response I'm kind of doubtfull about that now.
As far as I can tell the additional 20 match the criteria of the original 30 in the list I found in this thread. Multiple people were shot.

quote:
You missed the third and primary reason they were on this list. They were mass shootings. It was not just a list of everyone shot in a gun free zone. Nor are all multiple killings deemed massed shootings.
I didn't think it was a list of everyone shot in a gun free zone. I thought it was a list of mass shootings. For the purposes of what I included on the list a mass shooting was any shooting where multiple people died and the shooters were identified and caught. The two pieces of information I wanted to collect were the gun free zone status of the location and the targeting of the shooter. Without knowing the shooter, it is difficult to identify any relationship to the person, group, place chosen. I suppose that we could limit it to shootings where the shooter was killed or apprehended during the shooting and get rid of some of the robbery cases that feel slightly different from the mass shootings that people make a big deal about on tv.

quote:
Why? Has anyone made an argument that mass shootings are more likely to be random than targetted? Except for pyschotics who engages in non-targeted mass shootings?
The claim was made that the common thread in mass shootings gun free zones. Another claim was made that the common thread in mass shootings was the targeting of someone or something specific. There was disagreement as to which claim was correct. I am not aware of anyone claiming that mass shootings were more common in non-gun free zones, or that mass shootings were more likely to be random than targeted.

quote:
So how did you define mass shootings? Did you include gang violence, which noone else has? Did you include home invasions? Or targetted murder? Did you include intrafamily murder?
Shootings resulting in multiple deaths where the shooter was identified and apprehended.

quote:
Consider a single type of killing, a person murders their whole family and kills themselves in their home. That would be a targetted killing is a zone that clearly wasn't gun free. Including it however, provides no usefull information on whether or not gun free zones increase risk, it just distorts the data pool.
The question I was trying to answer was narrower in scope than your question. I only wanted to determine if the common thread in mass shootings was the gun free zone status of the location, or the targeting by the shooter. If you want to only look at shootings which were non-targeted you have a very small pool to work with.

quote:
quote:
The question was which is more common in mass shootings, a particular target, or a gun free zone.
Did someone ask that?
I did, based on the direction of the discussion.

quote:
quote:
I agree that if we are discussing random acts of violence, then the question of gun free zones is more important. I would also contend that mass shootings are more often targeted than random, so ignoring the larger part of the problem would be misleading.
Your own conclusions would indicate that gun free zones are irrelevant as a protection against targetted killings.
It would also indicate that the gun free zone status of a location is irrelevant to whether or not there will be a shooting there.


quote:
quote:
Like complaining that a college football team has a weak schedule when you only look at their out of conference opponents. You ignore the majority of the teams they play and get a skewed view of their strength of schedule.
More like considering their home and away when they never play out of conference games on the road. You could see a clear pattern in the OOC portion that is distorted by including the in conference portion (where the pattern doesn't repeat becuase the team doesn't have a choice). You can see it even more at the high school level, where some teams are so powerful they actually buy their opponents "home" games away and end up playing all their games in their own stadium.
No, in that case you are still looking at all of the games, just ignoring some aspects of those games. My point was that by ignoring some mass shootings that you bias the conclusions you draw from the mass shootings that you do include. I would prefer to be more inclusive than less inclusive.

quote:
quote:
(And I absolutely agree with you that the increased media coverage/noteriety is a factor. We have written testimony from several school shooters saying exactly that. This is one of the reasons that I listed the shootings by location rather than by shooter.)
I didn't say it was a factor, I said it wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't suprise me if gun free zones were the cause. It would surprise me if gun ownership caused mass killings (though there's a necessary definitional correlation stemming from the impossibility of kiling someone with a gun you don't have).
In that case I don't agree with you that the increased media coverage/noteriety is a factor [Smile] But I do believe that the increased media coverage/noteriety is a factor.

What would be the causal path that would result in more mass shootings because gun free zones exist? I'm having a hard time with this idea. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote.

Given that many of the shooters stole their weapons, I don't think that gun ownership causes mass killings. Although the existence of guns does allow for mass shootings as opposed to mass stabbings, or poisoning, or bombings, or any other method of killing multiple people.

quote:
quote:
I agree that a more comprehensive study would give us more clear answers, but no one is paying me to do one [Smile] However, the difference is large enough that this quick run through pretty clearly indicates that the common thread in mass shootings is a target rather than the gun free status of the location.
Which I think adds nothing since its not an either/or between targetted and gun free status.
Except for in the context of our discussion where two competing claims were made about the common thread in mass shootings.

[ June 10, 2014, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
My assumption is that even in areas that are not "gun free" there will be very few civilians carrying guns. Is this impression incorrect? It looks like something like 10% of Utahns have a concealed carry permit and of the handful of people that I know who own such a permit, none regularly carry. One woman, for instance, trains for marathons only takes it when she's jogging in remote areas at night. Her husband got a permit with her but doesn't even own a gun himself.

Given that the number of people actually carrying is apparently substantially below 10% even in a state with liberal concealed carry laws, I can't imagine that this would ever be a significant factor in planning an attack. Personally, if I were going to shoot up a mall I'd be much more concerned about how many armed security personal the mall had than whether it was a "gun free zone". There's also the fact that shooting sprees are highly emotional acts which rarely include a lot of careful deliberation. If I wanted to kill a lot of people and not be killed in the process I'd be using bombs or poison or some other method that obviates the need to even care who might be armed.

In practice, most areas are gun free zones.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He clearly wanted a situation in which only police would be the ones he'd expect to respond and shoot at him, NOT civilians.

I think that conclusively proves he was looking for a gun free zone.

Why? Even in a local WalMart, I would not expect your average civilian to respond and shoot at me -- even though WalMarts are actually sort of famous for being the cherry-popping location for new concealed carry activists.

quote:
Public parks, state parks, national parks, busy intersections in rush hour traffic, public transit centers in rush hour traffic, a crowded public metro bus, etc. All would have yielded him more open space avenues with longer-distance escape routes or more bottlenecked escape routes.
I would like to submit that parks are not known for their bottlenecks. That said, yes, buses and intersections would make interesting venues -- but I think most shooters are looking for more newsworthy sites, and particularly sites full of pedestrians. An outdoor mall might be roughly equivalent, perhaps.

When you get the chance, ask him why he was more interested in shooting up universities than outdoor malls.

[ June 10, 2014, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
open space avenues with longer-distance escape routes or more bottlenecked escape routes
Reading helps.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but people aren't packed densely together in state parks, Seneca. Instead of fish in a barrel, they're like fish in a lake.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a state park, instead of cops being minutes away they could be hours or maybe even days away if he played his cards right. Problem is, in state and national parks, those silly civilians are allowed to carry.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He clearly wanted a situation in which only police would be the ones he'd expect to respond and shoot at him, NOT civilians.
Or, rather, he didn't worry about civilian being relevant to stopping him at all, and just fell back to the normal default that police would be called and granted responsibility for stopping him.

You're still presuming a positive motivation where no actual evidence exists to show that it was a direct consideration rather than being purely incidental.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or, rather, he didn't worry about civilian being relevant to stopping him at all, and just fell back to the normal default that police would be called and granted responsibility for stopping him.
And where would that normal default occur? Clearly he wasn't ignorant that people could buy guns!

He legally purchased the one he used himself!

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seriati:
quote:
Bringing it random links to things that would have been excluded doesn't add anything, you'd need to compare it to a more relevant study/list.
See what I mean about wanting to have statistics your own way [Smile] ?
Honestly no. There isn't a single valid study that doesn't have constraints on the data it includes. Granted, for a lot of them it's all the data available on a topic, but its still limited by topic. Flooding a pool that even in your study only included 100 events in 15 years with 20 "new" events on an undisclosed basis is not going to be conducive to a better understanding. And you'll note, I agreed with Tom about Seneca's anecdotal 30 not being helpful to his cause in the first place.
If the additional 21 cases are distracting, we can limit our discussion to the original 30 cases in the link. 23 of those involved targeting. Only 18 of those were in gun free zones, with 5 of those 18 taking place in locations with armed security.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a state park, instead of cops being minutes away they could be hours or maybe even days away if he played his cards right.
Yeah, hell, if he played his cards right, he could prowl Yellowstone for decades and become famous as a mythical stalker, who comes out to kill a couple people every five or six years, as he stumbles across them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Or, rather, he didn't worry about civilian being relevant to stopping him at all, and just fell back to the normal default that police would be called and granted responsibility for stopping him.
And where would that normal default occur? Clearly he wasn't ignorant that people could buy guns!

He legally purchased the one he used himself!

And? Doesn't mean that he thought about the possibility that people might be randomly carrying them at any given location. And it certainly didn't mean that he was under the mistaken impression that the average person who might actually be carrying one would have the kind of training needed for them to draw and shoot him before he could get a shot off at them. Heck,. it appears that he didn't even take into account the possibility that someone might actually stop him via non-lethal methods.

It does seem like he wanted a venue with lots of people and indoor space where he could confront them face to face, then choose whether or not to kill them based on his perception of their reaction to him. That would certainly rule out a park or a highway.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is becoming an amusing thread. Seneca has yielded exactly nothing while at least 5 different people have all effectively rebutted his insistent arguments on different grounds. It's not whack-a-mole, more like someone in a bar who dares anybody to punch him in the gut and make him fall over. Ya can't do it, folks, he knows how to take a punch and keep coming back for more [Smile] .

[ June 12, 2014, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. He point-blank stated that he only thought the police would stop him and he was only considering gun free zones as his targets, and you are still not getting it...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the article, he only considered universities, there are many more obvious connections between those locations than something as esoteric as being a gun free zone.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1