Repost from GD: ..."Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown"

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024335763


http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/27/1088767913510297.full.pdf+html

My favorite paragraph:

Myth: Mass Shootings Are on the Rise
The recent carnages in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and elsewhere have
compelled many observers to examine the possible reasons behind the rise in mass
murder. The New York Times columnist David Brooks noted the number of schizophrenics going untreated (Brooks, 2012). Former President Bill Clinton and other guncontrol advocates have pointed to the expiration of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban as the culprit, while gun-rights proponents have argued that the body counts would be lower were more Americans armed and ready to overtake an active shooter.
There is, however, one not-so-tiny flaw in all the various theories and speculations for the presumed increase in mass shootings: Mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall death toll, at least not over the past several decades.
The moral panic and sense of urgency surrounding mass murder have been fueled by various claims that mass murders, and mass shootings in particular, are reaching epidemic proportions. For example, the Mother Jones news organization, having assembled a database of public mass shootings from 1982 through 2012, has reported a recent surge in incidents and fatalities, including a spike and record number of casualties in the year 2012 (Follman, Pan, & Aronsen, 2013).

Author Biographies
James Alan Fox is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at
Northeastern University. He has published 18 books, including Extreme Killing: Understanding
Serial and Mass Murder (Sage 2012), co-authored with Jack Levin.

Monica J. DeLateur is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
Northeastern University. Her current research explores sentencing outcomes and decisions to
prosecute, particularly in human trafficking cases.

Methinks the prohibitionists will studiously ignore this as one of the authors is
a professor of criminology and can't be easily written off as a hack.

[NYC_SKP]

1. This looks like a balanced and well-reasoned report.

And I noticed that it labels as "myth" a number of common NRA claims as well as some Gun Control Inc. claims.

The conclusion:

Conclusion
The fact that gun control, expanded psychiatric services, and increased security mea-
sures are limited in their ability to prevent dreadful mass shootings doesn’t mean that
we shouldn’t try. In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting, there was
momentum in Washington, D.C., and in various state legislatures to establish policies
and procedures designed to make us all safer.

Gun restrictions and other initiatives may not stop the next mass murderer, wher-
ever he or she may strike, but we can enhance the well-being of millions of Americans
in the process. Besides, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least, it will
reduce the debilitating feeling of helplessness.

Many of the well-intentioned proposals coming in response to the recent spike in
mass shootings may do much to affect the level of violent crime that plagues our
nation daily. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of crime
in its most extreme form. Of course, taking a nibble out of the risk of mass murder,
however small, would still be a worthy goal for the nation. However, those who have
suggested that their plan for change will ensure that a crime such as the Sandy Hook
massacre will never reoccur will be bitterly disappointed.

Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable
or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment,
restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all
suspicious. Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where
personal freedom is so highly valued.

[Starboard Tack]

2. Very interesting.

Especially the last paragraph. The US is definitely a fascinating social experiment. "Personal Freedom" is a very alluring mantra, but sometimes one has to wonder how real it is, and at what cost it comes. Is it freedom to be able to walk down the street with a hidden gun, or is it freedom to not have to think that anyone is doing such a thing? Quite a dilemma.

[gejohnston]

3. of course he was speaking of specically school shootings, which are rare

More people kill in self defense than are murdered in school shootings, causing a net loss in innocent life. In the last Colorado one, if a good guy didn't have a fire extinguisher, the Molotov cocktail would could taken more lives than any gun. Mass murder by arson generally has higher body count. I tend to think stronger sense of community would have a greater effect than gun control. Notice Finland and Switzerland tends not to have them. Finland has more households with guns and the US, and the purchase age was 15 until a few years ago. Notice also that they were fairly nonexistent until the 1970s. By then suburban sprawl, fewer people knew their neighbors, and idiot box in every room, and big Pharma created new drugs for profit and kid control.

[krispos42]

4. "Freedom", like "efficient", is inherently poorly defined.

Example: Universal single-payer health care both gives and takes away freedom.

It is paid for by taxes, for which you have no option to refuse.

But, it does free you in many other areas, such as freedom to change employers, freedom to start your own business out of your home, and it frees you from being forced to incur large medical debts later in life.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Very true. Freedom comes with a price.

For a social freedom, that price entails sacrificing a little ego, in favor of overall fairness and justice. Individual freedom is a whole other ball of wax. The problem for any government is trying to juggle the balance between individual freedoms and the social contract. We have problems when so-called individual freedoms start to impinge on the social contract, and vice versa.