This seems like trying to use a hammer (statistics) because you have a hammer, not because it's the right tool for the job.
Essentially, if you look at the incidents, you see enough common factors (increasingly, using semiautomatic carbines, carrying multiple weapons, attacking schools, wearing armor or load bearing gear, etc.) to think there is some common factor at work. The population of random people on the street doesn't pick the AR-15 to do anything, and certainly doesn't pick a school as a target for anything. The solution space here isn't "spree shootings at schools through time", it is traits of spree shootings themselves -- location, methods, etc. They're pretty tightly clustered.
Either there is a common hidden factor, or these incidents are feeding on each other.
I personally don't think gun control is the major tool to deal with this, and don't think violent video games are the problem, but rather the non-stop multi-day press coverage by the media of each of these incidents.
Some insignificant douchebags from a Colorado school became about as famous as the 9/11 terrorists (and far more than fortune 50 CEOs or scientists or classical musicians) by murdering their classmates.
(Columbine essentially as as big a deal for the 'how to respond to shootings' world as 9/11 was to aviation security; previously, you cordoned off the area and called in SWAT to negotiate, thinking it was a hostage situation -- now, the first 1-2 responders on scene move directly to the threat with whatever weapons they have on them at the time, ignore any wounded victims, close, and engage/destroy -- similarly, hijacked airliners are now viewed as air to ground missiles vs. hostage negotiations.)
Every time the media talks about the shooters in one of these situations, making them famous, it reinforces the rational (if defective) choice of someone who wants to be famous at the cost of doing evil to copycat.
The mythological/historical example is Herostratus, who burned the temple of artemis just to be famous.
I don't buy this explanation over the alternatives. It's logically sound but is based on the assumption that spree shooters do so in large part to gain infamy and notoriety.
Given what we know of spree shooters around the world and in the US, they strike me as predominantly desperate, mentally ill people. We had the Columbine shooters who seemed to be more vengeful than fame-seeking. We had the Aurora shooter who didn't do any grandstanding when apprehended, or in fact talk to the media at all. And of course, we had the Newtown shooter who didn't leave behind any notes, manifestos, or in fact any evidence that he wanted to be infamous (even if posthumously).
These don't strike me as people who are driven by the ensuing media coverage.
Don't get me wrong - I've been appalled by the news media surrounding the Newtown shooting, particularly CNN's journalistically abhorrent fingering of an innocent individual, but I don't think the coverage is really the crux of it, and I don't think taking it away will stop them.
I don't think they're doing it consciously to become famous, but out of feelings of inadequacy/lack of agency/bitterness/etc., which subconsciously turns into fame-seeking to try to resolve that. But I have no deep psychological insights here; I've thought about the tactical and trauma care side, but treating the incidents as random events works perfectly well for that.
However, pro for your argument, there is some reporting bias -- we hear about school shootings for days, but we rarely hear about suicides, or murder/suicides, which are far more common; even things like the Sikh temple murders went out of the news in a day or two. Schools are just particularly likely to get coverage and stay in the news.
But if ending the media deification of spree killers converts some of them back into simple suicides, that's a win, really. On the other hand, it seems to have channeled them into a local maximum of "pretend like you're playing Call of Duty, without any real skill or training" -- I'd be a lot more afraid of a halfway competent chemist with no tactical experience deciding to go the full McVeigh, vs. trying to play soldier. I'm personally pretty comfortable with a rifle, but if my goal were mass casualties, it'd be bombs or other technology based attacks for sure.
> And of course, we had the Newtown shooter who didn't leave behind any notes, manifestos, or in fact any evidence that he wanted to be infamous (even if posthumously).
He left plenty of evidence that pretty much guaranteed he'd be infamous. Nothing will do that like several dozen dead bodies. Notes and manifestos are optional.
These assholes may have many different drives but the one thing they seem to have in common is that they pick their targets to guarantee that they will become notorious. Stomping on an ant hill will kill many more but won't put you on CNN.
Apropos CNN, the one thing the media could do with cases like these is to restrain themselves in the way they cover these incidents. I'm pretty sure there is a large element of copy-cat behaviour in here that could potentially be reduced by the amount of media coverage given.
Let me try again: if he had stomped on an anthill to vent his anger you wouldn't have heard about it.
The media decide who gets to be (in)famous and by behaving in a certain way you can get your 15 minutes. Behaving in this particular way pretty much guarantees that. The link between gore and media coverage is firmly established by now so even if in the first few cases you could have said 'that's circular reasoning' after several such cycles you can no longer tell cause from effect.
Hence copycat crimes and other stupidities.
All it took for dumb, angry children to be set on this path was the attention given to the Columbine shooters. Quite a few of these idiots - if not all of them - think those guys were heroes and perceive the media attention given to them (movies, incessant press coverage) as positive.
They want that for themselves to compensate for some perceived inferiority or other shortcoming and so they go the same route.
I think today it is safe to assume that a hunger for fame is at least a component in these shootings.
I can easily imagine that "hunger for fame" is a component in these shootings, but that's not the same thing as "I have evidence to support" or even "is likely."
> He left plenty of evidence that pretty much guaranteed he'd be infamous.
You seem to be confusing cause and effect.
He more likely chose his target because his mother worked there. Even if every shooter is choosing randomly we will only talk about the "media seeking" ones the news covers.
He shot a few more people than just his mother. He could have done that at home. All of these shooters have chosen a target they had some relation to, either they went to the school or they had some other prior history with it.
Still, the decision to attack the school, it's students and not simply one individual is why we are hearing about these.
It's not necessarily to gain notoriety. But there is such a thing as copycat. So reporting about people committing shootings is more likely to cause more shootings. I remember an episode of Newswipe, where a psychologist urged media to:
a) keep the news of violence to local community only
b) do not glorify the attacker by negatively praising him (like a ninja, moved quickly...) or showing him in positions of power (brandishing guns or wearing clothes that hide his face)
c) telling how many people he killed.
Each time one of those news is broadcast, he added, they see a spike in violence. And it seems consistent with how humans regularly behave.
As for other evidence, you'd need to look at crimes and if there is a large number of similar attempts of violence (not necessarily school, but overall mass shootings), grouped around highly prominent cases covered by media. That kind of research and evidence is sadly outside my scope. I'm not sure where you'd find sources, nor how to process them statistically correct.
>Given what we know of spree shooters around the world and in the US, they strike me as predominantly desperate, mentally ill people.
No, we mostly know them in the US, by an order of magnitude more than other western countries. The same with serial killers: the US is up there with some third world nations for more prolific killers, and unsurpassed for total serial killer count, so much that Wikipedia devotes its own page to US serial killers which is larger than the sum page for the rest of the world.
And, desperate, mentally ill people? Could also be the products of a desperate, mentally ill society.
> So much that Wikipedia devotes its own page to US serial killers.
Aside from any of this Wikipedia devotes a lot of pages to US-specific things because it has a lot of contributors in the US. You shouldn't draw any other conclusion from it than that. You'll see a lot of US-bias and US-specific coverage on any topic on the English Wikipedia.
Hello? Someone was claiming the same about other Western countries, so I compiled these lists of mass shooting events in Western Europe in just this century:
From Wikipedia, school shootings in Europe in this century, last two numbers are killed and wounded:
I'm confident that the US cannot hold a candle to Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Bosnia, etc., when it comes to prolific murdering. If you only want to consider individual / non-cooperating killers, they exist in similar proportion across most societies.
Another option is that they are the products of a dysfunctional medical system. In particular, a pretty common recurring feature is that the shooters turn out to have been on antidepressants which are known to cause aggression and/or suicidal tendencies.
Sensationalist media shares culpability by giving this kind of behaviour a strong presence in the public collective consciousness. Being talked about is a powerful reinforcement signal, we are programmed to seek positive reinforcement from the groups with which we identify and negative from 'the enemy.' With the increasing alienation of modern life, it is not difficult to see how this can lead to senseless violence in extreme cases.
The whole thing is a vicious circle, this kind of news has to be sensationalised because we have been steadily desensitised by the media.
As a teenager in the 90s, I remember getting mildly claustrophobic at the thought of watching another Movie or TV Show about a hijacked plane or hostage situation. There were just so many building up to 9/11. Essentially, the messages were things like 'Enemies of America hijack planes', 'Radical citizens plant bombs', and now 'Angry employees/students show up with automatic weapons and body armour.' These are as much statements as they are calls to action.
Let's take a look at this year's Emmy nominations for the best actor category, these actors play: a ruthless corrupt bootlegging politician-gangster, a high school chemistry teacher turned murdering drug kingpin, a vigilante serial killer working in law enforcement, a terrorist war-hero congressman secretly radicalised in captivity and an alcoholic misogynistic deserter ad executive with a stolen identity. The only leading character that does not belong in prison is from a British production. Perhaps this category should be renamed the 'Best Magnificent Bastard' award.
America has this fascination with revealing its weaknesses to 'enemies - both foreign and domestic' and celebrating monsters. Most people learn early on that, unless one is trying to play and remain the victim, painful memories and weaknesses should not be put on public display for the casual friend, enemy and stranger.
When the Newtown shooting made the news, I had the following thought: just 24 hours earlier, there was news of an execution-style shooting near Times Square. Even though the Times Square crime is less horrifying (fewer people, no children, etc.), I would say that it is more relevant for gun policy. Why? Only seven massacres in 2012, but tens of thousands of gang-related shootings.
We have a problem with guns and crime, not with massacres. Massacres happen, and if there were no other murders to worry about I would say we should focus on massacres. The trend in gang violence is very clear: concealable weapons (handguns) purchased on the black market. If you want a sensible gun policy, you need to focus on handguns; gangs rarely use rifles because rifles are too difficult to conceal.
May I ask how gun control is not a tool to deal with that? In other words, what are the differences between Americans and Europeans that prevent most of such violence happening in Europe (mostly at least), other than hard access to guns?
One key fact to observe is that crime without guns in the US is also very high. The US has a stabbing+bludgeoning+poison+etc murder rate of 1.8/100k, which is still higher than murder by all methods in most of Europe. I.e., Americans just like to kill people.
One possible cause is demographics - more than half of our murders are committed by a demographic group making up only 10% of our population, and this subgroup is very uncommon in Europe.
Possibly also the drug war, which is quite connected with violence, race, racism, poverty, urban/suburban/rural migration patterns, public health, human nature, geography, immigration, expansion federal power, military conquest, etc.
It may be a tool, I just don't think it's a major or the main tool, for three reasons.
1) There are enough guns out there now that a ban on new production would have only a minimal effect, a ban on transfers would have only somewhat more effect, and a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect.
For spree shooters, even a pump-action shotgun or lever carbine and a 10-rd handgun or two (or even just a couple revolvers with speedloaders) would be pretty adequate to kill 50+ unarmed people, even if they weren't 6 year old children. So you'd need to address not just "assault rifles and 100 round drums" but basically most firearms (maybe leave single-shot shotguns/rifles).
2) The cost of ending the media deification of spree killers is almost zero. The cost (in terms of implementation cost as well as loss of rights) of any gun control is far higher. The cost of a comprehensive gun ban and confiscation could be up to (probably localized) civil war. Pick the tool which has the least costs first, especially if it's probably more effective.
3) Even if there were zero guns, you'd have other instruments of death, assuming people had the desire. I'll accept that guns are easier for some of the more amateurish and unmotivated killers (including maybe the CT guy), but Columbine involved bombs, McVeigh was a bomb, and now that the "spree kill and become famous" thing is out there, all it would take would be another McVeigh or two to show how its done and then people would be doing bombings, or running over a bunch of kids at bus stops, or whatever.
In places where drugs and alcohol are banned, they make alcohol out of prunes, get high off glue, etc. It's a lot better to focus on demand than supply.
I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US. Better healthcare, better social support, etc. Europe has certainly had some serious violence in the past, generally by organized groups that feel they are "losers" vs. individuals, more so than the US. European society seems to have less inequality and thus fewer positive and negative outliers than the US. (Similarly, there is a gender difference in distributions of most traits; men tend toward the extremes; which may be why most criminals and other horrible people seem to be male)
> a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect
A recurring element in a lot of these shootings is that the shooter gets/steals his weaponry from an uncle, dad's rifle cabinet, a friend or so on. These are the kind of people that would dutifully get rid of their guns if they were banned. Thus closing up a potential source of destructive firepower for nutcases.
> I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US.
Is there any indication that any of the recent shootings happened because the shooter didn't have any food to eat, no shelter or bad healthcare? Because that's the sort of comfort that a welfare state provides and I don't see the link.
Especially true for minors. True for a possession ban. Less so for sale prohibition or transfer prohibition. More so for sale/transfer prohibition with generous buybacks. (if new-sale is prohibited, prices will rise, so they'll be secured better; if transfer-ban, you'd probably see prices fall (since there's no market), so less of a reason to secure them, ironically).
> [food, shelter]
Clearly they have insufficient mental health services (in the CT case, some of the problem was that he wasn't a minor, and his mother was trying to have him committed). Not so much "how to pay for mental health" vs. general delivery issues.
They do seem to generally be middle class and not starving or anything, but I meant "failure" in the sense of social standing/competitiveness/etc., not just absolute poverty. After all, even a fairly poor person today lives (in absolute terms throughout history) fairly comfortably, but feels the relative social standing and status.
So if you're sincerely asking what differences other than gun ownership might be preventing violence, that'd be a good place to look. Time Magazine just had a good piece on the cultural differences that lead to a safe gun culture there: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-...
Switzerland is very special for multiple reasons. They have a direct democracy, federal system with very small cantons (equivalent of states) and until very recently every mail had an assault rifle at home. They're also very law-abiding citizens in general with >80% of crimes being commited by immigrants. I like swiss model a lot, but it's not 100% clear it can be scaled to a bigger country or if you need centuries of public awarness (they never had a king for example). The differences are so big, it's really really hard to compare with any other country.
All true and I admire Switzerland for all those reasons. However, at least some aspects of the "Swiss gun culture" actually exists in the U.S., among enthusiasts, who have a serious "culture of responsibility and safety" and teach their kids the same. Go to, say, a competitive shooting event, and you'll get an entirely different impression of gun owners than you may have now. As someone in the Time article says, "If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence."
For the patriotic side, check out Project Appleseed (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/), which conducts weekend courses on rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. (It's run by volunteers, and costs $70 for a weekend.)
This culture used to be more widespread in the U.S., back when rifle shooting was a high school sport. The more we crack down on legal gun ownership, the more we stamp it out.
Violent offenders were the [victims]
of most State prison homicides
(61%), and their jail homicide rate
(5 per 100,000) was over twice that
of nonviolent offenders (2 per
100,000).
== Interesting to note that Prision murder rates are higher than many states in the US, and many countries in europe. None of this is guns, though. It seems in the abscence of weapon x a killer will use y or z. lots of people killed this way with pens and spoons etc.
A part of this is Europe's abhorrence of violence in general dating back to the end of world war II. Those lessons are slowly being forgotten but there definitely still is a strong undercurrent to that effect.
Having a half decent welfare program is another element in there. But with the current crisis and the upcoming pension plan troubles it remains to be seen if we can sustain that and if we can not I predict an increase in crime and associated violence.
It's not a great choice for home defense, however - it's actually quite bad at killing people. A nutjob with a couple of 5.56mm holes can still stab you a bunch of times before he bleeds out.
A shotgun is a far better choice.
Fun fact: the reason the military went with 5.56mm is that killing power is less important for the military (wounding a guy takes him out of the fight, as well as 1-2 of his buddies to take him home), while ammunition weight is a big deal (lighter ammo = less for a soldier to carry).
Just to bring this to something technical and marginally less depressing than discussing mass murders on HN on Christmas, 5.56mm got a lot better with the 75gr TAP and 77gr Sierra OTM/mk 262 vs. M193 or M855 ball. My HD long guns are a tricked-out Mossberg 590A1 and an M1A 16" .308 carbine with 180gr ammo, though.
I mean, the military even manages to make 9mm ineffective. LC 115gr 9mm FMJ is maybe 10% as effective as my Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P JHP.
SWAT entry teams use them. At close range they're quite a bit more effective than at the longer ranges often encountered in military situations, since the bullet is likely to fragment.
At the same time, tests have shown less overpenetration after encountering drywall than hollowpoint handgun rounds, which tend to fill up the hollowpoint without expanding and then go through several barriers.
This is all well and good, but what you say does not invalidate the use of statistics. That is to say, even if there are, as you claim, common factors between the events, they may still be randomly distributed in time.
So your hypothesis is that considering only school shootings, you can prove that they are not random events lets say at 95%. Care to make the case using science rather then just waving your hands?
My argument is that something other than time distribution is a much better way to see that they're connected. They may be randomly distributed through time, or not, but they're clearly not randomly selected from the set of all possible mayhem activities.
Essentially, if you look at the incidents, you see enough common factors (increasingly, using semiautomatic carbines, carrying multiple weapons, attacking schools, wearing armor or load bearing gear, etc.) to think there is some common factor at work. The population of random people on the street doesn't pick the AR-15 to do anything, and certainly doesn't pick a school as a target for anything. The solution space here isn't "spree shootings at schools through time", it is traits of spree shootings themselves -- location, methods, etc. They're pretty tightly clustered.
Either there is a common hidden factor, or these incidents are feeding on each other.
I personally don't think gun control is the major tool to deal with this, and don't think violent video games are the problem, but rather the non-stop multi-day press coverage by the media of each of these incidents.
Some insignificant douchebags from a Colorado school became about as famous as the 9/11 terrorists (and far more than fortune 50 CEOs or scientists or classical musicians) by murdering their classmates.
(Columbine essentially as as big a deal for the 'how to respond to shootings' world as 9/11 was to aviation security; previously, you cordoned off the area and called in SWAT to negotiate, thinking it was a hostage situation -- now, the first 1-2 responders on scene move directly to the threat with whatever weapons they have on them at the time, ignore any wounded victims, close, and engage/destroy -- similarly, hijacked airliners are now viewed as air to ground missiles vs. hostage negotiations.)
Every time the media talks about the shooters in one of these situations, making them famous, it reinforces the rational (if defective) choice of someone who wants to be famous at the cost of doing evil to copycat.
The mythological/historical example is Herostratus, who burned the temple of artemis just to be famous.