Access to firearms is a risk factor for violent crime. Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock 19 pistol such as this one in a Tucson, Ariz., shooting rampage.
Image: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
It wasn't long after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Tucson, Ariz., that speculation emerged about a possible connection between the shooting and the contemporary U.S. political environment.
In a news conference after the January 8 attack, which left six dead, Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik spoke out against inflammatory rhetoric and "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths." Across social-media sites and in the mainstream press, numerous commentators noted that Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, had appeared on a list of legislators, each marked with crosshairs on a map, that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's political action committee released in 2010. The target list identified 20 legislators from swing districts who had voted for health-care reform and who were up for election.
Giffords, 40, remains in critical condition, and her accused shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is in custody. Loughner's motives remain unclear, and no coherent political link has emerged. But even in instances where consumption of violent media has been cited as a factor in crime, researchers say it is usually only one factor among many.
"The problem in any specific case is that you can't really know for sure whether an incident would have happened had not there been, say, a lot of media violence exposure," says psychologist Craig Anderson, director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University. "In this particular case, we can't really know whether such shootings would have taken place had there not been this recent history of fairly nasty political exchanges in the press."
Anderson has authored several studies on the effects of violence in television and video games and contributed to a 2009 policy statement on media violence from the American Academy of Pediatrics. "The evidence is now clear and convincing," the report asserted: "media violence is one of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression."
But that causal factor does not operate in a vacuum. "Extreme acts of violence such as this shooting never occur with only one risk factor being present," Anderson says. Among the common risk factors: gender, age, a history of childhood abuse, a variety of environmental and genetic factors—and, in many cases, access to firearms. "The key point that I try to make to people is that multiple risk factors are in play," Anderson says. "So it's a leap to try to claim that any one risk factor was key."
Some researchers, such as psychologist Christopher Ferguson of Texas A&M International University, dispute the causal relationship between viewing violent media and acting out violently in real life. "There is still some debate about whether it is a risk factor, and I would argue that it's not," Ferguson says of video games, noting that violent crimes among juveniles have been on the decline even as games have increased in both prevalence and graphicness.
Similarly, studies by Ferguson and by other researchers, such as economist Todd Kendall, have found a decrease in rates of rape that coincides with increased availability of pornography. "Once again you see this sort of inverse relationship across not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well between pornography consumption and the actual rates of sexual violence," Ferguson says. That does not mean that video games prevent violence, or that pornography curbs sexual crime, but it does highlight the difficulty in establishing a casual relationship between any one medium and a group's behavior, let alone the actions of an individual.
In the case of Loughner, we may never know if the fraught political climate in the U.S. had anything to do with his actions in Tucson. "It's irresponsible in my opinion to start blaming anything until we know more about this individual," Ferguson says. "I think we're really rushing to judgment, and that's not to say that I like this kind of political speech. I find it atrocious, like everybody else."
Adds Anderson: "I think it would be fair to say that when political discourse gets more and more strident, and when there are images portrayed on the Web where you have a scope sight as part of your attack on your political opponent, that isn't helpful. I think that's safe to say. But whether or not it plays any major causal role in any given case, it's just impossible to say."
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentFrom an Independent viewer: from your arguments, it seems you are on the opposite side... Rage and rethorics inflames mood; from there, lies just a match.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRonnie, you are both a liar, and obviously not an "independent."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisW/regard to the original article - I take issue with the claim that "But whether or not it plays any major causal role in any given case, it's just impossible to say."
The entire advertising and marketing industry is founded on the empirical fact that if you repeat something often enough, people will both believe it, and will react in a way you design. To the point of predictable percentages of purchases, advertising campaigns can be designed to influence the behavior of crowds on a basis of so-many-viewers yields so-many-purchases.
I would amend the statement made in the article regarding causality to instead be rendered against intent: "But whether or not it demonstrates any major intentional role in any given case, it's just impossible to say." *That* would be an accurate statement.
But causal? When you have an audience of millions, and you repeatedly hammer out the message that "Doctor Tiller is a baby killer" or "Liberals are out to destroy the country" or "If we don't win in a fair election, we should seek out second-amendment remedies", etc., you are playing the advertising game. In that audience of millions, it can accurately and factually be stated that there will be a percentage of them who are dangerously imbalanced. Of those, your advertising message will collect a number of "buyers" - who will pick up their weapons, and go kill an abortion doctor. Or shoot up the Tides Foundation. Or attack and kill random police officers. Or blow up a Federal office building. Or fly a plane into the White House or an IRS building. Or shoot attendees in a Unitarian Church.
Or have a shooting spree at a Democratic representative of congress and attendees while at a public meeting.
This form of advertising is, I submit to you, absolutely a major causal factor in providing the fraction of listeners/viewers who are either teetering on the brink or who have entered into psychosis, both motive and direction in choosing a violent outlet for his or her insanity. Further, I would hold forth that it is a similar form of conditioning as is used by religious leaders inspiring sectarian terrorism - you have a voluntary crowd wishing to believe, and a certain percentage will do so with enough fervor as to act on your expressed "concerns," whether they are factual or not.
Spin it how you will, but an audience of millions is itself a deadly weapon when wielded appropriately - or, in this case, maliciously and with avarice.
T
The slander was on /in the air before he was identified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was almost like the press releases & knee jerk legislation was prepared beforehand.
Thank you for not following Mr. Ferguson's line too far. That's ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just don't get it. It's comments like yours...calling people names, not respecting the opinions of others, that is the problem. Stop being abusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven though it appears that the shooter's motives were not political per se, it seems obvious that the vitrolic rhetoric in our country needs to end. There is no reason to call eachother names, hurling insults and threats just because we disagree. Threatening democrats over the health care law, threatening republicans over environmental or military issues is stupid, stupid, STUPID. Grow up and start acting like adults, and just maybe, we can start to solve the problems in our country.
Why are you even here, Ronnie? You are obviously not intelligent enough to understand anything on this site except the article you have commented on. Palin doesn't need you support here. She's already a millionaire thanks to people like you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sad fact is that there is a segment of the American population that will take their joy of these shootings with them to church on Sunday. Ronnie is probably one of them.
Stupid people believe lies that come from smarter, but less ethical, people.
You all do realize that fervent division based on political interests is the ideal goal of both parties right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are aware that corporations (including international bodies) can donate to any candidate through Citizens United, and most often donate to both to hold the strings entirely right?
You are aware that the Patriot Act nullifies the federal Bill of Rights and voids the states Bill of Rights correct?
You are aware that in no way is any legislative figure required to disclose their major donors right?
You are aware that under WHO (world health organization) the United States is classified as a corporate oligarchy and not a democracy right?
You are aware that under legal precedence from the Monsato-RBH case MEDIA CORPORATIONS CAN LEGALLY LIE AND DISTORT THE TRUTH right?
You are aware that the war in afghanistan is solely for the purpose of the private profits of UNOCAL/exxon's monopoly on eastern Asian oil for the next 20 years right? (105th congressional congress, 1998 records)
Any of those would be valid reasons to attack a government official posing to represent the people. Both sides have been bought and traded, and unless you're in the top 1% your interests are not considered.
The kid was stupid though, attacking a puppet instead of the master....clearly not an intelligent individual
Debating between the two current parties is much like choosing between a train or a truck to the slaughter. In reality, it's the mind of the driver that matters, and in this case the drivers are corporations and private interests--none of which factor in what they call "useless eaters" aka 95% of America.
"Ediddy," I believe you have just demonstrated my point, in the role of the "unhinged waiting to be pushed over the edge."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
Why do you keep resorting to calling people names? Can't you have a civil discussion with someone without acting like such a child? It's thats kind of nonsense that makes me hates talking about politics, because someone always has to resort to juvenile behavior instead of making a logical arguement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ttheobald
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are a shill and a sheeple (sheep+people)
I merely stated the abhorrent reality our "democracy" is in. Everything I stated was fact and can be verified by many, many accurate sources.
Ignorance is bliss though, so I can see why you'd deceive yourself.
If being "hinged" is the willful acceptance of the reality you're told by mainstream venues without having checked the data yourself, then I am proud to be "unhinged."
Media corporations are ran solely for-profit, even if their "job" is the news, the Monsato case would have cost Fox news tens of millions in advertising....thus Fox chose to distort and modify the truth to maintain the holding firm's business and not "de-value Monsato's marketplace. I would ask you to verify this for me, but as I can tell, you do not venture into fact-checking very often.
Read this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Tell me why conservatives didn't run out and murder people if what you are saying is correct.
Wait, I know what's to blame - maps! We have to ban maps! Map control now!
"notslic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously you are a left wing loon that is the problem not the solution. Stay on your med's, this should keep your clutch from slipping. Your attacks................"
intention: failed
function: success
so what is your function? what happens when you think that way? anything? bit distracted? get back to me.
hate is a tool, we can be tools. Wake up and observe what your building. If you don't understand the blueprints, LEARN!!!! Its the only way to know what your truly building.
Don't call people unhinged for trying to see what is being built. Nothing happened. The guy just said something like "so, X means unhinged, fine im unhinged...., and your sleepwalking."
having a hammer (calling names) doesn't leave you knowing what you build.
Its simply you leaving knowing whats being built
This supposedly being a scientific discussion of this incident; lets look at the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: Sarah Palin did indeed have a map with cross hairs over around 20 districts.
Fact: only this one district had a voilent reaction.
Summation: Not enough evidence to declare that this map had any impact on the fermation of violence on the conservative population as a whole.
Fact: The individual shooter cites the Communist Manifesto as his favorite book.
Fact: The individual shooter thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.
Fact: the individual shooter was a self declared atheist.
Summation: The individual shooter, if he listened to Sarah Palin at all, likely would have opposed her views, not supported them.
Summation: The individual shooter was very unlikely to be a subscriber to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative commentator.
Fact: The individual shooter had been marked as unstable by family, friends, and his school.
Summation: Barak Obama saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" or "Punish your enemines" likely had more influence over this kid that right wing talk radio or conservative political figures, but more likely this kid was just unhinged and a dog barking at him in front of the supermarket would have had the same effect on him.
Aw...there you go bringing logic into the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Tell me why conservatives didn't run out and murder people if what you are saying is correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait, I know what's to blame - maps! We have to ban maps! Map control now!"
simple. This is how it is Pre-Revolution. your getting ahead of yourself, we are all still picking sides it seems....
Its murky and the good guy looks just like the bad guy.
The crazies have a easier time deciding exactly who.
The rest of us are left to suffer with ration, and fear of being wrong, and that weakness to be taken advantage of.
this is the American dream. it makes for a human nightmare since we are animals ;)
Telrunya
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfacts have a way of distracting people, whatever they might be it all "boils down" to human capacity.
scientific things made this incident happen and those are being discussed
cant see the trees for the forest, another function of facts despite best intentions
cant see the forest for the trees** correction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndividuals react to media influences as they will and according to their own psychiatric and psychological make-ups. A so-called 'bad' media influence is only rotten when it encounters a fertile mind, however subtle or crude the latter's vulnerability might appear before the turning event. That is, what stirs up or riles one soul may even placate another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe added influence is that of crowd mentality, when a specific centre of frontal brain activity burns into vital activity, whether during religious fervour, sporting zeal, political rallies, mass violence, or otherwise. These moments can cause irrational acts or imprint fervent memories on a wanton brain.
Until more is known by the police about this killer, Mr. Loughner, and his connections, this will always appear to be a sad, decrepit and cowardly attempt, by a deranged and overarmed individual, to rip at peoples' core democratic right self-expression in America and in the world.
Is that the best you can do, 'Independent' Ronnie? You say that 'The Democrats party are Marxist's'? Marxist owns the Democrats? And what are you doing reading this particular magazine, anyway? Has the Popeye website closed down? Incredible...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Individuals react to media influences as they will and according to their own psychiatric and psychological make-ups. A so-called 'bad' media influence is only rotten when it encounters a fertile mind, however subtle or crude the latter's vulnerability might appear before the turning event. That is, what stirs up or riles one soul may even placate another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe added influence is that of crowd mentality, when a specific centre of frontal brain activity burns into vital activity, whether during religious fervour, sporting zeal, political rallies, mass violence, or otherwise. These moments can cause irrational acts or imprint fervent memories on a wanton brain.
Until more is known by the police about this killer, Mr. Loughner, and his connections, this will always appear to be a sad, decrepit and cowardly attempt, by a deranged and overarmed individual, to rip at peoples' core democratic right self-expression in America and in the world."
So you are saying this happened because it Could happen?
and its neither the democrats nor republicans, but rather, it's the humans?
could could could?
We are capable as humans to make a world that does not contain such possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"dont do that, you could get hurt"
at least someone understands the idea of not allowing certain things to be a possibility if it is at all possible. my example is on such a small scale, instead of no jumping on the bed, it could be " know hate,don't hate "
Hi ttheobald. You say that empirical evidence exists showing that advertising is effective, would you mind citing the evidence? I do not doubt its existence, but it would be interesting to read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, segueing to the point, the evidentiary link between the efficacy of advertising to promote behavioural change and the efficacy of violent media to promote behavioural change is generally not accepted by psychologists ("Video Violence, Villain or Victim?" - Cumberbatch (2004)). You see, adverts on TV actually don't attempt to cause non-existent behaviour, but attempt to modify already present behaviour; an advert for Coca Cola doesn't attempt to make people who don't drink carbonated beverages choose to go out and buy Coke, it attempts to make people who already drink carbonated beverages change their brand allegiance by linking a particular brand with something positive. Whilst we see quite good returns on political advertising (Johnston (1974)) this is the same boat: it doesn't make more people come out and vote, it changes the voting pattern.
Behaviour is far easier to subtly modify that it is to create entirely new behaviours. However, it is dubious whether or not the claim that media violence inspires physical aggression by analogy to advertising is even consistent. As Cumberbatch rightly pointed out, media depictions of violence generally do not link the violence to positive reinforcers, quite the opposite, with violent characters regularly being shown as 'getting their comeuppance' or living bad lives. This doesn't ring true with advertising at all, so there's no real mechanism by which physical aggression would be increased. It's been argued that priming of anti social scripts (Werner (2004)) and desensitization (Anderson (2001)) could explain the hypothesised (but yet to be demonstrated) effect, but neither party could show that suppressed right temporoparietal junction activity even lasted beyond a few minutes after the subjects stopped experiencing violent media. It is also worth noting that Anderson, the leading proponent of the violent media causation theories, has been forced to stand down as an expert witness in a federal case for misrepresenting evidence and scientific consensus at least once.
Lastly, the case study of St Helena, where TV, replete with violence, was first introduced in 1995 and children assessed prior to and post TV introduction showed no increase in aggression and no decrease in pro-social behaviours (Gunter et al (2000)).
I couldn't agree more. I've studied psychopathology and I really can't help but feel, after watching Loughner's YouTube videos, that he exhibits many signs of paranoid schizophrenia (delusions of persecution, transmission of thought - especially his obsession with 'currency' as a means of thought transmission, unclear/disordered thought patterns - his bizarre meaningless syllogistic arguments etc).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow it's certainly untrue to claim that mental illness is in and of itself a cause of violence, but it certainly makes Loughner a unique case study and useless as a means to make points about the effects of X upon the general population. It isn't possible to extrapolate findings from an abnormally mentally ill case study to the population as a whole, even if we ignore the kind of sample bias towards aggressive tendencies that would-be assassins will obviously show.
It will not be possible for people in the United States of America - or anywhere else on earth - to live in peace and go about their business with a sense of security until there is a tolerance for diversity of opinion, perspective, belief and life-style. Until the time comes that people can stop and listen to others in a respectful manner, appreciate that there is strength in difference, and be prepared to make some compromises for the sake of the common good, there will be escalating violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiving a respectful life can be thought to be unrealistic by some folks, and particularly troubling by those who believe that there will always be political foes lurking in their midst; on the sidewalk, in the work-place, in the hospital,in the stores, in the office, wherever they are in the country. This belief makes people angry and supports behavior that is congruent with anger - even if it is tempered when they are in their own loving environment. However, if they go home and lack the nurturing that we all need, or live with a sick and disordered mind that is fed by anger, that person is likely to lash out. They need special help and respect.
Maybe the recent events can be a starting point for discussions that lead towards a general respect one to another. Americans got to the moon, have had amazing impact on peace around the world,have cured many diseases and are in the forefront of so many scientific, artistic and technical frontiers - surely Americans can deal with this challenge?
Violence got us here, its always going to be under the surface and Can be coaxed by the media, its clear people don't understand how. Having the answer or facts would not change anything, since people deny those if they refuse to accept the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes any person violent? If we all lived the same experience and the outcome for one is violent its not safe for a reasonable person to assume every single person under the same exact conditions would have the same outcome. We will never know..
Behavior change due to the media? Maybe not. It sure is not helping. Why does that specific fact even matter?
The right kind of people will fight over anything, they will do bad things for millions of reasons. Why?
Everyone has the righteous words to fight a unrighteous cause.
Choices. Good choices and bad choices. Choosing to think its right, choosing to think its wrong.
Choosing to not see it, or not listening when its pointed out. Choosing mediocrity. Even smart people make bad choices.
Some have more impact than others I suppose.
Going back to the media idea.
The coca cola ad is just one or more peoples shot at sales and its the only time they are trying to change minds.
the rest of all media is a different kind of sales, purely giving people what they want.
Another bad choice according to this moron.
"the efficacy of violent media to promote behavioral change is generally not accepted by psychologists"
Good, it doesn't work that way. Media is a reflection of behavioral change. Behavior effects the media. You are literally watching what you want to see and hear.
So we think violent media has no effect, wonderful, but why do we have violent media?
We make media violent, it doesn't make us violent.
Does violence not predate the media?
It's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever find a "smoking gun" link between our continuing flood of political hate-speak and Loughner's motives. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have heard people in shopping lines making shockingly hateful comments about politicians. I have received hate-fanning chain emails from neighbors who know who I voted for. I have even had more than a few of my customers spew political hate-rhetoric to me -- just *assuming* I would agree with them.
I can't prove that Loughner was influenced by hate-speak, but he absolutely was exposed to it -- in significant quantities. Ironically, the only thing that could have prevented that would be if he had been locked away in a padded cell from the time Obama was elected.
Politics aside, this event represents not a problem but a symptom of a larger problem. Why are people making such choices? It may be that they do not understand the consequences of such a choice, or it may be that choices are not respected as they used to be. There is no singular answer and systems theory would point to hundreds, even thousands of nodes, each with a possible contributing factor. It may be the question should be what can we do to change this type of thinking, choice making long term? There is no one liner answer, it is complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ tgrondahl2004
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood points. But IMO, I think the answer really is much simpler, and I think that many of the politicians who spew hate are getting a rude education.
Spewing hatred is not a smart thing to do -- especially if your constituency likes to hear it. What Loughner did may have been in no way linked to the hate-speak, but now, the hate-speakers will never be able to shed the association.
Guilt by association may not be legal evidence, but it's human nature to believe it should be.
quotes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Politics aside, this event represents not a problem but a symptom of a larger problem. Why are people making such choices? It may be that they do not understand the consequences of such a choice, or it may be that choices are not respected as they used to be. There is no singular answer and systems theory would point to hundreds, even thousands of nodes, each with a possible contributing factor. It may be the question should be what can we do to change this type of thinking, choice making long term? There is no one liner answer, it is complex."
Well put tgrondahl2004.
Systems theory, i like the sound of that, it is exactly what we need to be figuring out.
"The Link Between Media, Political Environment and Violent Acts Often Proves Murky"
I guess its all we can think of..
how about this for a link "presumed intelligence and mutually assured destruction"
This Loughner guy had no reason to do what he did. That is not even on the table in my opinion. I wont even entertain the idea that his actions were justified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are Not!
It does mean something when things get so extreme.
John Wilkes Booth.
Forget about him being a president for a second, and forget this recent arizona shooter was trying to kill a congress woman.
Its just 2 cases of whack-jobs disturbed by not things, but the views they took of them.
Again, i think if you step back you will see the problem is we can do such things, focus on fixing that problem. Why can this happen.
Why is no one perfect? Why do we have to learn the hard way?
Good, evil, god, and satan seem to be the best general answers. Explanations handed down by ancient men.
Surely we can merge all of this wonderful math, biology, technology and psychology together and come up with something better than answers.
Solutions would be absolute ;)
im just a moron on the inter-web, but science seems to have many to many answers that do not matter, or offer a big picture moral solution in the same twisted tainted way religion does.
People from both ends of the spectrum experience cognitive dissonance
No offense, but I think you could use some rest, "8000000001".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, this sort of crap is what's WRONG with the world. Not every opinion is worth respect. Not every difference is good, or equal. This is nonsense we tell ourselves (or have forced down our throats at every turn) in order to *gasp* avoid hurting someone's feelings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCultural relativism is dead. Some cultures are better than others. Some religions more likely to result in harmony and charity (if followed properly), than others. Some lifestyles are less difficult and invite fewer challenges than others.
We should NOT tolerate hate speech.
People claiming to want equality should NOT request or accept special treatment.
Accepting all humans as “human” and worthy of being treated fairly is not the same as accepting that all social customs and traditions are equally good for people.
Would we allow honor killings here as they do in Pakistan? Female circumcision? No? How insensitive of us. How judgmental.
We need to recognize that not everyone can be helped. There's no cure for the sociopath (oh, excuse me - what's the sanitized term? "Anti-social personality disorder"?). Once identified they need to be removed from society. Oh, ouch - I know, so insensitive. OK, you be sensitive to crazy murderous types and let people die; I'll hurt their feelings to keep you safe.
Smarti, your gutless idealism and willful blindness to the true human condition is damaging to the fiber of what makes a society a society. Yes, Americans can deal with modern challenges - if the ones best able to do so are allowed move out of this mass delusion that is political correctness and the veneration of relativism for it's own sake that so many of us continually reinforce to one another. We should try being empirical and honest, and form policy and take action from that foundation - not some fabrication from the 60's that hasn't got the good grace to die already.
The MEDIA is the culprit also, in transform assassins in heroes. The notoriety that the assassins always earn in the US is the very cause of their behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the pictures of the assassins!!! How interesting it is to know the details of the personality and style of life of the assassins!!!
The MEDIA shows for you all this stuff and much more to satisfy your curiosity. The MEDIA should be obliged to omit all publicity of assassins. Not that it should signify censure to information, but that it should serve to prune the usual abuse in inform what is unnecessary. In the current situation crazy persons can see the notoriety offered by the MEDIA for acts of assassination like an irresistible attractive.
Is it possible to inform with liberty, without censure (excessive at least)?
I think that it is necessary!
The reason, which I have in me, dislikes the emphasis that the MEDIA gives to assassins in US, but my other side that opposes reason likes all those frivolities. If I was a crazy man it is possible that I could be tempted by the notoriety like the assassins are. However, God (or the nature, or my breeding) spared me and I am a sane man. But, not everybody can say the same in good faith.
I think that the MEDIA have to have responsibility sparing the public from sensationalism. Maintaining the right of inform, of course.
As a person who tries to keep up with the literature on psychology, neuro-biology, ethology, and human behavior in general I think that it is safe to say that we don't really know much about why individuals or groups engage in particular activities. We are very poor at predicting human behavior, particularly in the "mentally ill". We are even worse at controlling it. It's interesting, though, that after an event such as occurred in Tuson many people seem to have a ready explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitical rhetoric may have played a role. However, it apparently did not in the mass killings at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, and a number of other similar events.
If our primary concern is to try to make our political discourse more civil we can certainly focus on that worthy goal. I doubt, however, that we will make much progress because there is far too much money to be made by those who foster the kind of dialogue that is being questioned.
There is one common factor in nearly all of these killings that is largely ignored, for very good reason, by our political leaders. I hesitate to even mention it for the vituperation that it will bring to this discussion.
If these shooters did not have guns they would have been unable to shoot anyone.
Now, watch the irrational rationalizations flow in, along with anger, threats, and the like. That's the way the argument frequently goes when guns are mentioned. In fact, I hope that I'm not putting me and my family at risk by bringing it up. It's gotten that bad.
Several years ago we had six house guests from England for a long weekend. At some point one asked me to explain America's fascination with guns. I piled them all into our van and took them to a local sporting goods box store. We walked past the outdoor clothing, the canoes, the fishing gear and ended up in back, in the gun department. There were well over one thousand guns displayed there: shot guns and hunting rifles, and assault rifles, massive pistols with lazer sights. Their jaws literally dropped. It was silent for nearly a minute, then one asked, almost under his breath, "Are you all absolutely mad?"
Well, I would have to say yes. Our attitude toward guns seems to have taken on the tone on some sort of national madness. There is so much irrational ideation and even paranoia that seems to be involved. I sincerely doubt that a cure will be found. It is too pervasive and powerful. It seems based on fear and that is the great motivator.
So the deranged will occasionally kill, we will pontificate, and little will change.
Mr. Peabody II, rest was not the issue I'm just new here. Long time listener, first time caller lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not here to be right about anything. i'm just making suggestions, observations.
Good point cccampbell38.
If it wasn't guns it would be some other weapon.
On some level we are just animals ready to fight Herbivores are very violent as well.
We Humans don't seem to be as smart or accomplished as we think we are. History shows us how these issues eventually sort themselves out, and it shows a lot of temporary fixes for problems that continue on in our minds.
If are so smart why cant we intervene with the natural order of oppression then revolution we create?
How can our human history not catch up with us?
I think it was Ferguson who said you can't infer causality from those trends. The author simply paraphrased Ferguson rather than directly quoting. He's not differing from what Ferguson told him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, cccampbell38 - let me address, AND put your fears to rest. NO ONE is going to hunt you down and harm you for saying you don't like guns. The people seeing this that have guns are law-abiding citizens, trustworthy with everything from motor vehicles to "assault rifles". Good, that's out of the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If these shooters did not have guns they would have been unable to shoot anyone."
Yes, you are correct. And if they did not have fingers, they could not pull triggers on guns. Similarly, without arms, no implement could be wielded to harm another person.
The problem is human insanity, and the impulse to murder as a problem solving strategy (yes, they're intertwined).
The problem is not inanimate objects. A hammer may be used to build a house, or kill. A gun may be used to defend an otherwise defenseless family, or victimize them. It is the hand that wields, not the tool that is to blame.
"Now, watch the irrational rationalizations flow in, along with anger, threats, and the like. "
No, you won't find those - because your preconceived notion of who might own guns is both wrong, and unfair.
Point out the irrationality of my arguments, please.
I would guess that you live someplace with a low crime rate, and a fairly homogeneous population. Not all of us do; and we'll thank you very much not to want to leave us defenseless against the insane and criminally inclined. Until dialing 911 teleports a ready police officer to my defense, I prefer to have the means to defend myself and my family from those that don't care about the law.
The fact is, you can't "un-invent" guns. You can't confiscate them all, either (Why? Because criminals don't turn their guns in when you make laws requiring them to do so. They also don't refrain from murder when you make laws against it, which I am pretty sure already exist). If you could wave a magic wand and make all guns go away - wonderful, you've just catapulted us back into the age of "might makes right". How do you now resist someone larger, stronger, and more aggressive? Through the courts? The police? Sorry - they help a victim in the middle of an attack not at all.
It is fine for you to sit in your gated community or homogeneous village - but some of us live and work in modern cities, and need better options than police who arrive in time to draw tidy white lines around our corpses.
Here's an article by a Canadian organization you might find interesting:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=13506&terms=guns
Download the .pdf and give it a read.
Happy to continue discussing.
Think! I have read and appreciate your comments. I have heard them all before. I live in a western suburb of Chicago. Not a gated or crime free community. I own, legally, five firearms. I was raised in the backwoods of Missouri during WWII and learned to hunt before I was 10 in order to help the family by putting meat on the table. I am an excellent shot. I do not carry a gun for self defense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther weapons are available but it is so much easier, quicker, and more certain to kill with a gun. And the shooter can be a distance from the victim, a decided psychological advantage. That's why most of these mass murders are with guns. I would think that it is really difficult to wade into a crowd and kill a bunch of people with a knife or bat or something. As to the rule of the physically dominant, that has not proven to be a problem in countries that do not allow general ownership of guns. It may be that our culture is different and that it would not work here. If so that does not say much good about us as a people. As to "criminals having the guns" again, unfortunately you are right. We have allowed such pervasive proliferation of firearms that there is probably no practical way of eliminating or even limiting them. Again, I don't think that that speaks very well for us. Perhaps mandatory capital punishment for anyone manufacturing, importing, possessing, using...etc. But even I recognize the impossibility of that.
Again, it's just think that it's sad that we, who claim to be a Christian, peace loving nation, have to feel afraid of every unstable or angry person because that person could be carrying the means to kill us instantly with hardly a thought.
So, no I do not offer a solution, merely the observation that the availability of firearms make this kind of mass murder relatively easy and, since we cannot always predict or prevent violent behavior, we will simply have to accept the fact that this kind of tragedy will continue to happen. So will fatal automobile and airplane accidents.
I would like to comment, though, that in reading your submission I noted a tone of anger and derision toward me and toward what I said. I think that that demonstrates the emotional impact that this subject has; even here on the SA website. Interesting. Thanks for your observations.
cccampbell38,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo derision, definitely no anger. I've heard your thoughts from other before, as well. I respect them, but what you hear is a fundamental disagreement. Not because the sentiment is wrong, but because the proposed solution (take away all guns) is dangerous. Not just to me, but to you as well. Had we both been present at the rally when Laughner went psychotic - the best you could have done is escape. The best I could have done is limit his rampage to a a few shots by drawing my own legally carried and duly licensed firearm - and shooting him. I prefer my scenario to yours.
Rwanda proves that a determined murder with a machete can inflict plenty of harm. Japan proves that a guy with a truck and a knife can kill a bunch of people pretty effectively. I could cite you a dozen instances here and abroad without breaking a sweat.
"As to the rule of the physically dominant, that has not proven to be a problem in countries that do not allow general ownership of guns."
Did you not read the article I posted? Britain, Wales, Australia, and Japan have all experienced a *rise* in violent crime since their "total bans" went into effect. It is time to face reality: if you wish to assert your right to live against a determined attacker - you MUST have an effective means of doing so. On planet Earth, that means a handgun today. If you do not wish to bear that responsibility, that is fine - but do not remove my ability to make that choice. You might as well murder me yourself. THAT is what you are hearing; a simple, passionate desire not to be left defenseless. If "every angry person carrying a gun" just killed because they had a gun at the time they became angry - the streets WOULD run red with blood in the 20 states that have "shall issue" carry permit laws - but that isn't the case. The opposite is true. Why? Two reasons, primarily - 1) criminals tend to avoid confrontation with potentially armed victims in those states; 2) people who habitually carry for defense stay out of situations that, unarmed, they might otherwise have allowed to evolve into confrontations. I've carried a handgun for 20 years, needed it three times, drawn it once, used it never. If I'm carrying and someone cuts me off in traffic - I don't even think about getting mad. Someone takes 'my' parking spot? No problem. I'm not special. I suspect that most people like me find that having a gun raises your desire for tolerance, and peace. The stakes are too high to behave otherwise. So, why be afraid of me?
I respect your opinion but have one question concerning the senario you paint regarding the actual shooting in Tuson. Had you, or another trained and expert shooter been present I wonder if you could have disabled the attacker. We can only imagine the very rapid chain of events; multiple shots being fired totally unexpectedly, dozens of people trying to get out of the way, running in every which direction, massive confusion and panic, the shooter moving quickly from one target to the next. In all of that it would take extreme skill and probably a lot of luck to hit the shooter and not an innocent bystander. If several people pulled out guns and started trying to stop the shooter can you imagine the probable carnage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the shooting at Northern Illinois University several commentators expressed the opinion that if faculty and students had been allowed to carry guns a). the shooter would never have come into the room, for fear of being shot, and b). they would have shot him before he killed so many students.
First, the shooter wanted to die and to "go out in a blaze of glory". Armed opponents would be an incentive, not a deterrent. Second, can you imagine the slaughter if ten or twenty people in that lecture hall had pulled out guns and begun to blaze away? Perhaps, sometimes, in a one on one situation, carrying a gun might prove useful, but even there the attacker will almost always have the advantage of surprise and have his gun out, cocked, and ready shoot long before the victim.
It's a nice theory but in reality I just don't see a real advantage.
On the other hand the potential for more mayhem when everyone is armed boggles the mind. You may be a mature, careful, well trained person. Not all of us are. The incidents of drinking, road rage, and so many more things that might set someone off frighten me more than criminals do.
Let me ask a hypothetical question: would you feel safer living in a society where everyone carried a gun or where absolutely no one carried a gun? I realize that this is a trick question and not realistic in America, but just think how nice it would be to be able to feel safe without having to carry.
I realize that my argument is academic. Too many people want unrestricted gun rights and they are too powerful to be denied. That's the reality. But, at the same time, I don't have to like it.
The only thing we can say for sure, is that we know exactly what happened with no one there to oppose him. Personally, my main priority would have been to be sure to do no further harm (hit a bystander) and second to take him out. "Be sure of your target and what lies beyond." Being a shooter, I'm sure you remember that one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of what the murderer at Northern Illinois University *wanted*, had he encountered effective (armed) resistance, his spree would have ended sooner. Possibly it would never have been undertaken, but we really can't know. All we know is what happens when no one can mount an effective defense. Ditto Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Lubby's cafe... How many examples do we need?
You are very much in the right that the bad guys usually have surprise on their side. Carrying a gun isn't a magical guarantee of safety and victory - it's a chance, where none exists without it. If you are serious about taking responsibility for your own (and other's) safety, you train hard.
"... the potential for more mayhem when everyone is armed boggles the mind..." And yet, States with liberal carry laws are consistently many times safer than the ones with the most restrictive laws - even when you isolate for population density. Where are the laws the most strict? D.C. NYC, N.J. (home to 4 of the Worst Cities In the Universe to Live In). Where are the crime rates highest? Oh, hmm...same places. Obviously, we need more laws. According to FBI statistics, licensed permit holders commit less than one tenth of one percent of gun crimes. Easy enough to verify.
To answer your question, *I* would feel safer if no one had a gun - and I never had to fight more than one person at a time. But, I'm a fit male with a ton of training. I wouldn't want my wife to live in that world. Since you can't guarantee me those conditions - I want the means to defend myself and my family, community, and any innocent person I might need to - effectively. Yeah, I'd love an end to Evil. I'd love to skip lugging an uncomfortable piece of metal around, and the responsibility that goes with it. I'd love to just wear a t-shirt over shorts and go merrily on my way - but I can't. Not and live with myself if something happens that could have been prevented with a little training and a well placed shot. If people lived the lives they were supposed to, I'd never carry a gun again. I'm not in love with them for their own sake. Unfortunately, we don't yet live in that world. So while I'm in this one, I'm going to prefer to be prepared.
I’ve become suspicious of the “accepted wisdom” of things that appear in the media, so I’ve taken some time to review the research concerning the relative safety issue in states that permit concealed carry vs. those that don’t.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout quoting two pages of study summaries it seems that there is actually no clear answer at this point. Perhaps the last word for the present might be that The National Academy of Science “found no evidence that shows that right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime”. They recommend further study.
In Europe it is true that crime rates are rising in many nations but everything that I have been able to find indicates that this is primarily due to a changing demography, not the restriction of gun ownership.
One fact remains: overall crime and particularly gun violence in nations that restrict gun ownership is a tiny fraction of our rates here in the US.
I have a question for you. In doing this research one statistic kept popping up: by far and away most gun violence in America involves hand guns. Rifles and shotguns are used in some crimes, but mostly it is hand guns.
Hypothetically, what do you think would be the result of eliminating manufacture, sale, possession of all firearms under, say. 48” in length. That leaves hunters access to their weapons but pretty much eliminates the concealable weapons most often used in crimes. After all, hand guns, assault rifles, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons are mostly designed for use against persons and not for hunting (excepting semi automatic shotguns, which my Grandad always said were created for people who were bad shots)?
I’m just asking you what you think that the result might be if such a thing could be achieved here in the US.
One other point. You refer several times to the majority of legal gun owners who are, presumably, mature, responsible, well trained, and careful. There is an organization here that holds gun shows at a large expo center. I have attended several. There are more than 150 “dealers” in guns, knives, and an assortment of other weapons at these shows. The crowds of customers is overwhelming. I don’t want to seem a snob, but judging from their manner of dress, personal grooming, and general demeanor, the majority of the people who attend these shows do not inspire a lot of confidence in me. Overall, they are a pretty scary bunch. So, It would appear that our experiences and opinions continue to differ.
Now that Europeans have disarmed themselves, how will they defend themselves against the muslim invaders? Oh, they can't. I've been to Germany, Sweden, and England in the last year. It's a problem, and the natives are scared by these people. They are being invaded and victimized. It's slow, but it's (deliberately) killing their economies - which adds to crime, of course - and the police are powerless to stop it (q.v. Malmo). But, I guess that's another topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEngland has banned knives in some places (knives!) and is considering stones, pointy sticks, and harsh words. It's insane.
By the way, the crime rate in AU and the EU began to rise immediately after the bans went into effect. This was long before islam declared jihad against the whole world.
Your point about long guns is an excellent one. Let me turn the question around on you. If fewer than 1% of crimes are committed with "assault rifles" (a meaningless term that is applied based on a firearm's APPEARANCE rather than function, lethality, or capacity) - then why are most of the gun control advocates and laws aimed at them? The more paranoid (but not necessarily incorrect) among the gun rights movement will tell you that the answer is, "Because THOSE are the weapons you could resist the troops of a corrupt and tyrannical government with." They're right. Gun control has never been about reducing crime. Never. They just need the support of the easily swayed and easily frightened to pass these measures.
To answer your question, no - I absolutely would not support that. It's uncomfortable enough to carry a small pistol. I'm not going to ask my wife to lug a long gun around in case of a carjacking. Where do you put it down while sitting down to lunch? Come on. I have already outlined why handguns are necessary and desirable in the hands of law-abiding citizens. You could kill more people with an SUV that with a Prius. Shall we restrict our citizens in what 'capacity' vehicle they can buy? Don't answer that.
As for your gun show comment... You continue to show me that your opinion of gun owners is nothing less than stereotypical, prejudicial, and well, lazy. You can't possibly know what someone's firearm discipline is like from the length of their beard or what's on their t-shirt. The media has done quite a job on you. I encourage you to look deeper. Talk to people. Heck, invade the enemy camp and read an article or two off of the NRA's website. They're not perfect (by any stretch) but *their* data is honest, transparent, and empirical. The anti-gunners lie constantly.
I am and have been a member of the NRA for many years although I cannot support many of the political stands that they have taken over the years. I read their web page frequently. In addition to the gun show comments I have been, for much of my professional life, an addictions counselor. I have known and worked with literally hundreds of court mandated gun owners who have addiction issues, anger issues, impulse control issues, and guns. Many of them looked and acted pretty much like a lot of the people I have seen at gun shows. Several of my clients, over the years, acted on their impulses. They all are still in jail as far as I know but that did not help the victims of their violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that we have come to the point where we will just have to agree to disagree. It is a complex issue, there is no perfect solution, and, as I said much earlier, we will just have to accept the reality that the infrequent crime of mass murder by deranged gun owners is simply a price that we must pay to live in today's America.
It's been enlightening discussing this with you. Thank you for your time and I do hope that you, and I never have to use our guns for anything but target practice. cccampbell38
It's been a pleasure. As I've said, I don't discount your desire. Anyone would like to live in a safer world where this kind of madness doesn't occur. Our answers are different, yes. I just never want yours to impinge on mine. I'm glad I had you wrong in some ways; and I hope you'll see that there are many more responsible gun owners out there than problematic ones. I wish you the same safety, and lack of need to ever defend it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexpand and introduce the possibility of the introduction of behavioral sciences everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't the people that commit these crimes usually fall into categories?
i thought you could know sort of, or have a clue, before these things happen.
it seems rare when no one suspected a thing, or never expected it.
if the country's money was going toward better outcomes we would have more ways of reading the important signs.
it might even have alot to do with teachers, and education in general
the unification of therapy, education and social services could very well make gun laws irrelevant.
if you know what i mean....