5 ms·

Psychiatrists Can’t Stop Mass Killers

13 points by SREinSF 9y ago

monochromatic 9y ago
> but gun control TOTALLY CAN infringer pls go
jrowley 9y ago
Arguably though, if we invested in way better mental healthcare for all, we might save lives / improve the quality of life for enough individuals to offset the cost off mass shootings. That being said, I think we need to restrict access to guns in general. If the government wanted to take you out, an AR15 is not going to save you from a predator drone or whatever we have in our arsenal.
- 2_listerine_pls 9y ago
  Take Mexico as an example of a Country where nobody is allowed to have guns. People are regularly abducted from their houses & cars without any means of defense. More have been killed by OC than by mass-shooters.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    Take Australia as another example of a country where nobody is allowed to have guns (well they are but they need a good reason). The intentional homicide rate is 1/5th of what it is in the US. Cherry picking examples doesn't really bring much to the discussion.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      The anti-gun side cites Australia all the time. You don't get to accuse him of "cherry picking" for citing a counterexample. If you pull up the list of countries with the highest murder rates, you'll discover that virtually all of them have stringent gun control laws.
    - slamdance 9y ago
      ...and strangely enough they have less than 1/10th the population as the US. There are more people in the greater-Los Angeles area than there are in the entire continent of Australia
      - Veratyr 9y ago
        The rates I'm comparing are per 10k people, so they take this into account.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
mozumder 9y ago
The only way to stop mass killers is to ban and confiscate guns from the public. The public should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. Only the government should have the monopoly on violence in a proper, respectable advanced society.
- BadassFractal 9y ago
  Yes, but how? 400 mil active firearms in the US alone. A huge chunk of the population that will vote against firearms being banned or taken away from them. It's like saying "the way you stop war in the world is by making sure we all love each other". What's actionable about it? We have to work with the cards we've been dealt, not with hypothetical situations.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    You do it the same way you enforce any other law. What's the issue? Are you saying laws don't work? Because society is built on laws. Right now 50% of the guns are owned by about 3% of the population. That's your first law-enforcement target right there.
    - matz1 9y ago
      How to get the law passed in the first place where there are so much people that againts it and will fight it hard. Those people seem to have strong influence in government too.
      - mozumder 9y ago
        It should be the same as any other cultural change, like gay marriage or civil rights - you just keep at it until it happens. The last thing you do is say "oh it will never happen" and stop. You just keep doing it, whether it takes one year or a hundred. Cultural change is all a function of the effort you put in.
    - nicobn 9y ago
      What he's saying is that your cure might be worse than the disease. Nobody knows what the effects of mass-confiscation would have on American society, but the range of possibility includes civil war and massive unrest. Most people would surrender their firearms peacefully but there's a strong minority that would not do so peacefully.
nicobn 9y ago
In areas with strict gun control but access to a black market, mass killings still happen with firearms (see the November 2015 attacks in Paris or the 2017 Quebec City Mosque Attacks). In areas with strict gun control but limited access to firearms, mass killings still happen with other modalities. A lot of things can effectively kill a bunch of human beings assembled in a restricted area: knives, machetes, bombs, trucks, etc.. The idea that restricting one modality of mass killing will prevent all mass killings is misguided. Would it reduce the frequency or the lethality ? That's debatable. Someone who has decided to pursue mass killing as systematically as the Las Vegas shooter will simply find another weapon to kill en masse.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > In areas with strict gun control but limited access to firearms, mass killings still happen with other modalities. A lot of things can effectively kill a bunch of human beings assembled in a restricted area: knives, machetes, bombs, trucks, etc.. If these things were as effective as suggested, why is it that in America, one of the prime examples of loose gun control, just about all the recent mass killings have been committed with guns? The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck) or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs). To give an example in favour of reduced frequency/lethality, have a look at Australia. We just don't see many mass killings there.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck)" No, they aren't. This guy in Las Vegas killed ~160. The 9/11 attackers killed ~3,000. > or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs). No, they aren't. The Happy Land Social Club attacker killed 87 with a dollar's worth of gasoline.
    - slamdance 9y ago
      58 were killed in Vegas, as of today's count.
pizza 9y ago
mental illness is more about isolation, stigma, guilt and shame than it is about the individual, mostly
forgottenpass 9y ago
Psychiatrists can't, because nothing can. People don't want to internalize the reality that society relies on an overwhelming amount of trust and there will always be abuses of trust. There are thousands and thousands of systems to prevent abuses of trust, and establish trustworthy institutions in society, but they all come at a cost, and are all fallible. https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-Thrive/dp/1118143302 https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-Thriv...

13 points by SREinSF 9y ago

> but gun control TOTALLY CAN infringer pls go

Arguably though, if we invested in way better mental healthcare for all, we might save lives / improve the quality of life for enough individuals to offset the cost off mass shootings. That being said, I think we need to restrict access to guns in general. If the government wanted to take you out, an AR15 is not going to save you from a predator drone or whatever we have in our arsenal.

2_listerine_pls 9y ago
Take Mexico as an example of a Country where nobody is allowed to have guns. People are regularly abducted from their houses & cars without any means of defense. More have been killed by OC than by mass-shooters.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Take Australia as another example of a country where nobody is allowed to have guns (well they are but they need a good reason). The intentional homicide rate is 1/5th of what it is in the US. Cherry picking examples doesn't really bring much to the discussion.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    The anti-gun side cites Australia all the time. You don't get to accuse him of "cherry picking" for citing a counterexample. If you pull up the list of countries with the highest murder rates, you'll discover that virtually all of them have stringent gun control laws.
  - slamdance 9y ago
    ...and strangely enough they have less than 1/10th the population as the US. There are more people in the greater-Los Angeles area than there are in the entire continent of Australia
    - Veratyr 9y ago
      The rates I'm comparing are per 10k people, so they take this into account.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mozumder 9y ago

The only way to stop mass killers is to ban and confiscate guns from the public. The public should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. Only the government should have the monopoly on violence in a proper, respectable advanced society.

BadassFractal 9y ago
Yes, but how? 400 mil active firearms in the US alone. A huge chunk of the population that will vote against firearms being banned or taken away from them. It's like saying "the way you stop war in the world is by making sure we all love each other". What's actionable about it? We have to work with the cards we've been dealt, not with hypothetical situations.
- mozumder 9y ago
  You do it the same way you enforce any other law. What's the issue? Are you saying laws don't work? Because society is built on laws. Right now 50% of the guns are owned by about 3% of the population. That's your first law-enforcement target right there.
  - matz1 9y ago
    How to get the law passed in the first place where there are so much people that againts it and will fight it hard. Those people seem to have strong influence in government too.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      It should be the same as any other cultural change, like gay marriage or civil rights - you just keep at it until it happens. The last thing you do is say "oh it will never happen" and stop. You just keep doing it, whether it takes one year or a hundred. Cultural change is all a function of the effort you put in.
  - nicobn 9y ago
    What he's saying is that your cure might be worse than the disease. Nobody knows what the effects of mass-confiscation would have on American society, but the range of possibility includes civil war and massive unrest. Most people would surrender their firearms peacefully but there's a strong minority that would not do so peacefully.

nicobn 9y ago

In areas with strict gun control but access to a black market, mass killings still happen with firearms (see the November 2015 attacks in Paris or the 2017 Quebec City Mosque Attacks). In areas with strict gun control but limited access to firearms, mass killings still happen with other modalities. A lot of things can effectively kill a bunch of human beings assembled in a restricted area: knives, machetes, bombs, trucks, etc.. The idea that restricting one modality of mass killing will prevent all mass killings is misguided. Would it reduce the frequency or the lethality ? That's debatable. Someone who has decided to pursue mass killing as systematically as the Las Vegas shooter will simply find another weapon to kill en masse.

Veratyr 9y ago
> In areas with strict gun control but limited access to firearms, mass killings still happen with other modalities. A lot of things can effectively kill a bunch of human beings assembled in a restricted area: knives, machetes, bombs, trucks, etc.. If these things were as effective as suggested, why is it that in America, one of the prime examples of loose gun control, just about all the recent mass killings have been committed with guns? The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck) or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs). To give an example in favour of reduced frequency/lethality, have a look at Australia. We just don't see many mass killings there.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck)" No, they aren't. This guy in Las Vegas killed ~160. The 9/11 attackers killed ~3,000. > or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs). No, they aren't. The Happy Land Social Club attacker killed 87 with a dollar's worth of gasoline.
  - slamdance 9y ago
    58 were killed in Vegas, as of today's count.

pizza 9y ago

mental illness is more about isolation, stigma, guilt and shame than it is about the individual, mostly

forgottenpass 9y ago

Psychiatrists can't, because nothing can. People don't want to internalize the reality that society relies on an overwhelming amount of trust and there will always be abuses of trust. There are thousands and thousands of systems to prevent abuses of trust, and establish trustworthy institutions in society, but they all come at a cost, and are all fallible. https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-Thrive/dp/1118143302 https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Outliers-Enabling-Society-Thriv...