Gun Control--answers to problem-defining questions on MASS MURDERS

Since different acts of criminal violence have different profiles, let's first look at MASS MURDERS in the U.S., such as the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary that prompted the recent movement towards increased gun control. Mass murders are loosely defined as involving 3-4 fatalities in one location at one time, typically by a single perpetrator. They tend to be distinguished from "spree killings" which occur at multiple locations, and they are distinguishable from "serial killings" which occur over a greater period of time and at multiple locations. Here are some pertinent facts (I have highlighted significant facts in red):

From 1976 to present, there have been nearly 1000 mass murders, with an average death toll of 5.22 and 4.31 wounded.

Q: Who commits mass murders? A: Males (95%), average age of 30, mostly white (61%). Most have no criminal record.  They are often NOT mentally ill--or at least not clinicaly diagnosed as such (see HERE), but may suffer from overly-high self-esteem.(see HERE) “Usually you’re dealing with an angry, dissatisfied person who has poor social skills or few friends, and then there is a trigger that sets them off.”(see HERE)

Q: Why do they commit mass murders? A: Mostly vengeance and anger. (see HERE) "Mass killers are extremely deliberate and determined and, no pun intended, dead set on murders....It’s not an impulsive act." (see HERE)

Q: What weapons are they using to commit mass murders? A: Guns (69%--of which 3% were assault weapons), other (17%), fire (14%). All but a few of the guns were obtained legally, and those that weren't, most were stolen from family members who obtain them legally. The worst mass murders didn't involve guns. (see HERE)

Q: Where did the mass murders occur? A: They occurred in each of the four quarters of the U.S., with the highest percentage occurring in the South (29%) and the lowest occurring in the West (22%). Most of them occurred privately (73%), often in homes. Of the mass murders that took place in public places, 5% were workplace massacres. and about 9% were at schools (see HERE for a list of school shootings in the U.S. since the 1700's).

Q: Who were the victims of mass murders? A: Mostly family members (40%) and acquaintances (36%). Mostly white (72%), males (55%), average age of 28. Only 9% of the mass murders were interracial. 

Q. What is the historical trend for mass murders? A: The incident of ass murders are still relatively rare (see HERE), The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably no greater than being struck by lightning." (see HERE). "People usually don’t commit mass murder more than once." (see HERE) And, they occur fairly erratically with some occasional clustering, averaging about 27 incidents a year. "The statistics on mass murder suggest it is a phenomenon that does not track with other types of violent crime, such as street violence. It does not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies...When graphed, these incidents show no obvious trend. The numbers go up and down and up again."(see HERE) "There is no pattern, there is no increase...While mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929”(see HERE) What has increased is the news coverage.(see HERE)

Q. What public policy measure have already been tried in curbing mass murders, and have they been successful? A: Public policy measures have been varied, and include assault weapon bans and other gun control legislation (like background checks). Given that there has been relatively little change in the annual rate of mass murders in the last 40 or so years (see above), this suggest that anti-mass murder measures have had little or no impact. This is understandable given the very deliberate and typically well planned nature of these crimes, the lack of prior criminal record or ability to identify mental illness beforehand (see HERE), and the guns used in the mass murders were typically obtained legally and not covered under gun control laws and many didn't involve guns, particularly some of the most heinous.(see above).  

"[James Alan]Fox, whose books include 'Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.' 'They will find the weapons they need regardless of what impediments we put in front of them." (see HERE) He also has said: "Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path... Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability...Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first..Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends....The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons....While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.,,,With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill."(see HERE) Others have commented, “We want to believe we can solve this type of crime and prevent it in the future. The only way that would be possible, would essentially be to lock down all public venues.”(see HERE) And, this will do nothing to stop the majority of cases, which occur in private, often at home.

However, according to John Lott, "The effect of 'shall-issue' laws [i.e. concealed weapon laws] on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent." (see HERE)  Fox somewhat disagrees: "Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire."(see HERE)

Most of the statistics above were taken from a Western Criminology Review article (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/manuscripts/duwe.pdf) as well as:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/mass-murderers-unlike-serial-killers-are-hard-to-profile.html  
http://www.auburn.edu/~peteeta/massmurder1.htm 
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/former-fbi-agent-difficult-to-profile-mass-murderer/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/getting-real-with-mass-murder-stats/2012/07/25/gJQA1YY28W_blog.html 
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-murder-rate-rising-newtown-shooting_n_2302590.html 
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

Gun Control--Correctly Defining the Problem

According to experts in problem-solving, like Dwayne Spradlin, the first and biggest step in finding solutions is to correctly define the problem and make sure we are solving the right problem. In his Harvard Review article, Spradlin quotes Einstein as saying: "If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it." This makes sense, and according to Spradlin, the first step consist mostly of "asking questions until you get to the root cause of a problem."

With this in mind, here are some questions that came to my mind regarding mass murders such as Sandy Hook and other serious acts of human violence. Who all are and aren't committing serious acts of violence? Why are they committing the serious acts of violence? What are they using to commit the serious violence, and when and how? Who are the victims, and where were they victimized? What is the historical trend for mass murders and other serious acts of human violence, and are the trends and rates different from one local to another? In other words, what anti-violence measures have been taken in the past, and which measures appear to have been most successful?

Please feel free to answer these questions as you see fit, and I will do so as well. Documentation in support of your answers where possible would also be greatly appreciated. Also, please feel free to post other relevant problem-defining questions and insights.

It will be interesting to see if we are able to reach a consensus in defining the problem.

Partners

I will use this blog post to compile a list of related organization:

http://www.nolabels.org/

IndependentNation

Gun Control--let's first understand each other

The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary has clearly animated the country and emblematically raised our collective conscience to all human-on-human senseless violence--whether committed against innocent people or otherwise, whether in the classrooms of Sandy Hook, or at the theater in Colorado, or on the streets of Chicago.

As such, I think it is vital that we keep in mind that regardless of our respective political persuasions, we all deeply mourn the loss of the 26 victims and wish it had never happened and seriously want to prevent it from happening again if plausible. We are united in our broken hearts and desire for viable solutions. We all share the President's intent to take steps to protect and save our children.

Accordingly, it is in our interest to keep this issue from dividing us or being exploited for political advantage, but let it be a unifying cause in amicably finding pragmatic answers. We are in this ship of state together, and we can only effectively move forward in progress if we paddle with rather than against each other.

Intro

It has taken me awhile, but I have finally figured out that, regardless of how well intended, my sardonic humor and participation in the culture of mutual heckling and denigration has only served to offend and destroy and alienate rather than build up and cohere. I see now that I have been a part of the problem, rather than the solution. 

I wish to reverse this, and so I have decided to use the inaugural day of one of my past political nemesis to end my own divisiveness and try a different approach by launching a blog devoted to real political and economic healing and progress..

Does this mean I will be engaged in wholesale capitulation, appeasement, and genuflecting? Not at all. I will still hold firm to my proven convictions and remain steady in my resolve to better myself and this nation. Rather, this is about finding areas of commonality around which we all can coalesce, and an openness to more effective and mutually beneficial resolutions in working out our differences..

My governing attitude for this blog is taken from the hypocratic oath: "Do no harm." I also favor the Golden Rule.