Gun Control Causes A Lateral Shift In Violence

[Spiral Out]

I've previously stated in another thread that gun control measures will cause a lateral shift in the methods in which violent criminals use to inflict harm on their victims. I've stated that they will resort to using vehicles, knives, bats, etc. with the increasing unavailability of guns. (FYI: I'm not arguing against gun control.)

Gun Control and Mass Murder - Post #455

The reality of this shift has been demonstrated in the recent incident in Israel in which a Palestinian man launches a car/knife attack on his victims. This is the type of attack that will become more commonplace as gun control/bans become more strict.

What do you think can be done to stop this type of violence other than the ineffective tactic of trying to take away the tools they use for their violent crimes?

[Wilson]

Gun control would reduce the carnage but not eliminate it.

[Spiral Out]

I disagree with that, Wilson. At best, it might only reduce the type of violence.

If a mentally ill or otherwise angry person feels they must kill as many people as possible in order to either "send a message", "make a difference", "set an example" or whatever, then is it best to try to limit his/her access to the tools in which to enact that violence, or treat/prevent the underlying psychological issues this person suffers from?

Without treating or curing the mind, even if we could completely eliminate all firearms today, tomorrow there would be a statistical explosion of stabbings, bludgeonings, stranglings and the type of car attacks as seen in the incident in Israel. That's a guarantee.

Taking the tools away from the person does not cause the violence in that person to evaporate. Of course, strict gun control will invariably reduce the level of violence using guns, but it will not reduce the potential for violence to be committed.

There is definitely a better way. I want to know if anyone has any insightful, creative or visionary ideas that would be more effective in resolving the problem of Human violence.

[edelker]

As a graduate student in clinical psychotherapy and completing the final phase of his research and education, I can confidently report that there is NO compelling evidence to suggest that the mentally ill commit more violent acts more often. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary.

Here nor there, Spiral Out, there's simply no reason to refute your claim here because you've provided no compelling argument. Maybe that wasn't your intention--only to ask a question? However, all you seem to have is the rather suspicious perception that merely removing guns will only cause people to commit the violent crimes by other means. One, what's your evidence and argument for this assertion other than you merely claim that it is so--and something more than providing videos, which is nothing more than anecdotal. Two, so what if what was true?

The whole point about gun-control isn't about eliminating violence! Rather, it is about reduction in the vast numbers of those easily killed by such weapons. No credible person is arguing that guns will eliminate violent acts, only the means by which high levels of violent acts can be carried out.

So, perhaps, you're simply misunderstanding what the goal is here.

As to the violence itself, well, (a) correlations differ from population to population; (b) it isn't clear from the evidence that if people like Adam Lanza didn't have easy means to kill that they (he) would have done so regardless; (c) more research is required, and (d), certain countries have more problems with violence than others. For example, among highly industrialized nations the U.S. ranks the highest in most categories of violence according to certain research. So, we need to look at some of the research that might better inform us on the issue and await new research findings on the matter.


Eric D.

[Togo1]

I've previously stated in another thread that gun control measures will cause a lateral shift in the methods in which violent criminals use to inflict harm on their victims. I've stated that they will resort to using vehicles, knives, bats, etc. with the increasing unavailability of guns. (FYI: I'm not arguing against gun control.)

Well, how does patterns of violence compare between countries with strict gun controls, and countries without? Despite you presenting this as a 'shift' (i.e. something new) it's been commonly implemented in many countries for decades.

My understanding is that rates of violence are lower overall, where there is gun control, which suggests that there isn't a lateral shift, or that such a shift only occurs for a proportion of crimes.

In terms of eliminating violence entirely, well that's a bit more fundamental. What is violence used to achieve?

Compliance/obedience The most common is using the threat of violence to enforce obedience. Most states use military force - that is threatening to kill or harm people - to enforce compliance. That's also the rationale behind a guard dog - dogs are quite small animals, and not as strong as humans, but they will actually bite you, and aren't open to persuasion otherwise. Thus dogs present a credible/deniable threat that a human wouldn't. Similarly, individuals use weapons, nonlethal chemicals like pepper spray, unarmed martial arts, etc. and so on. This kind of violence is so widely accepted, that it's presence amongst criminals seems almost an afterthought. The remarkable thing about a mugger wanting your wallet is that he wants your wallet even though taking it is illegal, not that he's armed.

Rage Crimes of passion are, by definition, rarely pre-meditated. This is the kind of crime that benefits most from not having lethal weapons immediately to hand, however this is achieved.

Political violence This is a huge one. Again, states are the most common participants here, although you do get rarer instances of non-state actors, such as the Palestinian attack you posted a video of. Again the ability to fight against those seeking to conquer/rule/control you, or your area, is literally celebrated in most countries.

A desire for harm Attacking people simply because you want them to die or have an injury, for personal rather than political motives, is quite rare, and often attracts psychiatric treatment rather than simple incarceration.

Using the split above, and leaving aside Rage and psychiatric cases, it would seem that the easiest and most effective way of reducing violence is to reduce the rewards of using it, and make the alternatives more attractive. Reducing the rewards would involve making sure that violence doesn't result in immediate gains, and in ensuring that peaceful alternatives, such as getting a well-paid job, or a political process that involves all parties, are more attractive than violent action. Through that lens, excessive violence is simply a side-effect of political oppression/disenfranchisement, or a lack of economic opportunity.

Drilling a bit deeper, we hit the problem that states and state actors use violence all the time, and that doesn't seem to be an issue. Why is that? The usual justification is that state needs to be able to achieve certain things, and we see violence as reasonable to accomplish that. Thus viewed this way, violence is simply a problem of people wanting things we don't want them to have. A better income, a free country of their own, freedom from harassment, and so on.

Either way we need to consider whether the 'problem' of violence is a problem with the violent, or with us.

[Wilson]

Spiral Out, in the recent violence in Israel, individuals - presumably Palestinians - were stabbing as many Israelis as they could. Almost all of those victims survived, I'm pretty sure. If the Palestinians had had guns, there would have been many more people killed.

Edelker, you're saying that the individuals who went on killing rampages in the US were mentally healthy? It's true that some of them were simply frustrated, unhappy, and desirous of attention, but some of them seem to be paranoid schizophrenics, and others have elements of grandiosity, narcissism, and depression.

Here's an article by a clinical professor of psychiatry who for the past 15 years has conducted research on adolescents and adults who commit mass murder. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ass-murder

He writes:

Mental disorders range from chronic psychotic disturbances, such as schizophrenia diagnosed in the Jared Loughner case, to major depression, other depressive disorders, bipolar disorders, and other paranoid disorders, such as persecutory delusional disorder. Fully understanding the range and complexity of these individuals’ disturbances is critical. Personality disorders also abound in this group of dangerous subjects. We have found that personality disorders in mass murderers are often a mixture of antisocial, paranoid, narcissistic, and schizoid traits—someone who habitually engages in criminal behavior, is suspicious of others’ actions, is self-centered and grandiose with little empathy for others, and is chronically indifferent toward others and detached from his emotional life. It takes little imagination to see how such an individual, in the right circumstances, could intentionally kill others.

Whether it's practical to think that expanding the availability of psychiatric help would make much difference is another question.

[Robert66]

It is noteworthy that J. Reid Meloy Ph.D. wrote, in the article referred to by Wilson, that 'rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased ... from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010.' This statement contradicts Spiral Out's theory.

Rather than entering a war of statistics, however, let's concentrate on the question 'What do you think can be done to stop this type of violence other than the ineffective tactic of trying to take away the tools they use for their violent crimes?' Reid Meloy suggests that 'poor public mental health care' needs to be addressed. A good place to start improving public mental health might be to divert some of the resources allocated to incarceration, and spend them on an effort to understand, and to counter, the reasons why some of us are hostile to our society.

[Spiral Out]

As a graduate student in clinical psychotherapy and completing the final phase of his research and education, I can confidently report that there is NO compelling evidence to suggest that the mentally ill commit more violent acts more often. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary.

Please point out where I made such a claim.

Here nor there, Spiral Out, there's simply no reason to refute your claim here because you've provided no compelling argument.

My argument is that simply taking any particular tool away from a violent person does not cause the violence in that person to evaporate. It logically follows that removing firearms from that person's available tools will not cause them to just give up on their intent to do harm.

My other point is that one can do just as much harm (and potentially even more harm) with a large SUV as one can with a gun if one is committed to such an act.

If that's not compelling enough for you then all you need do is wait and keep watching the news.

However, all you seem to have is the rather suspicious perception that merely removing guns will only cause people to commit the violent crimes by other means. One, what's your evidence and argument for this assertion other than you merely claim that it is so--and something more than providing videos, which is nothing more than anecdotal.

Keep watching the news. My evidence and argument is Human nature. You have no more evidence or argument that it won't happen than I have that it will.

The whole point about gun-control isn't about eliminating violence! Rather, it is about reduction in the vast numbers of those easily killed by such weapons. No credible person is arguing that guns will eliminate violent acts, only the means by which high levels of violent acts can be carried out.

I'm not arguing that it will eliminate violence. Such a thought is obviously absurd. I'm arguing that it will not make a violent person any less violent or cause them to be unable to inflict just as much harm via other means.

So, perhaps, you're simply misunderstanding what the goal is here.

The goal of gun control? Political leverage tool, governmental revenue stream, activist organization pacifier, insurance company profit booster, etc. Take your pick. Will gun control cause less violent crime with guns? Of course, any moron knows that. Big deal. That's not nearly enough when the violence emerges in other ways. Will it decrease the incidents of mass murder and/or other violent crimes? Nope. Not at all.

Gun control laws are an ineffective half-step toward the (secondary) goal of reducing violent crime.

As to the violence itself, well, (a) correlations differ from population to population; (b) it isn't clear from the evidence that if people like Adam Lanza didn't have easy means to kill that they (he) would have done so regardless; (c) more research is required, and (d), certain countries have more problems with violence than others. For example, among highly industrialized nations the U.S. ranks the highest in most categories of violence according to certain research. So, we need to look at some of the research that might better inform us on the issue and await new research findings on the matter.

That doesn't say anything for your position, or against mine for that matter.

>>>

Well, how does patterns of violence compare between countries with strict gun controls, and countries without? Despite you presenting this as a 'shift' (i.e. something new) it's been commonly implemented in many countries for decades.

And those have higher rates of other types of violent crimes. What's your point?

My understanding is that rates of violence are lower overall, where there is gun control, which suggests that there isn't a lateral shift, or that such a shift only occurs for a proportion of crimes.

If you dig a bit deeper you will start to understand reporting statistics relative to other crimes and in proportion to crimes using firearms. Gun crimes have no "shame" contingent involved.

Either way we need to consider whether the 'problem' of violence is a problem with the violent, or with us.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Humans create the violence.

>>>

Spiral Out, in the recent violence in Israel, individuals - presumably Palestinians - were stabbing as many Israelis as they could. Almost all of those victims survived, I'm pretty sure. If the Palestinians had had guns, there would have been many more people killed.

I'm a bit ahead of the curve, Wilson. I can see what's coming. Time will prove me right.

Edelker, you're saying that the individuals who went on killing rampages in the US were mentally healthy? It's true that some of them were simply frustrated, unhappy, and desirous of attention, but some of them seem to be paranoid schizophrenics, and others have elements of grandiosity, narcissism, and depression.

Yes, not all of the mentally ill are mass murderers, but all mass murderers are mentally ill.

>>>

t is noteworthy that J. Reid Meloy Ph.D. wrote, in the article referred to by Wilson, that 'rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased ... from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010.' This statement contradicts Spiral Out's theory.

That says absolutely nothing relative to what I'm talking about.

Reid Meloy suggests that 'poor public mental health care' needs to be addressed. A good place to start improving public mental health might be to divert some of the resources allocated to incarceration, and spend them on an effort to understand, and to counter, the reasons why some of us are hostile to our society.

I would agree with Dr. Meloy.

[Present awareness]

Gun control would reduce the carnage but not eliminate it.

I agree with Wilson, I would much rather face a man with a knife, then a man with a gun. At lest there is a slight chance to defend yourself. There will always be violence, because the brain is an organ and like other organs in the body, is subject to disease.

[Spiral Out]

I would much rather face a man with a knife, then a man with a gun.

No, you wouldn't. It is well-known through studies that people have a much greater psychological fear of being impaled or cut than being shot.

[Present awareness]

I would much rather face a man with a knife, then a man with a gun.

No, you wouldn't. It is well-known through studies that people have a much greater psychological fear of being impaled or cut than being shot.

Yes, but I know karate.

At any rate, a man can stand in a crowded room and kill 15-20 people with a semi automatic gun and not even break a sweat. A man with a knife has to work for it, and most likely would be taken down long before that.

[Robert66]

Robert66 wrote: t is noteworthy that J. Reid Meloy Ph.D. wrote, in the article referred to by Wilson, that 'rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased ... from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010.' This statement contradicts Spiral Out's theory.

Spiral Out replied: 'That says absolutely nothing relative to what I'm talking about'.

Well it appears from these figures that instead of the lateral shift you describe, the shift occurring is "upward", from being violent to being non-violent.

[edelker]

Spiral Out/Wilson
-----------------------------

Spiral Out:

Please point out where I made such a claim.

Easy enough: In your cited post where you claimed to have dealt with the question “Why are people violent?” YOU WROTE,

I've addressed this also:

"Why are people violent? Probably due to either mental illness, emotional oversensitivity, perhaps they weren't treated with due respect, perhaps they weren't allowed a voice to be heard, perhaps they were bullied in school, perhaps they were sexually abused by a mentally ill pedophile, perhaps they were emotionally abused, perhaps they weren't given enough love and attention, perhaps they're being taxed into poverty, perhaps they're having things taken away from them without due cause, perhaps they're being harassed unnecessarily by authorities, etc., etc., etc.

You may not have explicitly stated such, but you obviously strongly suggested it in your post! If you read my post carefully, I stated that such “a cause” is not supported by the evidence. I was making a note just as you did in this thread to your previous thread.


Spiral Out:

My argument is that simply taking any particular tool away from a violent person does not cause the violence in that person to evaporate. It logically follows that removing firearms from that person's available tools will not cause them to just give up on their intent to do harm.

Yeah, I know the CLAIM that you obviously made and that's not the point. For your mere claim to work, you have to provide a good argument. Merely claiming that a removal of a tool doesn't evaporate the violence in a violent person is simply circular reasoning unless you fill out the argument with evidence because there's no logical entailment here. Such claims requite inductive logic, i.e., research.

Does the availability of certain tools make a difference in how a violent crime is carried out? Seems so! Would the utter absence of firearms still have compelled someone like Adam Lanza--not a particularly skillful hand to hand combat type of person--to kill dozens of people as quickly?

You seem to say, yes, oddly enough, or, maybe he would have killed somebody, or whatever. Yet, that's not the issue! It is how do you know this? What is you proof? Perhaps the lack of highly efficient means would have had a psychological effect. Your claim is nothing more than supposition.

I have violent clients who have had a criminal history that have stated that under certain current conditions, if they had a "gun" they would have blown away that certain agitating person. Yet, in the absence of that opportunity, they eventually calmed down and sought out help! So, I can say that there is some clinical counterevidence here even if I only cite these few cases, which all that I need to rebut you all too strong claim that violent people will by some logical deductive necessity commit violent acts. Obviously this isn't necessarily true!

Spiral Out:

My other point is that one can do just as much harm (and potentially even more harm) with a large SUV as one can with a gun if one is committed to such an act.

If that's not compelling enough for you then all you need do is wait and keep watching the news.

Evidence? Any? Really, so Adam Lanza could have used an SUV inside a school to kill over twenty running children and teachers? The Columbine shooters could have waited outside the school in some SUV--that they probably had no access to--for kids to hit--in open spaces with other vehicles around? This assertions of yours is simply unfounded as it appears absurd. Obviously, firearm-weapons are designed to be efficient killing machines. If they weren't, then people like you would hardly be advocating for their legal ownership for the use of self-defense. Your own argument is self-refuting--or, it appears to be so.

By the way, I watch the news and I also know that the news isn't a great unbiased source from which we can reliably derive scientific data. Again, do you have something better than mere claims, which are wholly dependent on your suspicions about what will happen, and anecdotal references--after all, I too cited anecdotal evidence that refutes your claim, which all that is required to deny such anecdotal citations--logically!


Spiral Out:

Keep watching the news. My evidence and argument is Human nature. You have no more evidence or argument that it won't happen than I have that it will.

Huh? The evidence on violence and gun related violence Spiral is based largely on what is called correlational research and such evidence doesn't support the claim that "tools don't matter." If it does, then please cite the source other than your own biased beliefs about human nature.

As a student of human nature, I can confidently say that social environment and situational context makes as much a difference on what a person will do at a given time as much as the person's psychological makeup. The fact is-is that we have NO reliable psychological metric as of yet that can be used to predict violence. Most violent offenders do not go one to repeat violent acts--or do not do so at the level of committing a homicide. Likewise, there are the Adam Lanza cases wherein there is no psychologically reliable profile that would have predicted this seemingly non-violent child to commit mass murder.

So, again, Spiral Out, do you have something other than weak ideological biases to establish your claim to know about this so-called lateral shift or not! I carry NO BURDEN here, you do! So, what's your evidence because my profession would love to hear it!


Spiral Out:

I'm not arguing that it will eliminate violence. Such a thought is obviously absurd. I'm arguing that it will not make a violent person any less violent or cause them to be unable to inflict just as much harm via other means.

Now your claim is even worse off than how I understood it prior. If your claim was that gun-control measures won't address violence and the statistical level of violent incidents, you would have slightly better grounds than you currently have--not that even this claim is--or has been--supported either.

Rather, your claim is not only what I just wrote above, but that the actual lethality statistics would remain high or even higher if better gun-control measures would put in place. Again, what in the world is your evidence besides bad guesswork on some perception of human nature that you personally and subjectively accept as so? After all, you have two sets of claims now that you haven't demonstrated! Citing reports filed with news organizations won't cut it! After all, we do have FBI stats, in combination with other credible stats that DO STRONGLY suggest that the presence of firearms seems to make a difference in the occurrence of lethality and the prevalence of lethality. Citing that evidence is rather easy to do and I'll be more than happy to do so--even though you could have done the same! If this isn't the case, and THAT IS YOUR CLAIM, then what do you have that suggests otherwise? Anything of rational use?


Spiral Out:

The goal of gun control? Political leverage tool, governmental revenue stream, activist organization pacifier, insurance company profit booster, etc. Take your pick. Will gun control cause less violent crime with guns? Of course, any moron knows that. Big deal. That's not nearly enough when the violence emerges in other ways. Will it decrease the incidents of mass murder and/or other violent crimes? Nope. Not at all.

Look Spiral, I'm not interested in your mere perceptions about some political conspiracy of the liberal agenda blah blah blah...I want to know how you support your claim because you haven't! You asked yourself the question and answered it as if WE SHOULD KNOW and I see NO reason that you've provided other than personal odd eccentric views you hold about the government and what human beings will do regardless. So, do I see any argument from you? Nope. Not at all.


Spiral Out:

Gun control laws are an ineffective half-step toward the (secondary) goal of reducing violent crime.

Your evidence, Sir?? None! Moving on...


Spiral Out:

That doesn't say anything for your position, or against mine for that matter.

Actually, it does! I strongly suggest a more careful reading of what I wrote here and how it compares to your remarkable claims. If you need me to expound, I'd be happy to accommodate!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson:

Edelker, you're saying that the individuals who went on killing rampages in the US were mentally healthy? It's true that some of them were simply frustrated, unhappy, and desirous of attention, but some of them seem to be paranoid schizophrenics, and others have elements of grandiosity, narcissism, and depression.

I'm hardly suggesting that everyone who has went on a killing spree was mentally healthy and that isn't even implied by what I wrote! What I wrote was that there's NO evidence suggesting that the mentally ill are more likely to kill--or, if you'd like--go on rampages, than so-called mentally healthy people.


Also, the evidence I have is from multiple sources. Once more, A SOURCE is useful but will always be considered insufficient by standard research criteria and research requirements set down by official organizations like the American Psychological Association. We always have to strive to obtain as much evidence from as many reliable sources as possible.


Even your citation here leaves more questions than it answers. For example, can we say with clinical reliability that if a young male presents with what appears to be narcissistic personality disorder or even major depression with psychotic features that he will likely murder others? Moreover, are these diagnoses produced after the killings or before? I'll answer for the good doctor: mostly after! Are the vast majority of youth that present with some one or mixture of these disorders more likely to kill? Again, I'll answer: there is NO statistically reliable evidence suggesting this. The vast majority of clients who present with serious mental disorders do no kill others.


Eric D.

[Spiral Out]

At any rate, a man can stand in a crowded room and kill 15-20 people with a semi automatic gun and not even break a sweat. A man with a knife has to work for it, and most likely would be taken down long before that.

You're talking about two different ideas. A man in a large SUV can take out about 100 people before being taken down. The fact remains that you, yourself, would much rather confront a man with a gun than a man with a machete.

Do you think violence is an act of easy convenience?

Anyone who is committed to killing will find a way to do so. Simply taking a gun out of their hands will make no difference whatsoever.

>>>

Robert66 wrote: t is noteworthy that J. Reid Meloy Ph.D. wrote, in the article referred to by Wilson, that 'rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased ... from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010.' This statement contradicts Spiral Out's theory.

Spiral Out replied: 'That says absolutely nothing relative to what I'm talking about'.

Well it appears from these figures that instead of the lateral shift you describe, the shift occurring is "upward", from being violent to being non-violent.

There's a well-known concept of crime reporting that causes certain violent crimes and certain victims of certain violent crimes to not report due to emotionally-driven factors such as family, shame, social stigma, etc. Gun crimes have no such factors involved for reporting.

You're thinking small. Think big.

>>>

Easy enough: In your cited post where you claimed to have dealt with the question “Why are people violent?” YOU WROTE,


I've addressed this also:

"Why are people violent? Probably due to either mental illness, emotional oversensitivity, perhaps they weren't treated with due respect, perhaps they weren't allowed a voice to be heard, perhaps they were bullied in school, perhaps they were sexually abused by a mentally ill pedophile, perhaps they were emotionally abused, perhaps they weren't given enough love and attention, perhaps they're being taxed into poverty, perhaps they're having things taken away from them without due cause, perhaps they're being harassed unnecessarily by authorities, etc., etc., etc.


You may not have explicitly stated such, but you obviously strongly suggested it in your post! If you read my post carefully, I stated that such “a cause” is not supported by the evidence. I was making a note just as you did in this thread to your previous thread.

Thanks for supporting my argument that I was obviously not singling out mental illness.

Not all of the mentally ill are mass murderers, but all mass murderers are, by definition, mentally ill.

Yeah, I know the CLAIM that you obviously made and that's not the point. For your mere claim to work, you have to provide a good argument. Merely claiming that a removal of a tool doesn't evaporate the violence in a violent person is simply circular reasoning unless you fill out the argument with evidence because there's no logical entailment here. Such claims requite inductive logic, i.e., research.

I takes no scientific research, degrees in psychology or anything else of the sort to know that the violence in a person is not taken away when their weapon is taken away. That's just common sense.

Does the availability of certain tools make a difference in how a violent crime is carried out? Seems so! Would the utter absence of firearms still have compelled someone like Adam Lanza--not a particularly skillful hand to hand combat type of person--to kill dozens of people as quickly?

Could Mr. Lanza have mowed down 50+ children in a playground with any readily-available SUV if he had no gun available to him? Yes indeed, he could have.

You seem to say, yes, oddly enough, or, maybe he would have killed somebody, or whatever. Yet, that's not the issue! It is how do you know this? What is you proof? Perhaps the lack of highly efficient means would have had a psychological effect. Your claim is nothing more than supposition.

I don't merely seem to say yes, I boldly say yes, and there's nothing odd about it. The issue is that unresolved violence, at any level, will invariably manifest itself regardless of the availability of a firearm.

I have violent clients who have had a criminal history that have stated that under certain current conditions, if they had a "gun" they would have blown away that certain agitating person. Yet, in the absence of that opportunity, they eventually calmed down and sought out help! So, I can say that there is some clinical counterevidence here even if I only cite these few cases, which all that I need to rebut you all too strong claim that violent people will by some logical deductive necessity commit violent acts. Obviously this isn't necessarily true!

You're saying nothing to counter my arguments. You have stated clearly above that the person would have sought help with their mental health. Not all mentally ill people seek help or even know they are mentally ill. This is precisely my point. Without that help, such a person with that level of potential for violence would inevitably have committed that murder, one way or another. To say that is evidence against my argument is missing the point of what I'm saying.

Evidence? Any? Really, so Adam Lanza could have used an SUV inside a school to kill over twenty running children and teachers?

Yes, of course. Are you familiar with the concept of reality?

The Columbine shooters could have waited outside the school in some SUV--that they probably had no access to--for kids to hit--in open spaces with other vehicles around?

Wy did they "probably have no access to" an SUV?? Did they carefully plan out their attack? They sure did. Could they have also carefully planned out an attack with an SUV? Of course they could have.

This assertions of yours is simply unfounded as it appears absurd.

Perhaps that's because you don't have a firm grip on reality. The real world operates kind of like in that video in the OP.

Obviously, firearm-weapons are designed to be efficient killing machines. If they weren't, then people like you would hardly be advocating for their legal ownership for the use of self-defense. Your own argument is self-refuting--or, it appears to be so.

Firearms are designed to launch projectiles in a certain trajectory at a high rate of speed. Nothing more. So are machetes designed to hack people into little pieces?? If you think that firearms are designed to be "efficient killing machines" then perhaps you require some of that psychological help we've been talking about.

By the way, I watch the news and I also know that the news isn't a great unbiased source from which we can reliably derive scientific data. Again, do you have something better than mere claims, which are wholly dependent on your suspicions about what will happen, and anecdotal references--after all, I too cited anecdotal evidence that refutes your claim, which all that is required to deny such anecdotal citations--logically!

I have common sense. That's all I need.

Huh? The evidence on violence and gun related violence Spiral is based largely on what is called correlational research and such evidence doesn't support the claim that "tools don't matter." If it does, then please cite the source other than your own biased beliefs about human nature.

The evidence is is there, you just need to notice it. If you rely strictly and solely on research then you will forever be woefully misinformed.

As a student of human nature, I can confidently say that social environment and situational context makes as much a difference on what a person will do at a given time as much as the person's psychological makeup. The fact is-is that we have NO reliable psychological metric as of yet that can be used to predict violence. Most violent offenders do not go one to repeat violent acts--or do not do so at the level of committing a homicide. Likewise, there are the Adam Lanza cases wherein there is no psychologically reliable profile that would have predicted this seemingly non-violent child to commit mass murder.

So, again, Spiral Out, do you have something other than weak ideological biases to establish your claim to know about this so-called lateral shift or not! I carry NO BURDEN here, you do! So, what's your evidence because my profession would love to hear it!

You've just heard it in your first paragraph. Your assertions in your first paragraph conflict with each other and your reliance on "metrics" and research for your "educated" view of the world are quite disturbing indeed. You statement that "most violent offenders do not go (on) to repeat violent acts--or do not do so at the level of committing a homicide" is indicative of your fundamental ignorance to the fact that "most violent offenders" are relative to those who are known to the system. What percentage of all violent people are known to be violent offenders?

I'm not arguing that it will eliminate violence. Such a thought is obviously absurd. I'm arguing that it will not make a violent person any less violent or cause them to be unable to inflict just as much harm via other means.

Now your claim is even worse off than how I understood it prior. If your claim was that gun-control measures won't address violence and the statistical level of violent incidents, you would have slightly better grounds than you currently have--not that even this claim is--or has been--supported either.

My claim is that gun control will only decrease the level of violence committed with guns and that violent people do not become any less violent simply because they had one method of committing their violence removed from their list of available methods. This is so obvious that it should't even have to be argued.

The goal of gun control? Political leverage tool, governmental revenue stream, activist organization pacifier, insurance company profit booster, etc. Take your pick. Will gun control cause less violent crime with guns? Of course, any moron knows that. Big deal. That's not nearly enough when the violence emerges in other ways. Will it decrease the incidents of mass murder and/or other violent crimes? Nope. Not at all.

Look Spiral, I'm not interested in your mere perceptions about some political conspiracy of the liberal agenda blah blah blah...

Of course. Such ideas MUST be conspiracy! I must be paranoid, right?

What you're saying is that any time the intent of any government activity is suggested to be anything other than for the sole good of the people that it must be the imaginings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. So who's the paranoid one here?

Politicians using a highly-emotional social issue for their own political gain? Unthinkable! Insurance companies using political issues to increase their bottom line? Unthinkable!

Wake up, it's for your own good.

You asked yourself the question and answered it as if WE SHOULD KNOW and I see NO reason that you've provided other than personal odd eccentric views you hold about the government and what human beings will do regardless. So, do I see any argument from you? Nope. Not at all.

Common sense should be your guide, not research metrics. You said yourself that "we have NO reliable psychological metric as of yet that can be used to predict violence", so what good are your metrics?

I'm sorry that you cannot see that the fundamental problem is Human violence and not the tools used to enact said violence. Perhaps someday you will realize that science, statistics, research metrics, etc. are insufficient and inept methods of understanding Human nature.

[Wilson]

Even your citation here leaves more questions than it answers. For example, can we say with clinical reliability that if a young male presents with what appears to be narcissistic personality disorder or even major depression with psychotic features that he will likely murder others? Moreover, are these diagnoses produced after the killings or before? I'll answer for the good doctor: mostly after! Are the vast majority of youth that present with some one or mixture of these disorders more likely to kill? Again, I'll answer: there is NO statistically reliable evidence suggesting this. The vast majority of clients who present with serious mental disorders do no kill others.

Of course the vast majority of clients who present with serious mental disorders don't kill. And the vast majority of non-clients don't kill. But clearly there is a small subset of those with mental disorders who do go on killing rampages, and the percentage is greater than for those who are mentally healthy. If you are a psychiatrist and your client tells you his fantasies about mass murder, are you concerned, or do you say, well, the statistics I've read tell me that you are no more likely to kill than the average Joe?

I think your need to believe in the proposition that the mentally ill are no more likely than mentally healthy people to kill may be clouding your judgment on this issue. My guess is that most depressed people are less likely to commit murder, due to lethargy, and that those with psychotic ideation are somewhat more likely to get involved in mass killings, due to delusions and paranoia. It's pretty obvious that anybody who commits mass murder or serial murder has a major psychiatric diagnosis. Also obvious is that that's a very small percentage of the mentally ill.