DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Here We Go again... Open Season?

Something to ponder for those looking for conversation or just to learn more about troubled youths in our country, rather than trying to demean another's opinion on these issues.

I tried to have a discussion but you seemingly don't wish to.

I wasn't talking about you. I thought your post was fair. I disagreed w/parts, but that's fine. I don't think my opinions are gospel. I just like to introduce thought into a subject. I'm not interested in debating it. If some don't agree that the issues I am currently addressing one or two at a time are contributing factors in our mass murders and suicides, than so be it. Everyone has their opinion. Fine w/me.

I do think you made points that add to the problem. To what extent is debatable but that doesn't mean they aren't a part of the contributing factors.

Another mass shooting.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/watch-...ebaa552-20ff-5c23-8b60-e943de427e5b.html

It seems one person had a Glock with the switch.

Thanks for the article. It reveals a lot.

We’re never going to convince anyone raised in the NRA cult to believe they are part of the problem. No way.

I have been thinking about how the FBI profiles serial killers and how we should be doing the same for mass murderers. The mass murderer definitions are vague and inconsistent, so I'm just talking about shooters who walk into schools, movie theaters, malls, etc.

A couple of minutes ago, I typed in something like is the government trying to profile mass murderers. A lot of the results were about trying to define "mass murderers." I checked out one link that mentioned two professors. I think it's fairly interesting read for the most part. I think some of it is bogus and perhaps politically motivated, but there are parts that are important and meaningful. Such as, the causes of ....and what the government can do to identify these people early and get them the necessary treatment. I also think it's noteworthy that the shooters are also committing suicide.

I don't want to debate the political parties, but I've long thought we need to invest the resources to first profile these shooters, create ways to identify them early, and then get them the necessary treatment to help prevent future mass murders. Doing so will be outrageously expensive. Is the safety of our school children and other innocent citizens worth the cost?

Here is the article:

Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?
Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence.


By MELANIE WARNER

05/27/2022 02:54 PM EDT

Melanie Warner is a writer in Honolulu and author, most recently, of The Magic Feather Effect: The Science of Alternative Medicine and the Surprising Power of Belief.

Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.

Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.


Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions. POLITICO talked to Peterson and Densely from their offices in St. Paul, Minn., about how our national understanding about mass shooters has to evolve, why using terms like “monster” is counterproductive, and why political talking points about mental health need to be followed up with concrete action.

W.H. hasn’t seen this action on gun reform ‘in a long time’


POLITICO: Since you both spend much of your time studying mass shootings, I wonder if you had the same stunned and horrified reaction as the rest of us to the Uvalde elementary school shooting. Or were you somehow expecting this?

Jillian Peterson: On some level, we were waiting because mass shootings are socially contagious and when one really big one happens and gets a lot of media attention, we tend to see others follow. But this one was particularly gutting. I have three elementary school kids, one of which is in 4th grade.


James Densley: I’m also a parent of two boys, a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old. My 12-year-old knows what I do for a living and he’s looking to me for reassurance and I didn’t have the words for him. How do I say, “This happened at a school, but now it’s OK for you to go to your school and live your life.” It’s heartbreaking.

POLITICO: Are you saying there’s a link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings?

Peterson: We don’t know for sure at this point, but our research would say that it’s likely. You had an 18-year-old commit a horrific mass shooting. His name is everywhere and we all spend days talking about “replacement theory.” That shooter was able to get our attention. So, if you have another 18-year-old who is on the edge and watching everything, that could be enough to embolden him to follow. We have seen this happen before.

‘How can anyone explain that?’: Klobuchar on 18-year-olds being able to buy AR-15s online


Densley: Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.”

POLITICO: Can you take us through the profile of mass shooters that emerged from your research?

Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.


What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.

POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?

Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.

It’s hard to focus on the suicide because these are horrific homicides. But it’s a critical piece because we know so much from the suicide prevention world that can translate here.

POLITICO: I’ve heard many references over the last few weeks to “monsters” and “pure evil.” You’ve said this kind of language actually makes things worse. Why?

Densley: If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. What this really problematic terminology does is prevent us from recognizing that mass shooters are us. This is hard for people to relate to because these individuals have done horrific, monstrous things. But three days earlier, that school shooter was somebody’s son, grandson, neighbor, colleague or classmate. We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.

‘My mother’s life mattered’: Son of Buffalo shooting victim testifies at Senate hearing


Peterson: The Buffalo shooter told his teacher that he was going to commit a murder-suicide after he graduated. People aren’t used to thinking that this kind of thing could be real because the people who do mass shootings are evil, psychopathic monsters and this is a kid in my class. There’s a disconnect.


POLITICO: Do you get criticism about being too sympathetic toward mass shooters?

Peterson: We’re not trying to create excuses or say they shouldn’t be held responsible. This is really about, what is the pathway to violence for these people, where does this come from? Only then can we start building data-driven solutions that work. If we’re unwilling to understand the pathway, we’re never going to solve this.

POLITICO: So, what are the solutions?

Densley: There are things we can do right now as individuals, like safe storage of firearms or something as simple as checking in with your kid.

Peterson: Then we really need resources at institutions like schools. We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there. There’s no community mental health and no school-based mental health. Schools are the ideal setting because it doesn’t require a parent to take you there. A lot of perpetrators are from families where the parents are not particularly proactive about mental health appointments.

POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?


Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.

POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?

Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.

Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.

Densley: In Uvalde, there was an army of good guys with guns in the parking lot. The hard approach doesn’t seem to be getting the job done.

Expert calls automatic weapons, replacement theory in the mainstream ‘a deadly cocktail’


POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?

Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.


POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?

Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.

POLITICO: What should have happened in Buffalo, given that the state of New York has a red flag law?

Peterson: From what we know, it sounds like there should have been more education with the police, the mental health facility and the school. If any one of those three had initiated the red flag process, it should have prevented the shooter from making the purchase.

It really shows the limitations of our current systems. Law enforcement investigated, but the shooter had no guns at that moment, so it was not an immediate threat. The mental health facility concluded it was not an immediate crisis, so he goes back to school. If it’s not a red-hot situation in that moment, nobody can do anything. It was none of these people’s jobs to make sure that he got connected with somebody in the community who could help him long term.


Densley: Also, something happens to put people on the radar. Even if they’re not the next shooter, something’s not right. How can we help these individuals reintegrate in a way that’s going to try and turn their lives around? That gets lost if we fixate just on the word “threat.”

POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?

Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.

We have to listen because pushing people out intensifies their grievance and makes them angrier. The Parkland shooter had just been expelled from school and then came back. This is not a problem we can punish our way out of.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762

Emergency visits up in hospitals for gun shot wounds. Higher than pre-pandemic levels.

I’m betting it’s because they’re too many guns on the streets and they’re too easy to acquire. But what do I know.

What people seem to try and dismiss is the very same conditions exist in other nations who do not have this mass shooting issue. They just need look on the streets of Paris and Israel. The political divide is just as bad as it is here. That isolation among teens happens everywhere. The same technology exists in every advanced country. We aren't special in those regards. But I guess overlooking the obvious difference is a helpful distraction for some.

Before I begin.......I have already said that easy access to guns is a problem and a contributing factor. Stop pretending otherwise. I have also said I don't think anyone w/mental illness should be able to purchase guns. I would not allow anyone convicted of violent crimes of any sort to purchase guns. I have no problem w/making gun laws tougher. I just feel that this problem goes far, far deeper than just guns and that people parrot what they are told due to political sides.

Anyway.......here is an article about school shooting and what can we do to prevent them. I will also provide the link to National Association of School Psychologists. I should have known that there isn't any profiling being done on our schools. It's about the rights of the individual. That is a huge problem in and of itself. Keep your heads in the sand.




Here is the link to NASP. Tons of interesting information on their site and student rights.


https://www.nasponline.org/resource...l-prevention/threat-assessment-at-school

As I stated, every social ill you have contended exist in America exists in ever modern nation. Yet only we have this problem among modern nations on anything close to this scale. There is only one major difference between them and us. So as to this portion of your post.....


What do you consider a mental illness? What if someone has been diagnosed with depression or anxiety? Should they not be able to purchase a firearm?

Because that's a big issue as well. As your source stated, profiling people is dangerous. Overreach is a very real possibility in regards to this. It would be a travesty to see children who are shy, bashful and socially awkward get such a stigma attached to them so early in life. That may actually help create more mass shooters than it prevents.

I posted factual articles containing the data on political, social, economic, and religious views of all the modern countries. We were at--or right near--the top in all of these issues. And again, please stop making it seem like I am against gun control. I don't know how much more clear I can make it than I just did in my previous post.

I also don't think profiling is a bad idea. It's not like we are removing them from schools and society. We could get a lot of these troubled kids the help they need before their illnesses manifest into something worse. Furthermore, you are wrong if you don't think that these kids don't stand out in schools. You think kids don't notice the kid I mentioned earlier? Do you think it doesn't bother them that that same individual was walking across the basketball court and a kid accidentally ran into him and got punched in the face for doing so? To top it off, the kid did not get suspended because he had so many issues and previous suspensions did not help the problem. Other kids don't notice that? Kids aren't as dumb as adults think they are. Bottom line.......getting these kids into therapy to help them find ways of coping w/their problems would be much more helpful than what we are currently doing, which is basically ignoring and excusing those problems.

By way of parting......I'm not here to argue. I am not taking sides w/the political parties. I don't trust politicians at all. I have zero ties to either political party. I can't stand either one of them. I am here because mental illness has always been something that I was interested in. I started off as a psychology major. I also hate seeing innocents murdered and others resorting to suicides. I don't know the answers, but I do spend a lot of time trying to educate myself on what's going on w/these mass murders and suicides. I am not counting things like drive by shootings of 3-4 individuals and similar shootings as part of the mass murders. I do know that the "thoughts and prayers" thing is not working. Neither is all the grandstanding political debate on guns. This is an issue of our society.

I have no idea where you got any of that from my post. I actually asked some questions regarding your post. I'll try yet again even though I'm thinking it will be rather futile.


What is your definition of a mental illness? Would that include anyone who has been diagnosed with things such as depression and or anxiety? If not what do you consider the threshold of a mental illness should be?

We already have a portion of our society mainly men, who sees getting mental help as a weakness. If their fear becomes them losing their gun rights for receiving such help many of those who need such help the most will even further avoid getting the help they need.

And to address profiling. Profiling has been used to identify serial killers. That's quite true. But that's to solve these crimes after they happen, not before.

So are you suggesting that the school in and of itself have the ability to force these kids into therapy? Or do you think such therapy should be left to the discretion of the parents based on the advice of the school? I know you have used an extreme example of a kid to make your point but where do you propose limits and the lines be drawn on schools either recommending or forcing a child into therapy? As of now we've witnessed school therapists recommend almost any child who acts out at all be medicated.

Overmedication in School-Age Children Research Paper

https://ivypanda.com/essays/overmedication-in-school-age-children/

So should we simply give all school therapists carte blanche in making metal health decisions and diagnosis for all of our children?

What preventative profiling has done in the past has been adopted in stop and frisk laws. So that anyone who looks to fit a certain profile could be pretty much stopped and searched by the cops at any time in NYC. Many having done nothing and were more or less harassed and labeled.

No. I'm not happy with conditions as they are now. And can it help prevent some of these shooting from happening? Maybe. The issue is most of these shooters are former students who are no longer in school. And the devil in what you are proposing is in the details.

But see, I have no idea why you call posts such as mine an argument. This is what a discussion looks like. The idea you are proposing as it stands is an outline of a far bigger proposal. There are many questions about how such a proposal would work. What the limitations would be. What guidelines and limitations you and others would be comfortable with.

I have no idea why you think I indicated you are against gun control. I have no idea why you think any of the questions I've brought up are political. I'm not even saying that I'm against the idea you are proposing. I'm simply saying that it's a very complicated idea and I think most people would have to understand the depth and parameters of such a proposal to fully be able to say they would either promote it or not.

Like I said, this is what an attempt at a discussion looks like. If you somehow have it to be different in your mind, so be it.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. That's fine.

Are you just waking up to this? Where have you been since, like, 2010? Smh. Why do you think I rail so hard against the ex-divider and chief? I hope you aren't just whining because somebody stepped on the edge of your feelings because this is a genuine issue mostly brought about by GOPer ignorance and lies. And I also hope you are open to the truth because you just got it.

I'm not whining. Are you capable of making a post w/out insulting someone? I actually think that folks like you are a huge part of the problem.

I know you do. And that statement is also considered insulting when the problem is obvious to thinking people.

You and a few others around here think all I do is hate, and I get that. But hate has nothing to do with wanting to see this crap fixed and for people on that other side to start acting like Americans again instead of social terrorists every time they take a loss. And the idiotic acts of senseless hate they regularly commit are repulsive to the civilized world. Now I know you are probably rolling your eyes about it because you can't see that the side you choose is an anti-American-values train wreck. But hey, Vers, keep supporting the kumbaya come together because we really do need it, especially with Trump about to go through a slew of things—bad things for him.

So yes, Vers, as long as Trump is still viable, or DStains, or others of that ilk; Marge, Gym, and Bobert, to mention a few. You will probably continue to think I'm the problem. It's called standing for your values and not pulling punches when your opponent NEEDS to hit the floor. And I can't think of anything more important than holding Trump and his J6 enablers accountable to the man. I can think of nothing more important than stomping out the fascism, the Putin worship, and the puritanic terrorism plaguing the LGBTQ and female health rights from the MAGA Goobs! And I don't want to hear any baby killer BS after the right does diddly-squat while 9-year-old babies get killed in THEIR CHURCHES! It's absolute madness on full display as I watch the right try to spin all this into something that remotely makes sense. It's like GOPers think they actually have any kind of real plan or that they actually give a damn about people. Anybody with eyes can see that's a damn lie.

However, there is good news for people like you who feel like they are doing everything right while supporting this poisonous cancer as if it's only a slight part of their political views... When your leaders show us all that hate and division are the only tools in their box, you can vote them out and elect better people. You will be shocked at how amiable the left will be when MAGA dies.

And that's why someone doesn't want to engage.

I don't support Trump. I do not support the Republican party. I support folks working together to solve problems instead of spreading hate and divisiveness. As far as this board goes, it's your side that continues to label, insult, and misrepresent what others are saying. That is why I point it out. If it was the right doing the thing that you, 888, Perfect, and Pit do, I would point that out.

Yet I haven't seen you address any of the very Republicans whose hateful propaganda is dividing this nation. You see they are the ones the nation hears. Nobody on this message board is heard outside of this forum. Those dividing this nation on a daily basis are those in power. The MTG's, Boebert's and Jim Jordon's. And then there's their feckless leader. You'd rather focus on some every day people that have no actual impact on any of that. You never point that out. You point your finger at those who hold no power and thus far have refused to point your finger at those who do.

And no, there was no misunderstanding in my previous post. When you propose therapy and profiling for potential mass shooters, especially as it pertains to school children, there is a lot of details that go with that. Parameters as to who has the power to allow such therapy. My post to you was simply asking how such a thing would be implemented. You stated that mental illness should prevent people from having guns. So I asked you what you feel the parameters were and to what extent do you consider a mental illness.

All a logical progression to the discussion to understand how such a thing would be implemented. If you have decided not to address those things that's fine. But trying to drop it in my lap as if I didn't understand is ridiculous.

This is why I don't converse w/you. I was talking about members of this board. Not one person on the right called me a libtard or any other name when I said I supported stricter gun laws. It's always you guys who label and hate. You also do not get to control my narrative. I have no problem w/you disagreeing w/my opinions. But, you pick and choose, misrepresent what I'm saying, and then say we are having a discussion. We can't have a discussion because you are too one-sided to discuss things w/out bias. I'll have more about my thoughts on this issue in a bit. Count on it.

How was any of my questions one sided? They weren't. They were simply asked to try and understand the parameters and guidelines you would propose in implementing such an idea. It was to find out what you defined as a mental illness that would decide who should and who should not have the right to purchase and own firearms. And of course you still have no intention of addressing any of that.

I have no intention of trying to control your narrative. But it's certainly worth pointing out that those who are actually in power and have control over our nations divide get a free pass on here from you while those that hold no power in the grand scheme of things get called out by you as if they make a difference. The only narrative anyone is trying to control here is you. And you lack the power to do so.

Your idea of Maga is anyone who disagrees with you. So the left will be nice when everyone agrees with them? What a joke. You are the single most hateful person I've ever seen post online and that says a lot.

I'm proud of you. You didn't even throw a libtard in there.

OCD gets the most hateful award.
You get the most miserable award.

Wow! I gave you credit for being more civil than usual and that's your response? I won't bother telling you what award I think you qualify for.

Whether you know it or not, you captured and proved his point spot on. Lol

I don't need your credit or affirmation. Nobody does. When you stop acting like a self absorbed troll, I'll start caring what you think.

So much for trying to be nice. I see that isn't an approach you're fond of. Speaking of self absorbed troll, are you reading what you're posting?

Where’s Vers when we need him?

I'm not a troll though. I don't sit there arguing against every single post by every single person ever. You do. That's all I have left to say to you. Enjoy being wrong.

The self-proclaimed Champion of Women is ganging up w/another male to pick on a female. What tough guys they are.

Judge, jury and executioner. Who is it that self absorbed again?

I love it when people who hate anything that opposes their views accuse others of arguing rather than calling it what it is. A counterpoint in the debate. That there are differing viewpoints to almost everything and when you have an opposing view, they will call it arguing. It's a not so clever way to try and dismiss the opposition. But join the crowd in using that as a deflection.

And what is it that I said you find so offensive? Are you seriously trying to compare sexual assault to a back and forth disagreement on the internet? Why yes you are. I understand why you of all people would try to make up something to excuse the fact you wouldn't stand up against sexual assault.

And you all people talking about being a tough guy.

Once again, you are misrepresenting my position. You simply can't help yourself. That happens when one has no sense of morality.

For those of you who don't know the backstory........I never excused sexual assault. I maintained that I did not know if Watson was innocent or guilty and that I would let the court system decide his fate. That got turned into me "hating women," "supporting a sexual predator," etc. That is what Pit and his cronies constantly do.

You stated you would accept Judge Robinson's decision. Her decision was that watson committed sexual assault. Afterwords you decided to accept the punishment but not her decision. The only one trying to rewrite history here is you.

100% truth.

Florida has passed, and had signed, their Constitutional carry bill.

More blood in the streets and yahoos shooting everything to solve every problem. 26th state and counting (Nebraska should be soonish, and SC might get there too).