Gun control? How about a national discussion on mental health

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I agree. I'm also wondering what would be done about certain profiles. If someone gets, say, an elevation on the MMPI scale 4, is that enough to preclude them from owning a gun?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JeyRo]

Yeah, I agree. I'm also wondering what would be done about certain profiles. If someone gets, say, an elevation on the MMPI scale 4, is that enough to preclude them from owning a gun?

What would Monahan and Steadman say about this?

(OK, I'm done!)

 

[cara susanna]

Well, a diagnosis of anti-social PD usually requires a legal history, right? And doesn't having a legal history usually prevent you from being able to legally own a gun, anyway?

 

[JeyRo]

I... have no idea. D:

I was steeped in their stuff back in the 90s when I was briefly into forensics but haven't really looked into any of it since then. The same problems in the whole area of violence prediction / forecasting are probably the same today - you have a really low base-rate event and predictive models with a lot of 'slop' to it.

My inclination would be for psychologists to not wade into this area at all. Either we'd be accused of being party to mass discrimination against the mentally ill (or other people with suspicious characteristics that fit some particular predictive model) or we'd be faulted when our predictive models fail. It's kind of a lose-lose situation for us as a profession.

 

[JeyRo]

Well, a diagnosis of anti-social PD usually requires a legal history, right? And doesn't having a legal history usually prevent you from being able to legally own a gun, anyway?

You're right.

 

[cara susanna]

Ohh, I knew about the base rate issue with violence but didn't know the reference. Thanks!

Yeah, it'd be a lot of pressure on psychologists. Imagine if one of us was hired to do evals, said someone was okay to own a gun, and then that person did commit a mass homicide. We'd be in hot water.

 

[MBellows]

In addition to further stigmatizing mental illness it seems like a measure that is far too difficult to carry out. Who would do the evals? What would the diagnostic cutoffs be? Can people with an MDD or bipolar disorder disorder get a gun? What about GAD, social phobia, panic disorder? What about those with remitted symptoms?

I have heard it mentioned in connection with this latest incident but it makes me shudder to think about.

Without addressing any of your other issues, this... In my experience in assessment, there is little agreement between clinicians that goes beyond political choices. In fact, I know entirely too many licensed psychologists who I wouldn't trust to evaluate my cat for ASPD.

 

[erg923]

Yeah, I agree. I'm also wondering what would be done about certain profiles. If someone gets, say, an elevation on the MMPI scale 4, is that enough to preclude them from owning a gun?

Why might someone elevate scale 4?

-Hint, the fact that you will need to list a lengthy set of circumstances proves my point entirely.

 

[Pragma]

Just to be completely open about my biases - I'm biased in the sense that I'm on the rather extreme anti-authoritarian end of the spectrum politically (I consider myself voluntaryist / libertarian in my leanings) but I have formerly identified as a mainstream liberal (democrat) a long time ago.

Oh just go smoke your weed, JeyRo. I guess your former liberalism was the gateway.

I am kidding! Totally kidding!

 

[Pragma]

Also, I keep seeing people proposing psych evals before someone is allowed to own a gun. What is everyone's thoughts on that? I'm not sure how useful it would be seeing as how we're not that good at predicting future violence.

I suppose it would create jobs for FSPS students.

ETA: Okay, poor taste. No more humor in this thread for me.

 

[MBellows]

Why might someone elevate scale 4?

-Hint, the fact that you will need to list a lengthy set of circumstances proves my point entirely.

I had just assumed it was a criterion that was made up to exclude us crazy libertarians from gun ownership.

 

[Pragma]

Why might someone elevate scale 4?

-Hint, the fact that you will need to list a lengthy set of circumstances proves my point entirely.

Yeah I agree, but I also really am not a fan of personality testing. I think we have a better chance at saying whether someone has the cognitive capacity to understand the appropriate use of a firearm than predicting actual misuse of the firearm, and there is still room for error there.

But, some form of screening and tracking seems appropriate.

 

[JeyRo]

Yeah I agree, but I also really am not a fan of personality testing. I think we have a better chance at saying whether someone has the cognitive capacity to understand the appropriate use of a firearm than predicting actual misuse of the firearm, and there is still room for error there.

Makes sense. People get their drivers licenses revoked when they get a diagnosis of dementia in California (and probably in most states) - obviously most people would (as would I) be pretty sympathetic to the idea that demented people should not have ready access to firearms.

If a such a law was passed that somehow aimed to prevent demented people from owning or purchasing firearms, it wouldn't get any real opposition from me.

But, some form of screening and tracking seems appropriate.

Why? We already do background checks and have waiting periods already. I recall some figure that indicated that a very high percentage of gun murders are done with unregistered, illegal firearms. Would seem that if a public policy push was proposed (and I'm not advocating for one) it would be to address that problem.

Looks like most guns used in violent crimes (the sweeping majority of which aren't mass shootings) are acquired via "straw purchases" or via gun shows with salesmen who don't follow the law either: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html, so some new screening regimen (assuming there is one that could be developed that's superior to the one we already have, which includes criminal and mental health history already) wouldn't really help what seems to be the problem here - it's not what's being screened for, it's the fact that people buy guns for people who wouldn't otherwise pass the screenings, and that some gun sellers also conspire to evade gun laws.

 

[JeyRo]

Oh just go smoke your weed, JeyRo. I guess your former liberalism was the gateway.

I am kidding! Totally kidding!

Weed might be a gateway drug to libertarianism, you never know.

 

[Pragma]

Makes sense. People get their drivers licenses revoked when they get a diagnosis of dementia in California (and probably in most states) - obviously most people would (as would I) be pretty sympathetic to the idea that demented people should not have ready access to firearms.

If a such a law was passed that somehow aimed to prevent demented people from owning or purchasing firearms, it wouldn't get any real opposition from me.



Why? We already do background checks and have waiting periods already. I recall some figure that indicated that a very high percentage of gun murders are done with unregistered, illegal firearms. Would seem that if a public policy push was proposed (and I'm not advocating for one) it would be to address that problem.

Looks like most guns used in violent crimes (the sweeping majority of which aren't mass shootings) are acquired via "straw purchases" or via gun shows with salesmen who don't follow the law either: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html, so some new screening regimen (assuming there is one that could be developed that's superior to the one we already have, which includes criminal and mental health history already) wouldn't really help what seems to be the problem here - it's not what's being screened for, it's the fact that people buy guns for people who wouldn't otherwise pass the screenings, and that some gun sellers also conspire to evade gun laws.

I don't pay a lot of attention to the gun control debate, but I did grow up with guns and know some people with them. I can't see a good reason not to screen and track weapons, as well as address other forms of evading gun laws.

 

[JeyRo]

I don't pay a lot of attention to the gun control debate, but I did grow up with guns and know some people with them. I can't see a good reason not to screen and track weapons, as well as address other forms of evading gun laws.

Wrong burden of proof I would say - it's not 'what's a good reason to not screen and track weapons,' it's 'what is a good reason for it' (leaving aside that guns are tracked, and people are screened already when they try to purchase many guns)?

Regarding evading gun laws, I meant to bring up the issue of straw purchases and stolen weapons (as a majority of killings are done with illegally-acquired weapons) as a way to put the debate into proper perspective for us as psychologists. Just like the drug trade is a thriving industry and drugs are widely available, I don't see cracking down further on guns (either on the illegally possessed ones, or worse, on the people who obtain them legally) forseeably making any difference in terms of making gun homicides any more rare.

I don't see much that we can add to this as a public policy matter as psychologists (perhaps aside from the issue of addressing dementia and gun ownership, arguably - something I hadn't thought that much about until now) - but the idea of a "national conversation" to address mental health issues behind gun deaths isn't totally a bad idea, considering so many of them are suicides.

 

[Pragma]

Wrong burden of proof I would say - it's not 'what's a good reason to not screen and track weapons,' it's 'what is a good reason for it' (leaving aside that guns are tracked, and people are screened already when they try to purchase many guns)?

In your opinion

Restrictions that ensure people who are purchasing weapons legally are competent and screened are perfectly reasonable. You may place "liberty" above all else when it comes to issues like this, but I see prioritizing that as unreasonable.

I don't think we'll ever stop gun violence. But basic prevention measures are justified, in my opinion.

 

[JeyRo]

In your opinion

Well, sure. But if the burden of proof for state action in a supposedly constitutional republic is "why shouldn't the state act," there's really very little the state shouldn't do. Maybe that's my opinion, but I would presume most people would agree that the proper framework for discussing whether basic rights should be curtailed isn't "why shouldn't we," but "why should we."

Restrictions that ensure people who are purchasing weapons legally are competent and screened are perfectly reasonable.

You may place "liberty" above all else when it comes to issues like this, but I see prioritizing that as unreasonable.

Actually, I've been very careful to make a very data-driven argument at this point questioning the wisdom behind the proposition that there would be any forseeable benefit to making more laws and increasing state control regarding guns.

In no way have I made 'placing "liberty" above all alse' even particularly peripheral to my argument (which would be me making a moral argument - one I haven't done yet, IIRC, although it's one I'm perfectly capable of making).

I don't think we'll ever stop gun violence. But basic prevention measures are justified, in my opinion.

The devil is in the details.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I was steeped in their stuff back in the 90s when I was briefly into forensics but haven't really looked into any of it since then. The same problems in the whole area of violence prediction / forecasting are probably the same today - you have a really low base-rate event and predictive models with a lot of 'slop' to it.

My inclination would be for psychologists to not wade into this area at all. Either we'd be accused of being party to mass discrimination against the mentally ill (or other people with suspicious characteristics that fit some particular predictive model) or we'd be faulted when our predictive models fail. It's kind of a lose-lose situation for us as a profession.

Exactly. Plus, everyone seems to be deciding Adam Lanza was mentally ill based on vague statements from his brother who hasn't seen him into two years and some post-hoc statements from HS classmates. Not exactly the most valid of sources there.

 

[Pragma]

Well, sure. But if the burden of proof for state action in a supposedly constitutional republic is "why shouldn't the state act," there's really very little the state shouldn't do. Maybe that's my opinion, but I would presume most people would agree that the proper framework for discussing whether basic rights should be curtailed isn't "why shouldn't we," but "why should we."

It also depends on how you define basic rights. Gun ownership made a lot more sense when the constitution was written. I don't really view gun ownership as essential for anyone these days, and I'd prefer knowing that people who do own guns have been screened and that their guns are on record. It's not like people couldn't own guns.

The government can't guarantee everyone's safety. But they can cut down on risk.

 

[JeyRo]

It also depends on how you define basic rights. Gun ownership made a lot more sense when the constitution was written. I don't really view gun ownership as essential for anyone these days, and I'd prefer knowing that people who do own guns have been screened and that their guns are on record. It's not like people couldn't own guns.

The government can't guarantee everyone's safety. But they can cut down on risk.

Not that I'm much of a constitutionalist (or legal scholar) but I don't really see that there's much different now that makes the Second Amendment any less relevant now. It was really crafted to allow people to posess weaponry to protect themselves against the kind of weaponry that existed at the time.

On the other hand, I suppose some people see that the right to bear arms as some sort of protection against government tyranny, that's probably the only way the Second Amendment might have become outmoded. Anyone who thinks that the US citizenry (which is exceptionally well armed, relatively speaking) can stand up to the amazing armaments the US government now possesses is delusional.

Anyways, I get that people are more comfortable with the idea that someone might be out there doing something that protects them. But that doesn't mean that the thing being done necessarily protects anyone, or is necessarily the right thing to do. All governments can do is restrict freedoms - that's all they're in the business of doing. If you allow freedoms to get restricted and you get nothing in return (leaving aside the warm, fuzzy feeling of having 'done something'), that's the worst of both worlds.

 

[Pragma]

Not that I'm much of a constitutionalist (or legal scholar) but I don't really see that there's much different now that makes the Second Amendment any less relevant now. It was really crafted to allow people to posess weaponry to protect themselves against the kind of weaponry that existed at the time.

On the other hand, I suppose some people see that the right to bear arms as some sort of protection against government tyranny, that's probably the only way the Second Amendment might have become outmoded. Anyone who thinks that the US citizenry (which is exceptionally well armed, relatively speaking) can stand up to the amazing armaments the US government now possesses is delusional.

Anyways, I get that people are more comfortable with the idea that someone might be out there doing something that protects them. But that doesn't mean that the thing being done necessarily protects anyone, or is necessarily the right thing to do. All governments can do is restrict freedoms - that's all they're in the business of doing. If you allow freedoms to get restricted and you get nothing in return (leaving aside the warm, fuzzy feeling of having 'done something'), that's the worst of both worlds.

Gun ownership to me is qualitatively different than most other freedoms, but some comparisons may be adequate.

Let's consider getting your CDL. It's a harder license to get than your regular driver's license, in part because you can potentially do a lot of damage with larger vehicles. So you jump through more hoops to get the license, but ultimately it is just about proving your level of competence to drive the vehicle. Then, on the job, there are random drug screens, etc, which make sense. If they screw up badly, they get the license revoked.

Will some people drive these vehicles that shouldn't? Yes. Will accidents still happen? Yes. If they got their licensed revoked, will they perhaps still try to illicitly drive a vehicle they should not? Probably in some cases. Because of that, should we just let anyone drive semitrucks if they feel like it as a basic right? I say no.

It isn't about a warm, fuzzy feeling to me. It's about making sure that people purchasing weapons are competent to carry them. I don't see that as the government being intrusive.

 

[roubs]

Anyways, I get that people are more comfortable with the idea that someone might be out there doing something that protects them. But that doesn't mean that the thing being done necessarily protects anyone, or is necessarily the right thing to do. All governments can do is restrict freedoms - that's all they're in the business of doing. If you allow freedoms to get restricted and you get nothing in return (leaving aside the warm, fuzzy feeling of having 'done something'), that's the worst of both worlds.

I don't see that statement as compatible with your earlier request to "keep our discussion very closely tied to a data-based perspective." -- If you look at things government does that are measurable, I can think things that I'd evaluate negatively and others that I would evaluate as positive contributions to society. And to the extent that gov't can create equality of opportunity, they are actually increasing freedom on the whole. Not that I want to get into this whole topic here, but I fundamentally think that starting from the perspective of "the gov't can only take away freedom" leaves us without options. From a data-based perspective, the government and the people should be free to enact regulation, monitor the impact and then revise. I agree that if a rule is having no effect and/or unintended negative consequences, that rule should be revised or replaced. One serious problem is that existing regulations on background checks and mental health clearance (i.e. danger to self or others--Salon link I posted) aren't functioning properly.

Regarding the earlier point of gun homicides, I think the graph we're both looking at shows a decrease until ~1999 and then a period of stability from ~1999-present. Something can be colloquially referred to as an epidemic even if it isn't increasing in prevalence.

 

[JeyRo]

I don't see that statement as compatible with your earlier request to "keep our discussion very closely tied to a data-based perspective."

To be fair, I think I was keeping it to a data-based perspective, until Pragma opened that door with the 'liberty as the highest priority' accusation - and so I responded. Which I think is fair.

-- If you look at things government does that are measurable, I can think things that I'd evaluate negatively and others that I would evaluate as positive contributions to society. ."And to the extent that gov't can create equality of opportunity, they are actually increasing freedom on the whole. Not that I want to get into this whole topic here, but I fundamentally think that starting from the perspective of "the gov't can only take away freedom" leaves us without options. ."

I think I'm saying something pretty uncontroversial here. Saying that the only function of the government is to restrict freedom (which just seems on-its-face-obvious to me) isn't casting judgement about the potential consequences perhaps being positive (e.g., that some people might enjoy more freedom in another area, perhaps, as a result of government restricting freedoms in another area).

From a data-based perspective, the government and the people should be free to enact regulation, monitor the impact and then revise.

Government feels free to enact regulation and law no matter what the data says - it's what government does. And while psychologists and social scientists are pretty good at evaluating data and revising in the light of results, government tends to be horrible at it.

I agree that if a rule is having no effect and/or unintended negative consequences, that rule should be revised or replaced. One serious problem is that existing regulations on background checks and mental health clearance (i.e. danger to self or others--Salon link I posted) aren't functioning properly..

You said "revised or replaced," I notice you never said, "eliminated."

Regarding the earlier point of gun homicides, I think the graph we're both looking at shows a decrease until ~1999 and then a period of stability from ~1999-present. Something can be colloquially referred to as an epidemic even if it isn't increasing in prevalence.

Then we should probably drop the disease analogy, since it's probably imperfect.

 

[MBellows]

Gun ownership to me is qualitatively different than most other freedoms, but some comparisons may be adequate.

Let's consider getting your CDL. It's a harder license to get than your regular driver's license, in part because you can potentially do a lot of damage with larger vehicles. So you jump through more hoops to get the license, but ultimately it is just about proving your level of competence to drive the vehicle. Then, on the job, there are random drug screens, etc, which make sense. If they screw up badly, they get the license revoked.

Will some people drive these vehicles that shouldn't? Yes. Will accidents still happen? Yes. If they got their licensed revoked, will they perhaps still try to illicitly drive a vehicle they should not? Probably in some cases. Because of that, should we just let anyone drive semitrucks if they feel like it as a basic right? I say no.

It isn't about a warm, fuzzy feeling to me. It's about making sure that people purchasing weapons are competent to carry them. I don't see that as the government being intrusive.

Except driving isn't a constitutionally enumerated right?

Government feels free to enact regulation and law no matter what the data says - it's what government does. And while psychologists and social scientists are pretty good at evaluating data and revising in the light of results, government tends to be horrible at it.

Drug Scheduling?

 

[Pragma]

Except driving isn't a constitutionally enumerated right?

No, because I am not sure how the Framers felt about seat belt laws, given all of their experience with driving automobiles

It's a practical matter, IMO.

 

[Pragma]

Are you looking at the same graph I am? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)

Not to belabor this too much, but there is a newer version of that graph available (if you trust the BJS, I guess). There seems to be an upward trend of homicides since 1999 with guns that are not handguns.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf (page 27)

Even if there were only 2 a year and not 3,000, I'd still be in favor of strict regulations.

 

[wigflip]

I think I'm saying something pretty uncontroversial here. Saying that the only function of the government is to restrict freedom (which just seems on-its-face-obvious to me) isn't casting judgement about the potential consequences perhaps being positive (e.g., that some people might enjoy more freedom in another area, perhaps, as a result of government restricting freedoms in another area).

Simply: no.

"Restrict" has a negative valence. "Freedom" has a positive one. I'd love to receive the citation for a socio/psycholinguistic study indicating otherwise. That statement can't reasonably be construed as without "judgement." It displays stance quite clearly (and in my opinion, inaccurately, though I'm admittedly no libertarian).

 

[wigflip]

even if there were only 2 a year and not 3,000, i'd still be in favor of strict regulations.

+1

 

[MBellows]

No, because I am not sure how the Framers felt about seat belt laws, given all of their experience with driving automobiles

It's a practical matter, IMO.

If practicality mattered in constitutional law the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be allowed to picket funerals.

 

[wigflip]

If practicality mattered in constitutional law the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be allowed to picket funerals.

Picketing the funeral of the shooter's victims?!? Hopefully something we can all agree on: this is utterly reprehensible:
http://www.godhates***s.com/fliers/20121217_CT-Shooter-Principal-Funeral.pdf

Okay, if that one doesn't work, try this:http://www.godhates***s.com/
and click on "God sent the shooter to CT" (pdf, not video).

 

[Pragma]

If practicality mattered in constitutional law the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be allowed to picket funerals.

Well if I didn't make myself clear enough earlier, I don't view the 2nd amendment as something that is as relevant today as it was historically, when the Constitution was being written. I just think people to demonstrate their ability to meet appropriate regulatory screening requirements in order to purchase a weapon.

While I remain at risk of falling casualty to a gunshot wound (particularly living in an urban area) even in the presence of government regulations, I think it is reasonable to expect that as a part of your social contract with the government, there are regulations on the purchase and use of deadly firearms, and that those firearms are tracked.

 

[deleted176373]

Just keep this following article in mind as we ask, Should the mental health community seek to bear responsibility for the actions of others though assessment and evaluation?:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psychiatrist-sentenced-patient-commits-murder-192855747.html

Psychiatrist is in jail, the murderer is not. How much liability do we (be it as a profession or as member of society) want to accept for the actions of individuals?

Back to the debate on freedom and regulation:

The whole premise of any gun control debate is that we can meaningfully reduce the risk of violence by restricting firearm purchases in meaningless ways (for example an assault weapons ban). When there is a grim determination on the part of an individual to engage in violent anti-social behaviors, nothing short of surrendering your freedom will allow sufficient monitoring of individuals "believed" to be dangerous.

If we could un-invent firearms technology, strip the public of the means and methods of creating firearms, and prevent all efforts to create similar technology would we be any better off? Or would these same individuals turn to new and creative ways of slaying massive numbers of people indiscriminately?

My guess is that we would be facing similar problems with violence and just a different vehicle of delivery. Look at places where "gun control works", violence is still perpetrated and in many cases far worse than what is seen here. Controlling firearms is not controlling deadly violence, this is a cultural problem. Violence is endorsed as an acceptable method of conflict resolution. There is a reason we don't see high numbers of suicide bombers in the US, it is a societal reason.

What is the societal perception of a suicide bomber?
What is the societal perception of a mass shooter?

How does that differ here and abroad?

Firearm violence is a symptom of something much deeper. Mass shootings are done to satisfy an impulse, what is that impulse and how does a firearm work to satisfy that impulse better than other alternatives?

Just some thoughts...

M

 

[cara susanna]

That article makes me absolutely sick. My supervisor tells me constantly that we cannot control others' behavior. But apparently society thinks that we can...

Edit: Comments on the article are saying that apparently European seismologists were also imprisoned for failing to predict an earthquake. Guess it's not just the mental health professionals then!

 

[Pragma]

Interesting, I was watching CNN (all about gun control and mental health these days), and there was some discussion about the gun control laws in Israel.

I came across this article, and I guess I wasn't the only one who compares driver's licenses and gun ownership.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-americans-learn-from-israeli-gun-laws/

As for the role of mental health professionals in signing off, I wonder if there have been any cases in Israel where the mental health practitioner was held accountable for someone who misused their weapon. It would certainly come up here.

 

[MBellows]

Interesting, I was watching CNN (all about gun control and mental health these days), and there was some discussion about the gun control laws in Israel.

I came across this article, and I guess I wasn't the only one who compares driver's licenses and gun ownership.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-americans-learn-from-israeli-gun-laws/

As for the role of mental health professionals in signing off, I wonder if there have been any cases in Israel where the mental health practitioner was held accountable for someone who misused their weapon. It would certainly come up here.

Completely off topic, but I wanted to suggest a more credible news source. www.theonion.com

 

[Pragma]

Completely off topic, but I wanted to suggest a more credible news source. www.theonion.com

well I try to take most news for what it actually is nowadays: entertainment.

 

[JeyRo]

Simply: no.

"Restrict" has a negative valence. "Freedom" has a positive one. I'd love to receive the citation for a socio/psycholinguistic study indicating otherwise. That statement can't reasonably be construed as without "judgement." It displays stance quite clearly (and in my opinion, inaccurately, though I'm admittedly no libertarian).

What I said was:

Saying that the only function of the government is to restrict freedom (which just seems on-its-face-obvious to me) isn't casting judgement about the potential consequences perhaps being positive

In other words, as I thought I had made pretty clear - I'm not casting judgment about the potential consequences of government curtailing freedom (e.g., such as the freedom to own tools like firearms). I'm just saying that when government acts, necessarily that's what it does - it's really all government does, it's what they're in the business of doing (again, that's leaving aside the possible consequences of some given government action).

I think it's a reasonable (or at least commonly made) argument that by restricting freedom in one area, freedom in general is increased in other areas, and may even result in a net increase in freedom for all. Some don't even argue that - they say that restriction of freedom by government is desireable because people are simply people are better off, safer, more cared for, etc. So, when government restricts freedom (which from where I'm standing is it's sole modus opporandi), the results may be a societal net positive, a net negative, or a wash - regardless of one's own value judgment about liberty or freedom.

I would hope that people would only want to leverage government action in some area if they were pretty sure the benefits outweighed the costs by some sort of hopefully objective metric, if we're to approach this purely from a consequentialist standpoint (which is what social scientists are supposed to be into).

I agree that the words "restrict" and "freedom" may have some emotional valence (e.g., are loaded terms) to some degree, for what that's worth. That's probably unavoidable.

 

[JeyRo]

Even if there were only 2 a year and not 3,000, I'd still be in favor of strict regulations.

IMHO, that sounds like a foundation for fairly skewed cost-benefit analysis, depending on how "strict" you would like these regulations to be.

You're saying that regardless of the increased costs to gun buyers and sellers in terms of time lost, money lost, or possible personal security lost, the benefit of possibly saving two lives a year via increased gun regulations outweighs any of the possible costs that might result. As mbellows points out, this is an enumerated right that SCOTUS (for what this is worth) recently held is a fundamental individual right to self-defense that, as the Second Amendment reads, "shall not be infringed."

It's worth noting that this discussion hasn't really coalesced around any specific proposals (yet) that we would get behind as psychologists that would directly address the problem (regardless of how numerically small it is) of multiple-victim autogenic shooting massacres, or this recent event in particular. There may be nothing we can specifically offer in this case, perhaps, as professionals.

I should say I'm still impressed by this piece of amateur research, although the conclusions one can draw from it are obviously not particularly politically mainstream:

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

 

[roubs]

I should say I'm still impressed by this piece of amateur research, although the conclusions one can draw from it are obviously not particularly politically mainstream:

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

It's cool that he was willing to take the time to pull it together, but it's still a deeply flawed attempt at drawing conclusions from data. Only have a few mins now, but I foresee being moved to post a methodological critique later on...:/

 

[JeyRo]

It's cool that he was willing to take the time to pull it together, but it's still a deeply flawed attempt at drawing conclusions from data. Only have a few mins now, but I foresee being moved to post a methodological critique later on...:/

I'd honestly be really interested to hear that, particularly with an eye towards how might one perform a less flawed analysis. First, it seems like the data is out there, somewhere, just waiting to be analyzed properly (which this guy demonstrates). What's questionable is the reliability of the sources he draws his data from (for example, I could see police reports being a much better source, albeit more difficult to locate) and his method for data point inclusion / exclusion, and possibly how he coded things.

 

[Ollie123]

Haven't thought through alternative designs, yet but did take a look at the link. I'm somewhere in the middle on gun control. While I'm definitely in the "liberal" camp overall these days I consider myself more of an independent and/or person who thinks every political party is stupid for one reason or another. For gun control - on the one hand I don't "get" why so many people care so much about guns, on the other hand I also have plenty of interests I'm sure most folks wouldn't "get" (I am getting a PhD after all) and I'd be pretty unhappy if the government was getting involved in. I definitely despise how "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO" is somehow viewed as a valid argument and that its un-american to say otherwise. The constitution also says we can amend it when we need to and I doubt our forefathers would have been advocates for unthinking blind faith in everything they did. There are valid arguments to be made for gun control but that ain't one of them

As for this - props to the guy for at least trying to look at the data given politics is even more resistant to being evidence-based than psychology has been. However the conclusions are pretty deeply flawed. For one even the data they are showing seems to indicate unarmed civilians do just as good as armed civilians (I doubt the small difference would be statistically significant)...so the conclusion is less "civilians need to be armed" and more "civilians need to be ready to tackle those who are". Second there are TONS of other variables that were largely ignored. Whether civilians (armed or not) COULD have stopped the individual, the level of armament of the perpetrator, the time frame over which it occurred, and many other factors could dramatically influence the conclusions that are drawn.

I don't know what the answer is, but if this were a manuscript I would reviewing it would get a resound recommendation for rejection at even the lowest tier journals!

 

[roubs]

I'd honestly be really interested to hear that, particularly with an eye towards how might one perform a less flawed analysis. First, it seems like the data is out there, somewhere, just waiting to be analyzed properly (which this guy demonstrates). What's questionable is the reliability of the sources he draws his data from (for example, I could see police reports being a much better source, albeit more difficult to locate) and his method for data point inclusion / exclusion, and possibly how he coded things.

The items Ollie mentioned were the main factors on my mind. To expand a bit, civilians are likely to make a judgement about whether or not to intervene, which could reflect a lot of factors like physical proximity to the shooter, level of armaments, one's own ability to stay cool and respond. That being said the one variable that likely affects this is the time the shooter has to shoot in cases where the police are the first opposition the shooter encounters. If a quick thinking civilian sees an opportunity to intervene, that is likely to happen much more quickly than a call-->dispatch-->arrive sequence for police. Other data I've seen is that many of the cases of intervention involve off duty law enforcement/retired law enforcement/retired military. If I could have someone like that at my side all the time, I bet I'd be cutting my risk of being a mass shooting victim.

 

[roubs]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyn...er-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/

Just found this nugget. Look, there's a part of "Obamacare" that liberals can hate. The reason I post this here is I was wondering -- do you all think this makes it illegal to record whether or not a suicidal person has access to guns? At my current rotation the access to guns question is required to be asked of all people reporting suicidal ideation. That seems obvious. Anyone heard anything else about this?

 

[MBellows]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyn...er-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/

Just found this nugget. Look, there's a part of "Obamacare" that liberals can hate. The reason I post this here is I was wondering -- do you all think this makes it illegal to record whether or not a suicidal person has access to guns? At my current rotation the access to guns question is required to be asked of all people reporting suicidal ideation. That seems obvious. Anyone heard anything else about this?

Heh. There's one of those situations where it's illegal for us to ask but illegal for us to not ask? Personally, I'd say to stick to what's established as best practices and let the supreme court handle it of it comes up, I'm pretty sure that first amendment trumps second.

 

[roubs]

Heh. There's one of those situations where it's illegal for us to ask but illegal for us to not ask? Personally, I'd say to stick to what's established as best practices and let the supreme court handle it of it comes up, I'm pretty sure that first amendment trumps second.

Pretty sure you could provoke a huge response with that one

 

[roubs]

Interesting poll result:

Would you support or oppose requiring a mental health examination before any purchase of a gun?
Support 63
Oppose 28

Sample was 54% gun owners. So maybe an idea of requiring an examination for people who have access to a large stockpile of of semiautomatics might be acceptable?

 

[JeyRo]

Interesting poll result:

Would you support or oppose requiring a mental health examination before any purchase of a gun?
Support 63
Oppose 28

Sample was 54% gun owners. So maybe an idea of requiring an examination for people who have access to a large stockpile of of semiautomatics might be acceptable?

It might be acceptable from the perspective of the masses, but given the problems with base rates, and the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't issues with false positives and false negatives (unless you take the position that there is no or minimal downside to inaccurately classifying someone as being worthy of being denied a firearm), I still don't see how it's advantageous for our profession to support wading into this area. It seems like a very bad idea on a number of levels, but I think it's enough to focus on just the professional issues.

We're not soothsayers, we're at best behavioral meteorologists, particularly when it comes to (thankfully) infrequent events like these.

 

[cara susanna]

Plus you know who'd be blamed the minute someone who had been approved committed a violent act with one of those guns.

 

[JeyRo]

The items Ollie mentioned were the main factors on my mind. To expand a bit, civilians are likely to make a judgement about whether or not to intervene, which could reflect a lot of factors like physical proximity to the shooter, level of armaments, one's own ability to stay cool and respond. That being said the one variable that likely affects this is the time the shooter has to shoot in cases where the police are the first opposition the shooter encounters. If a quick thinking civilian sees an opportunity to intervene, that is likely to happen much more quickly than a call-->dispatch-->arrive sequence for police. Other data I've seen is that many of the cases of intervention involve off duty law enforcement/retired law enforcement/retired military. If I could have someone like that at my side all the time, I bet I'd be cutting my risk of being a mass shooting victim.

None of this seems like a fatal flaw to the kind of approach the writer was taking in his "audit" of mass shooting statistics, or am I missing something?

Naturally I can anticipate a lot of appropriate handwaving (e.g., noting limitations) if an idealized, appropriate-to-academic-standards version of this article was produced.

Sampling issues (e.g., sample sizes, etc.), obviously utterly uncontrolled observational data, probably poor data quality (I presume it would be very difficult to get access to all of the police reports on all of these shootings), so there's a lot of biases and 'noise' built into all of this, but the basic nugget would still probably be able to be teased out, it would seem.

There's a saying going around the gun rights crowd currently - "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." If it's true that the presence of an armed bystander significantly cuts down on the lethality of multiple-victim rampage shooting events, it suggests a number of policy responses that seem to be being disproportionately discounted in the current national debate going on.

Granted, one of those policy responses could be something like, "provide every public school with one or more armed security personnel," which could be evaluated alongside bills like the recently-failed Measure 59 over in Michigan (e.g., liberalizing concealed-carry so that people could carry in "gun free zones" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/michigan-concealed-carry-vetoed-rick-snyder_n_2324084.html).