The Perception of Gun Owners

[MTT TL]

Ok, but also true is, practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise ate bread or a bread product regularly.

It's just not that simple. I'd also be willing to bet all the killers also wore shoes regularly. The fact that one can co-relate things does not mean A causes B 100% of the time, or even, that A causes B, at all.

EVERY case is an individual, and general tendencies don't mean much, if anything, useful. Look at the millions of people who use marijuana or any other drugs, legal or not, and who kill NO ONE.

And always remember that "more likely" does NOT mean "will happen".

Really?

Unless you have diabetes eating bread does not present as a mental illness. Same for wearing shoes and all those other perfectly legal activities. And while the vast majority of people wear shoes and eat bread only a small minority of the population consume drugs illegally. So I am not sure what your strawmen are good for?

The co-relation between crime and drug use is well beyond contestation. If you like I can bomb you with peer reviewed studies, facts and figures to show this. I really don't mind. This isn't a general tendency it is a simple fact.

Besides which you are looking at this the wrong way. This has to do with the fact that a small population (drug users) are responsible for nearly every murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users.

 

[44 AMP]

Besides which you are looking at this the wrong way. This has to do with the fact that a small population (drug users) are responsible for nearly every murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users.

I don't think I'm looking at it the wrong way so much as, in this case we're looking at the wrong thing.

This has to do with the fact that a small population (illegal gun users) are responsible for nearly every gun murder in the country. Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal gun users.

If you are implying that illegal drug use, alone, is the cause of murder in this country, I don't think its that simple.

We've had guns in this country since before we had a country. Some believe that it was private ownership of weapons of war that allowed us the tools needed to become our own country.

What we haven't had throughout our history is numbers of people willing to shoot random people for kicks. We've had the technology to commit mass murder with firearms for a long time. "High capacity" magazines are well over a century old, as well. The criminals of the motor bandit /prohibition era had full auto weapons, either legally purchased, or stolen from Govt arsenals. We didn't have the mass shooting like we get today, back then.
They shot each other, they shot police, and rarely they shot people they robbed. They didn't shoot into crowds of people just because they could.

Why not? if it was the gun that caused it?

Something ELSE is the reason. Probably multiple somethings. As I see it, it's not the guns, that are the problem it is some people's willingness to shoot random people. And the actions of those few deranged individuals being blamed on people whose only co-relation with the killers is that they also own a gun.

we are constantly told how wrong it is to profile and judge all members of a group by the actions of a few individuals, but that goes out the window when it comes to gun owners. In fact the anti's not only act that way, they demand every one else do, as well.

or so it seems to me...

 

[MTT TL]

We've had guns in this country since before we had a country. Some believe that it was private ownership of weapons of war that allowed us the tools needed to become our own country.

We've had the technology to commit mass murder with firearms for a long time.

What we haven't had throughout our history is numbers of people willing to shoot random people for kicks.

Again you are looking at the wrong thing. I never said the guns were responsible.

How long have we had Alprazolam, Fluoxetine and high octane weed? 1981?, 1986? 2005? You still don't see a pattern, eh?

We didn't have the mass shooting like we get today, back then.
They shot each other, they shot police, and rarely they shot people they robbed. They didn't shoot into crowds of people just because they could.

Why not? if it was the gun that caused it?

Something ELSE is the reason. Probably multiple somethings. As I see it, it's not the guns, that are the problem it is some people's willingness to shoot random people.

It is almost like you are right at the doorway but afraid to go in. This unhealthy diversion in to blaming the guns is odd.

Think of it is a bad reaction or side effect. Not everyone gets a bad reaction or side effect from taking Penicillin for example. Some people get rashes, some people go in to shock some people die. Well some people who take these mind altering dugs (and by what I mean by some people I mean an entire practically exclusive population of people) pick up guns and murder people for sport and whimsy. Sure it is a small portion of the population and some people are going to be more susceptible than others but it doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing it.

 

[44 AMP]

Again you are looking at the wrong thing. I never said the guns were responsible.

I didn't mean to imply that you said guns were responsible. The people saying that are the people who want restrictions and bans. At least the people calling for enhanced background checks seem to be addressing the issue by looking at the people getting guns, and not the inanimate object.

It is almost like you are right at the doorway but afraid to go in. This unhealthy diversion in to blaming the guns is odd.

Not sure what you mean by the doorway, but I will agree that blaming the gun is not rational. I'm not the one blaming the gun.

Well some people who take these mind altering dugs (and by what I mean by some people I mean an entire practically exclusive population of people) pick up guns and murder people for sport and whimsy.

This is where I have trouble following what you mean. WHAT practically exclusive population of people are you referring to? ALL drug users? Because I don't see that as true.

Violent sociopaths? that I could agree with. Absolutely true some, if not most of the mass shooters have been on some kind of dope, some prescription, some street drugs, some both.

But not all of the mass killers has been. Some have been jihadists, or other stripes of fanatics, without drugs being mentioned in any accounts I have seen.

What we've got is wacked out people, due to some reason, drugs, fanaticism over some racial or ethnic or religious cause, or other mental problems, or for reasons we never learn, some of them have been fully functional in society, until they snapped, others borderline, what people often refer to as "losers", who ALSO haven't broken any laws, until they snap and start shooting.

Seems like if we create a profile that most fit, some exception comes along, and blows the profile out of the water, figuratively speaking.

 

[MTT TL]

ALL drug users? Because I don't see that as true.

Absolutely true some, if not most of the mass shooters have been on some kind of dope, some prescription, some street drugs, some both.

100% no, more than 90% yes. Once you get past the Three Sigma Rule you are in a very high confidence. I don't include Islamic terrorists in the numbers because they have solid reasons for wanting to kill people and their actions are targeted instead of random. These type activities are also not new. They are just new to us in the US. And really not even that new.

 

[Mainah]

Therefore if you want to reduce the number of murders you simply reduce the number of illegal drug users

.

We've been trying for over 100 years without any results. I don't think it's simple.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't include Islamic terrorists in the numbers because they have solid reasons for wanting to kill people and their actions are targeted instead of random.

As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has a "solid reason" for the mass murder of innocent people. NO ONE.

Their actions are targeted? I suppose, in the broadest sense, but their target selection seems to include everyone in the world who is not them.

Once you get past the Three Sigma Rule you are in a very high confidence.

Ok, so you have a high confidence that mass killers are on drugs. How confident are you that drugs are the cause, and not just a contributing factor, or an irrelevant factor?

Because I see all three as possible, but only examination of each individual shooter's history will allow any reasonable assessment of how much of a factor drugs were, and only for that individual.

This was my point about eating bread and wearing shoes, two examples of something we all do, and are part of the mass killer's lives, as well. But they don't CAUSE the mass killings. Picking this or that factor and saying it is the cause of all just doesn't cut it for me. With one exception.

and that is, that ALL the mass killers do have one thing in common, they did what they did, because they WANTED TO!

 

[rickyrick]

I had a violent family member that never used drugs... never.
This person also rarely consumed alcohol. But was a cigarette smoker.

 

[MTT TL]

As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has a "solid reason" for the mass murder of innocent people. NO ONE.

Their actions are targeted? I suppose, in the broadest sense, but their target selection seems to include everyone in the world who is not them.

I agree on both however; they do not.

Ok, so you have a high confidence that mass killers are on drugs. How confident are you that drugs are the cause, and not just a contributing factor, or an irrelevant factor?

Because I see all three as possible, but only examination of each individual shooter's history will allow any reasonable assessment of how much of a factor drugs were, and only for that individual.

I am going to disagree. There are some new studies out there that agree with me as well.

This was my point about eating bread and wearing shoes, two examples of something we all do, and are part of the mass killer's lives, as well. But they don't CAUSE the mass killings. Picking this or that factor and saying it is the cause of all just doesn't cut it for me. With one exception.

Except as I already pointed out people have been doing those things for a long time. The mind altering drugs are a new factor, same as the shootings.

and that is, that ALL the mass killers do have one thing in common, they did what they did, because they WANTED TO!

I am not suggesting that they did what they did against their will. The gulf between "wanting to do something wrong" and "doing something wrong" is quite large in most people. Mind altering drugs have been used to bridge that gap legally and illegally for quite some time.

Terrorist organizations will often get suicide bombers high or drunk to help overcome objections to completing their task. The US Army spent a lot of money issuing Xanax and similar drugs to get soldiers "healthy" enough to return to combat. In Africa Khat is a drug of choice to feed child soldiers to keep them high enough to keep killing. These are just a few examples.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are some new studies out there that agree with me...

Exactly what studies? Citations?

 

[Mainah]

I am going to disagree. There are some new studies out there that agree with me as well.

That would be valuable information to cite. I know what happens where I live. Maine has seen an explosion in opioid addiction that led to a spike in overdose deaths and a slight increase in petty crime. But the murder rate has remained static throughout.

The mind altering drugs are a new factor, same as the shootings.

We just had the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. They're not new, mass shootings are.

But if you could produce a study that demonstrated the increase in ADHD related diagnosis in young people and the corresponding increase in the prescribed and legal use of drugs in response to that trend you might be onto something.

 

[MTT TL]

Maine has seen an explosion in opioid addiction that led to a spike in overdose deaths and a slight increase in petty crime. But the murder rate has remained static throughout.

Opioids are a very different drug and also a very old one. The violence linked to opioids is more to do with suicide, neglect and people who are dope sick willing to do just about anything to get more. As a depressant that puts people in to a physically and mentally depressed or comatose like state they do little to incite violence and actually make people calmer and more easy to control (when high).

We just had the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. They're not new, mass shootings are.

Well no, not that new. Charles Whitman climbed a bell tower just over three years to the day before Woodstock. Whitman was high on amphetamines and tranquilizers. He also had a brain tumor that likely played a role. But notice always the drugs.

 

[rickyrick]

Something to consider

 

[MTT TL]

That is a good chart and kind of emphasizes my point. Especially when put in to context.

Notice the inverse relationship?

How about now?

While violence has declined over all the mass shootings are becoming more common.

 

[Mainah]

Opioids are a very different drug and also a very old one. The violence linked to opioids is more to do with suicide, neglect and people who are dope sick willing to do just about anything to get more. As a depressant that puts people in to a physically and mentally depressed or comatose like state they do little to incite violence and actually make people calmer and more easy to control (when high).

But they're certainly mind altering. I thought that was your point.

Well no, not that new. Charles Whitman climbed a bell tower just over three years to the day before Woodstock. Whitman was high on amphetamines and tranquilizers. He also had a brain tumor that likely played a role. But notice always the drugs.

Uppers and downers have been around for a long time too, and Whitman's crime was an anomaly.

 

[MTT TL]

Uppers and downers have been around for a long time too, and Whitman's crime was an anomaly.

It was only an anomaly because it was new. It isn't an anomaly anymore, its "normal".

But they're certainly mind altering. I thought that was your point.

No. My point was the new drugs. Stimulants and psychoactives. Marijuana is included as a "new drug" because of the increase in high percentage THC from newly genetically modified plants. The weed smoked at Woodstock wasn't a tenth as powerful as the stuff commonly seen on the streets these days.

Availability has increased greatly as well.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

The statement in post #157 begs for validation. Can you name credible sources to verify the assertions that drugs have been associated with most mass killings?

If you are looking for markers drug use and mental illness are the two most consistent ones. Practically every killer be it a mass killer or otherwise used marijuana and various psychotropic drugs regularly. In fact it is easier now to say which killers did not use these drugs

Ammoland evidently ran a piece claiming that psychotropic drugs are a common thread in mass killings. That has not been validated, and in fact experts have essentially said its untrue.

 

[44 AMP]

Ok, so we've got new stronger dope. I'm sure its a contributing factor with those who commit mass shootings, but seems to me there are a lot of other people doing the same dope, and NOT doing mass shootings.

Drug use, including prescribed has been a factor in many mass shooters, I don't know if its the actual majority or not, though I suspect not, because I include terrorist acts when they are mass shootings. I don't put them in a different category because there is some kind of ideological purity as a motive.

The origin of the current cycle of "lone gunman wackjobs" & school shootings, and assault rifle fixation, Patrick Purdey was reportedly on Prozac if I recall correctly, and was receiving a disability check due to mental problems making him "unable to work" from the gov (I think Social Security) and went through the California waiting period and background check, and passed, twice, buying two pistols. At the time, the law prevented his mental disability (which would have disqualified him from firearms purchase) from being reported to the agency conducting his background checks.

I believe that law has since been changed.

I remember another of the mass shooters, I think it was Westbecker in Lousiville, the Purdey copy cat, but I'm not sure (and not looking it up right now) was reported to have been on Prozac from one Dr, and on Lithium from another, neither one knowing about the other.

Pretty sure a lot of the other mass shootings have involved drug users, but it not something I've refreshed my memory on, recently.

Here's another point to think about, anyone besides me remember when and how the phrase "going postal" got into the language?

There was what seemed a rash of workplace shootings at post offices. I don't recall any real link between them and drug use. Seems that the cause was STRESS. Or so many thought. I heard that policies/expectations/ways of doing business were changed, and we haven't heard much about postal workers flipping out and shooting people in quite a few years.

thoughts?

 

[MTT TL]

Ok, so we've got new stronger dope. I'm sure its a contributing factor with those who commit mass shootings, but seems to me there are a lot of other people doing the same dope, and NOT doing mass shootings.

Again, think of it as a rare side effect. Not everyone gets a rash from penicillin but some people do.

There was what seemed a rash of workplace shootings at post offices. I don't recall any real link between them and drug use. Seems that the cause was STRESS. Or so many thought. I heard that policies/expectations/ways of doing business were changed, and we haven't heard much about postal workers flipping out and shooting people in quite a few years.

thoughts?

Well for one thing the population has shrunk. 30 years ago the USPS had 40% more employees. But just because you have not heard about them does not mean they have not been happening. And just because you have not heard about drug use does not mean it did not happen either. Since you brought it up lets look at the last few "postal shootings":

Jimmy Lam shot up a post office in San Fransico 2017 shooting five coworkers, killing three. (He had a history of drug abuse, including several arrests).

In 2013 Geddy Kramer shot up a FedEx Facility shooting six of his coworkers... do I need to say it? I'll say it. He worked nights and spent most of his days doing drugs and playing video games.

In 2017, Deshaun Stewart was not only high as kite but also naked when he killed two (technically not a mass shooting since he only shot one and killed the other with blunt force trauma) at an Ohio post office.

In 2006 Jennifer San Marco, a rare female mass murderer shot and killed six. She had a history of mental illness. Guess what they did to help her with her mental illness? Nope, you don't need to guess.

That is the last three postal mass shootings events and a bonus for naked guy. I can keep going but we already know what we are going to find.


But hey, maybe it is all just a fantastical coincidence? Believe whatever you like. I believe we long ago passed the point of coincidence.


And just because drug abuse was not reported in the older cases does not mean it didn't happen either. Public toxicology reports on dead perpetrators are a relatively new thing. Often times the police won't or don't report on such things unless they have a compelling reason to if the killer is dead. Sometimes the information is covered under privacy acts.

 

[Mainah]

Let's assume it's all tied to drug abuse. How would you fix that? Drug testing as part of a background check?