The tricky part is that discussions about this stuff almost always fail. Their stable equilibrium is usually one of a handful of failure modes that we all know (and which are mostly various shapes of “look, it’s the outgroup — get ’em!”).

I wrote last year about the culture war incentive structure around this, why the two sides talk past each other, and why they’re at an impasse without even realizing it.

A common pitfall here is to jump right to solutions without first agreeing on the problem. So, for example, the gun rights crowd will talk about:

So we’re left with a question. This stuff is important to talk about, but how do we talk about it while actively making it less of a thing — actively dismantling this script that has developed.

Subsequently, the media reports changed markedly and the number of subway-suicides and -attempts dropped more than 80% from the first to the second half of 1987, remaining at a rather low level since.

Findings indicate that the mass killers received approximately $75 million in media coverage value, and that for extended periods following their attacks they received more coverage than professional athletes and only slightly less than television and film stars. In addition, during their attack months, some mass killers received more highly valued coverage than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston. Finally, most mass killers received more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/cable news than the public interest they generated through online searches and Twitter seems to warrant. Unfortunately, this media attention constitutes free advertising for mass killers that may increase the likelihood of copycats.

CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:58 am Yes: step one is to define the problem.

FrontSight wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:54 pm

CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:58 am Yes: step one is to define the problem.

Something both parties are very careful to make sure NEVER happens!

Here's how you know both sides are completely full of shit. Ever notice how the "solutions" that are proposed just happen to perfectly align perfectly with the views of their base? Yet, we still haven't had a truly scholarly study on the subject.

The FBI created a whole section to study serial killers, then later stalkers. Where is the study of mass shooters? Where is the scholarly work?

We haven't defined the problem. We haven't studied the problem. People are all over TV talking about how they don't understand this phenomenon (which is good, because it's not sane...I'd be worried about people who DO "understand" it).

America is FAR more interested in sewing and seeding division than solving this horrendous problem.

FrontSight wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:47 pm The article is interesting and informative, but to me it's just another form of confirmation bias. It's the "it's not the guns" argument from a different angle. He criticizes people jumping to solutions, and then goes on to tell you it's not the guns. It's another non-study giving anecdotal "evidence" as to why the author is right, and everyone else is wrong.

The taxpayers need to demand a REAL scholarly study on why this phenomenon exists and is persistent. I don't doubt the veracity of some of his correlations, but it isn't science, and what we need is ACTUAL SCIENCE.

I don't want to hear people's opinions, because its just positional arguing while people are dying.

BKinzey wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:48 pm What are you looking for when you say "actual science"?

Frontsight said:

The FBI created a whole section to study serial killers, then later stalkers. Where is the study of mass shooters? Where is the scholarly work?

1. The 63 active shooters examined in this study did not appear to be uniform in any way such that they could be readily identified prior to attacking based on demographics alone.

2. Active shooters take time to plan and prepare for the attack, with 77% of the subjects spending a week or longer planning their attack and 46% spending a week or longer actually preparing (procuring the means) for the attack.

3. A majority of active shooters obtained their firearms legally, with only very small percentages obtaining a firearm illegally.

4. The FBI could only verify that 25% of active shooters in the study had ever been diagnosed with a
mental illness. Of those diagnosed, only three had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

5. Active shooters were typically experiencing multiple stressors (an average of 3.6 separate stressors) in the year before they attacked.

6. On average, each active shooter displayed 4 to 5 concerning behaviors over time that were observable to others around the shooter. The most frequently occurring concerning behaviors were related to the active shooter’s mental health, problematic interpersonal interactions, and leakage of violent intent.

7. For active shooters under age 18, school peers and teachers were more likely to observe concerning behaviors than family members. For active shooters 18 years old and over, spouses/domestic partners were the most likely to observe concerning behaviors.

8. When concerning behavior was observed by others, the most common response was to communicate directly to the active shooter (83%) or do nothing (54%). In 41% of the cases the concerning behavior was reported to law enforcement. Therefore, just because concerning behavior was recognized does not necessarily mean that it was reported to law enforcement.

9. In those cases where the active shooter’s primary grievance could be identified, the most common
grievances were related to an adverse interpersonal or employment action against the shooter (49%).

10. In the majority of cases (64%) at least one of the victims was specifically targeted by the active shooter.