School shooting UK style
-
But there are many supposedly sane people who seem to snap. What is the trigger? Take school kids, it is a stressful time of life, a lot of difficult issues to deal with, but they arent clinically insane (and yes, those who are should be forcibly locked up and cared for, the UK has been deeply negligent in this in the last 30 years). An interesting subtle shift in the UK recently, lead in large part by William and Harry, sons of Princess Diana, both have fought on the frontline in Afghanistan, and have experience of PTSD among fellow soldiers, has been towards greater acceptance and openness of mental issues. Hopefully by getting this into the open we can deal with it in a much more effective way. (As a true anti royalilst I am pleased to see them actually doing something useful for a change. :) )
The kid who did the last shooting (and most of the other shooters), was on a lot of radars and no one did shit. I say, stop talking about the kid/shooter and start talking about what we do as a society with people like the kid. IMHO, the kid/shooter actually plays a very small part in all of this compared to what we should be doing as a society with crazy people.
-
The kid who did the last shooting (and most of the other shooters), was on a lot of radars and no one did shit. I say, stop talking about the kid/shooter and start talking about what we do as a society with people like the kid. IMHO, the kid/shooter actually plays a very small part in all of this compared to what we should be doing as a society with crazy people.
Slacker007 wrote:
stop talking about the kid/shooter and start talking about what we do as a society with people like the kid
Absolutely, 100% agree. Schools especially need to have the mechanisms to catch this before it blows uup.
-
You can attempt all the patronising mockery you want, you are wrong, can;t find the data that supports your argument and refuse to accept the fact that murder is the result of social/mental issues. Another attempted murder by knife in the UK: Horrific video shows stabbed teenager lying in blood-soaked clothes | Daily Mail Online[^] "A wave of violent crime has hit the UK recently with eight people dying in London in one week in March alone after a spate of stabbings and shootings" Yes, illegal guns are used in the UK.
Gun violence is murder, suicide, accidents. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy[^]
Quote:
Policymaking at the interface of gun violence prevention and mental illness should be based on epidemiologic data concerning risk to improve the effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness of policy initiatives.
Guns, knives and pesticides: reducing access to lethal means[^]
Quote:
Firearms: Jurisdictions with restrictive firearms legislation and lower firearms ownership tend to have lower levels of gun violence. Measures include bans, licensing schemes, minimum ages for buyers, background checks and safe storage requirements. Such measures have been successfully implemented in countries such as Austria and Brazil and in a number of states in the United States of America. Introducing national legislation can be complicated, but much can be done at local level. Stiffer enforcement, amnesties and improved security for state supplies of firearms are some of the other promising approaches. Multifaceted strategies are also needed to reduce demand for guns – diverting vulnerable youth from gang membership, for instance.
NEJM - Guns and Suicide in the United States[^]
Quote:
Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2
Impulsivity is the same in homicide. And on, and on. But you disagree with these people because you googled some statistics, right? Forget NEJM or the WHO, you cite the Daily Mai
-
The evidence says reducing access to guns reduces the lethality of impulsivity. Take away the gun; less likely to complete the homicide or suicide. But just like GW, you “don’t believe” data.
-
I don’t think you understand correlation vs causation. Zambia has 50 times the guns and bullets and 50 times the murder rate. Therefore it’s the guns. That’s your dumb arguments, but in reverse. My position is easy to find on Google. My guess is you already did but want me to post specific articles for you to nit pick. Nah. That’s not how the scientific literature works. You can easily find consensus opinions yourself. Later gator!
Sablerz wrote:
You can easily find consensus opinions yourself. Later gator!
Confirmational bias you mean? My perception over the years is that the subject is extremely difficult to study. But you seem to be referring to something very specific. So what is it?
-
Sablerz wrote:
You can easily find consensus opinions yourself. Later gator!
Confirmational bias you mean? My perception over the years is that the subject is extremely difficult to study. But you seem to be referring to something very specific. So what is it?
Confirmation, bias, sure. Decrease in suicide rates after a change of policy reducing access to firearms in adolescents: a naturalistic epidemiological study. - PubMed - NCBI[^] Law, Ethics, and Conversations between Physicians and Patients about Firearms in the Home. - PubMed - NCBI[^] State Firearm Laws and Interstate Firearm Deaths From Homicide and Suicide in the United States: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Data by County. - PubMed - NCBI[^] That's like, five seconds worth of searching on pubmed because I know what I'm going to find. Go ahead and special plead your familiarity with the literature and call it misrepresentative or selective because you've googled it occasionally.
-
Sablerz wrote:
The evidence says reducing access to guns reduces the lethality of impulsivity.
And what study was that exactly?
-
Sablerz wrote:
First result, start reading the references. You’re lazy
Did you understand the study? First it has nothing to do with actually restricting firearms and most certainly nothing to do with measuring the result of doing that. Second it is a mental health study, it is subject to the same problems with others of that type such as the fact that it is based on a survey. Not what people do, but rather what they claim they would do.
-
Sablerz wrote:
First result, start reading the references. You’re lazy
Did you understand the study? First it has nothing to do with actually restricting firearms and most certainly nothing to do with measuring the result of doing that. Second it is a mental health study, it is subject to the same problems with others of that type such as the fact that it is based on a survey. Not what people do, but rather what they claim they would do.
-
Can you even be bothered to stick to one message in a thread?
jschell wrote:
Second it is a mental health study, it is subject to the same problems with others of that type
What are you, an expert on mental health studies too?
Sablerz wrote:
Can you even be bothered to stick to one message in a thread?
I respond to posts.
Sablerz wrote:
What are you, an expert on mental health studies too?
Not sure what you are referring to. You cited a specific study in an attempt to support your claim. It was at best poor support. Which I pointed out. Feel free to find another study that has better support for your claim. Other than that I read through the study and I am in fact aware of some of the limitations of science in the soft sciences. There is after all a reason they are called "soft sciences."