did someone muck with the backend here

Re: Guest Post - a massive, decades-long, heavily-staffed ounce of prevention...

1

What would the identical intervention look like against spree shooters? Persuade them to get the assault weapons and arrest them as they're setting up on a roof?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
2

1: Yes! Just think of all the impressionable high school students that could be ensnared!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
3

I think it'd involve taking domestic violence and online threats against women and minorities very seriously, for starters, as risk factors for escalating behavior.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
4

I think you guys need to reframe the issue. Beltway bureaucrats have spent decades pouring taxpayer dollars into the Jihadi bombing sector, which clearly can't compete without government subsidies, while shamefully neglecting the random resentment shootings Real American terrorists actually care about.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
5

Seriously though, how many shooters these days don't signal their intent online? The FBI just needs to hang around the right cesspits, track the the more credible threats back to real life, and watch. They can sneak into their houses and sabotage firing pins, whatever. All that good spy stuff. Complicated with minors, but what proportion of shooters are minors?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
6

Beyond being a form of aggressive intervention, I doubt this kind of enticement/entrapment has anything in common with the kinds of efforts called for, or anything to teach us.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
7

5: Sure, officers can drop a net in the social media sea and pull hundreds of impressionable young people for these stings; that doesn't mean they can make a screen that identifies mostly incipient mass murderers with any reliability. That's a task requiring much more precision.

Granted, it's worth trying, I suppose. Ideally with the interveners being some non-law-enforcement profession. But I doubt in the end it will hold a candle to gun-availability interventions.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
8

...which never happen.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
9

heebie is so depressingly right in 3, you could limit it to restricting access to guns based on dv alone and get very, very far. alas, there is about zero chance of getting law enforcement behind this as law enforcement personnel are disproportionately represented among dv perpetrators.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
10

3 is the case because most mass shootings are committed within the family, though those aren't what people think of when they think of mass shootings.
But really Americans are vanishingly unlikely to die in a mass shooting either, so shouldn't the funding me directed not at potential spree killers but at environmental pollutants or obesity or something?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-19 11:29 PM
horizontal rule
11

Most mass shooting take place in the family? That doesn't seem right unless you count the guys who start with their wives for their killing spree and then go on from there.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 2:49 AM
horizontal rule
12

Obviously the answer is the guns, but the US Secret Service's approach to people who start threatening to assassinate the president is interesting, and very very different to the FBI's agent running approach. They triage reports (whether generated by the suspect acting out, or tip-offs) into class 1 (empty threats), class 2 (potentially serious but not urgent), and class 3 (serious). When they put a case in class 3 they visit the suspect, question them, and explicitly warn them off, if they don't call the white coats or hand them to the cops.

Example:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/secret-service-online-threat-president/399179/

The fact neither GWB, Obama, or Trump has been assassinated despite being some of the most assassinable* presidents on record seems to speak to the strategy's effectiveness.

*if you doubt, look at the 2008-2009 archives around here. everyone was convinced he was going to be assassinated. and the other two, well.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 3:00 AM
horizontal rule
13

11: asked and answered. Yes, "mass shooting" is (sometimes) defined as four or more shot in a single incident (here, for example https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting), and most of those are exactly as you describe. A lot of the rest are related to organised crime - gang shootings, armed robberies and so on.

Other sources use "indiscriminate shootings in public places" https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/ and come up with different results. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/ For those, there is less of a link to DV.

And, of course, the authorities use exactly the approach that 12 describes. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/mass-shootings-threat-assessment-shooter-fbi-columbine/

It's simply not the case that the FBI has been washing its hands of the mass shooter threat because it's obsessed with tricking impressionable Muslims into building bombs out of plasticine.

One more way in which the threat is being badly misunderstood and under-estimated: the most likely person for an American to shoot dead is himself. The gun violence problem in the US is, by a substantial majority, a gun suicide problem. Firearm homicide is a small problem by comparison.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 3:26 AM
horizontal rule
14

"Don't worry, he shot his wife first" is probably not what covenant marriage people want. But it seems like support for the idea that maybe we should try to keep guns away from people who have records of domestic abuse.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:09 AM
horizontal rule
15

11.The FBI has no authority to deal with domestic violence as it is not a Federal matter. Threats of violence online are potentially "interstate," but there is so much of it due to the Wonder of the Internet, and so much of it is just idiots being idiots with no actual intent to harm, that trolling (in the fishing sense) for such people would eat up all their time and resources.

So what they actually do is find weirdos and convert their fantasies into almost-reality. This has bothered me for a long time as being entrapment, and it's particularly terrible because they are largely entrapping people who might get headlines when arrested (to wit: wannabe terrorists). Getting headlines has been FBI policy since J. Edgar Hoover's day.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:11 AM
horizontal rule
16

So what they actually do is find weirdos and convert their fantasies into almost-reality.

The FBI is like Minecraft. Or prostitution.

Too bad we can't make an analogy.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:16 AM
horizontal rule
17

14. Some states have passed or are trying to pass "red flag" laws, which allow guns to taken from people who are a danger to others. MA passed one last year, which allows guns to be removed for a year based on evidence from relatives or friends, I don't know if domestic abuse is considered a "danger to others." Naturally the NRA sued, because of the "lack of due process." In MA to get (e.g.) a anti-harassment order you must go before a judge, but apparently you don't have to do that for a "red flag." Sigh.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:18 AM
horizontal rule
18

Due process seems reasonable and due.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:19 AM
horizontal rule
19

Anyway, a hearing either before removal or within a few days after seems like a good idea.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:24 AM
horizontal rule
20

Some people have enough guns that the sheer effort of moving them will be an issue.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:27 AM
horizontal rule
21

Terrorists also tend to have backgrounds of domestic violence, IIRC.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 5:55 AM
horizontal rule
22

Right. I think that was the point of 3.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:02 AM
horizontal rule
23

But it would still be a terrible way to find terrorists because 99.999% of people with DV backgrounds don't become terrorists.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
24

Right, 100% of them commit domestic violence and it isn't considered a threat to society (or wasn't considered and still remains less frequently considered so).


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:11 AM
horizontal rule
25

Should be "Right, but".


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:11 AM
horizontal rule
26

Something like 30% of them, IIRC, are also victims of domestic violence.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:27 AM
horizontal rule
27

"Clearly, I remember picking on the boy. Seemed a harmless little ... And the boy was something that mommy wouldn't wear ยท King Jeremy the wicked."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:33 AM
horizontal rule
28

Boy did I have those lyrics wrong.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
29

But it would still be a terrible way to find terrorists because 99.999% of people with DV backgrounds don't become terrorists.

Here in the US there are more mass shootings that are like "Kill my ex-wife and while I'm at it, three of her co-workers" than terrorism per se.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
30

Feminists shoot their own co-workers.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
31

It's odd that domestic violence seems to lead to mass shootings (or indeed terrorism) far less frequently for women than for men. The demography of mass shooters and terrorists are far more skewed to male than the demographics of domestic-violence perpetrators.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
32

It seems true though. I think it very unlikely my wife would ever shoot me, but not as unlikely as it is that she would shoot a bunch of strangers.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
33

Not that there's been any abuse. Just thinking on general of the gender distribution of mass shooting.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
34

I suppose terrorist groups don't generally come from cultures that let women and men work on equal terms. There weren't any (or at least not many) Michigan Militiawomen.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
35

Even the Michigan Militiawomen Dance Review is a drag show.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
36

34: There were a few women suicide bombers that got into Israel from the West Bank at one point iirc.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
37

I think it very unlikely my wife would ever shoot me, but not as unlikely as it is that she would shoot a bunch of strangers.

I am honestly not sure whether it should be this way round or the other way round for a healthy relationship. I can conceive of several scenarios in which the Selkie (or indeed I) would shoot a bunch of strangers, but they all involve some sort of justification or at least provocation.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
38

36: ah, good point. There have been a fair number of female suicide bombers, and they should definitely count.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
39

I bet they teach the answer in counseling school. Just ask any social worker or therapist.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
40

AFAIK almost all terrorist groups are tiny and short-lived, so they never break into general consciousness, but they're actually common as dirt. I doubt there's much correlation with gender relations. Or at least any correlation that isn't swamped by confounds like wealth and law enforcement.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
41

I think you can argue that if somebody provides sufficient provocation that a usually non-homicidal person is willing to kill them, they aren't so much a stranger but an enemy without a backstory.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
42

in ca there are gun violence restraining order - gvro - currently i believe close relatives can apply for one ex parte (i.e., without prior notice to the person proposed to be restrained). the applicant has to satisfy the standards for issuance and then gvro has to be personally served on the person restrained. also, i think at that point a warrant may issue to search the home and remove any guns. there are a couple of problems with the current regime here, including that those seeking a gvro are often justifiably not trusting of police (again - disproportionately likely to commit dv).

the state leg passed a bill last year to widen the pool of folks who can seek a gvro (teachers, school guidance counselors, co workers, mental health professionals - i may have the deets wrong on some of this but it's close), brown vetoed. its back this year amended to allow the warrant to search for guns to be issued so that it is acted on at the time of service of the gvro. aclu and other civil rights groups are pretty hard against it while it is likely newsom would sign what the legislature passes. i only know all of this bc of the kid's lobbying work, i think he plans to work over the summer at seeing if he can start to build relationships with the civil liberties people. he says for so many years only the most anodyne gun control leg had any hope of passing, so the civil lib people didn't really bother with it much, and now that the gun control people can be more ambitious there needs to be a building of consensus.

and his letter in support of the bill actually led with the suicide risk - one basis for a gvro is if you think the person may harm themselves. it was a great letter, said the humble copy editor mum.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
43

There's more cultural infrastructure dedicated to radicalizing men who hate a particular woman to generalize that to hating women in general.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
44

41 is wise. A stranger is just an inadequately provoking enemy with an unknown backstory.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
45

41: Even serial killers are usually non-homicidal. I'm guessing even Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer only killed a small percent of the people they encountered.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
46

Most people I encounter are polite.


Posted by: Hannibal Lecter | Link to this comment | 04-16-19 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
47

Local man protects family with guns.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 4:56 AM
horizontal rule
48

Surely a spoof. The reporter's name is Jeff Himmler.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:00 AM
horizontal rule
49

One bad apple and you never hear the end of it.


Posted by: Opinionated Himmlers | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:02 AM
horizontal rule
50

There's only one "m".


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:02 AM
horizontal rule
51

There's a second one right there in your signature. And look, a third!


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:03 AM
horizontal rule
52

I didn't even realize there was a Derry Borough separate from, but surrounded by, Derry Township. Guns, municipal fragmentation, and treating kids horribly. That sounds about right for the area, except there's nobody complaining that they are having trouble getting the kids to stay once they are grown.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:17 AM
horizontal rule
53

Amateurs.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:24 AM
horizontal rule
54

From 47:

As a condition of Gross' bond, sheriff's deputies confiscated more than 55 firearms from his home Tuesday evening.

Fifty-five guns! I'm trying to think of things that I own 55 of. Books. Items of clothing. Diapers. Uh..., ounces of seltzer? I must be missing something big and obvious.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:36 AM
horizontal rule
55

Laydeez.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:37 AM
horizontal rule
56

"Maybe there is something wrong at the root of Derry. Something black and twisted and rotten."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:37 AM
horizontal rule
57

Next time somebody doesn't return a marker to his son, he will just have to stand there and ask for it back, like some liberal asshole.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-19 5:39 AM
horizontal rule