Shooting on Campus at FSU

[BrainVision]

More children, adolescents, and teenagers die by gunshot than they do in car accidents.

Regardless, the question asked was not how to stop all deaths by all causes. It also was not how do we stop deaths by causes that kill more people than shootings. The question was how do we stop deaths by shootings. The research is clear, simple, and straightforward: if you want to reduce shooting deaths, then the fastest, most effective, least disruptive intervention is to get the guns out of your homes and your communities to the greatest extent that you possibly can.

"Despite widespread perceptions that a gun in the home provides security benefits, nearly all credible studies to date suggest that people who live in homes with guns are at higher - not lower - risk of dying by homicide." -- David Studdert, LLB, ScD, a professor of health policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine and a professor at Stanford Law School.

 

[BrainVision]

If we believe that those of us who experience mental illness should have legally limited access to guns, i.e., deprived of a Constitutionally protected right despite not having committed any crime, then we need to be clear about how large a subset of the population that is.

Approximately 1/4 of all Americans experience a mental health condition in any given year, and approximately 1/5 of all Americans take a psychiatric medication in any given year. We should also consider that those of us who experience mental illness are much more likely to the be the victims of violent crimes than they are to be perpetrators and that people who have been historically marginalized and victimized are much more likely to have a mental illness.

 

[BrainVision]

But the woman could have taken action, could she not?

She certainly could and may have taken action. Yet, there is very limited action that the university or law enforcement could take in response to such a complaint, and there is likely no action that they could have legally taken that would have prevented this shooting.

 

[goldmom]

She certainly could and may have taken action. Yet, there is very limited action that the university or law enforcement could take in response to such a complaint, and there is likely no action that they could have legally taken that would have prevented this shooting.

I can’t disagree with you on the last part because it’s an unknown.
The only thing we know is that we…don’t know.
And the action not taken by her only concerned her assessment of her own safety. Or her lack of action.
I doubt she’s alone in that regard - many women have been conditioned to “let it go”.

 

[BrianNole777]

"Despite widespread perceptions that a gun in the home provides security benefits, nearly all credible studies to date suggest that people who live in homes with guns are at higher - not lower - risk of dying by homicide." -- David Studdert, LLB, ScD, a professor of health policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine and a professor at Stanford Law School.

Yes and think how many potential lives were saved by NOT having a gun in the home.

How many domestic violence situations were avoided from becoming lethal because the male didn't own a gun?

Many, I estimate.

 

[noletaire]

Yes and think how many potential lives were saved by NOT having a gun in the home.

How many domestic violence situations were avoided from becoming lethal because the male didn't own a gun?

Many, I estimate.

Impossible to measure.
That's like saying, how many potential crimes were prevented because criminals know taht people have weapons to protect their homes.

 

[BrainVision]

Yes and think how many potential lives were saved by NOT having a gun in the home.

How many domestic violence situations were avoided from becoming lethal because the male didn't own a gun?

Many, I estimate.

From: Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime​

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.​

Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.​

​

Across high-income countries, more guns = more female homicide deaths​

We analyzed the relationship between gun availability and homicides of women with data from 25 high-income countries. Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women. The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women are far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.​

Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association. 2002; 57:100-04​

 

[BrainVision]

I can’t disagree with you on the last part because it’s an unknown.
The only thing we know is that we…don’t know.
And the action not taken by her only concerned her assessment of her own safety. Or her lack of action.
I doubt she’s alone in that regard - many women have been conditioned to “let it go”.

Speaking from personal experience, at any given time there are dozens of students on any major college campus who give the campus mental health professionals and law enforcement a great deal of worry, but our hands are really tied, even with reams of documented complaints, offenses, and statements of concern. Every day in my university clinic, RAs, TAs, professors, roommates, friends, parents, etc. literally walk over students of concern for evaluation, and in almost all cases, the most we can do is request a 72-hour hold that is only granted about half the time.

 

[GeddyLee09]

I certainly agree with your first two sentences. Your third sentence is inaccurate. The problem is obviously both the guns and the people, or more precisely: the interaction of the two. However, removing the guns from the home is much simpler, faster, more reliable, and just easier than removing the people from the home.

After these terrible events, so many people deflect from the guns variable to the "mental illness/healthcare" variable. Yet, those same people seem deeply invested in ignoring what the mental health profession and the mental healthcare providers have consistently said for decades: if you want to reduce shooting deaths, then the fastest, most effective, least disruptive intervention is to get the guns out of your homes and your communities to the greatest extent that you possibly can.

This is like saying the easiest way to reduce traffic deaths is to ban cars. Of course it would reduce traffic deaths. I don't totally disagree with you though. Guns should not be easily obtained; it should be difficult to own a firearm complete with rigorous background checks, training and disqualifying factors such as past DV issues and mental health. We as a society are too quick to hand a firearm to just about anyone then complain when something like this happens. If you want to keep the guns, then tighten things up. Right now, it's harder for me to transfer ownership of a car than a gun. Thats wrong in my opinion but cars are easier to control. Fixing this mess starts with the individual and the laws that enable our behaviors.

I'm all for gun ownership but responsible gun ownership.

 

[BrianNole777]

Speaking from personal experience, at any given time there are dozens of students on any major college campus who give the campus mental health professionals and law enforcement a great deal of worry, but our hands are really tied, even with reams of documented complaints, offenses, and statements of concern. Every day in my university clinic, RAs, TAs, professors, roommates, friends, parents, etc. literally walk over students of concern for evaluation, and in almost all cases, the most we can do is request a 72-hour hold that is only granted about half the time.

How many of the students have ended up killing themselves or others?

 

[BrainVision]

This is like saying the easiest way to reduce traffic deaths is to ban cars. Of course it would reduce traffic deaths. I don't totally disagree with you though. Guns should not be easily obtained; it should be difficult to own a firearm complete with rigorous background checks, training and disqualifying factors such as past DV issues and mental health. We as a society are too quick to hand a firearm to just about anyone then complain when something like this happens. If you want to keep the guns, then tighten things up. Right now, it's harder for me to transfer ownership of a car than a gun. Thats wrong in my opinion but cars are easier to control. Fixing this mess starts with the individual and the laws that enable our behaviors.

I'm all for gun ownership but responsible gun ownership.

It's not like that, because I am explicitly not saying or advocating for banning guns. I do not think that we can legislate or regulate our way out of our society's gun violence problem. Banning cars and banning guns would be both be extraordinarily hard, if not completely impossible.

If you want to use a car simile for some reason, then a more accurate phrasing would be: It's like saying that the easiest way to reduce traffic deaths would be to choose not to drive and to encourage others to make the same choice. I would agree with that, and it is coincidentally how I personally approach the danger posed by traffic deaths in my own life.

 

[BrainVision]

How many of the students have ended up killing themselves or others?

Too many.

 

[bcherod]

But the woman could have taken action, could she not?

She did take action. She went to the leader of the club. They asked him to leave and not return.

 

[BrianNole777]

Too many.

Brutal. Sorry.

 

[goldmom]

She did take action. She went to the leader of the club. They asked him to leave and not return.

Good. I did not know she initiated that action.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Let me thank you all for keeping this discussion between the lines.

 

[GeddyLee09]

It's not like that, because I am explicitly not saying or advocating for banning guns. I do not think that we can legislate or regulate our way out of our society's gun violence problem. Banning cars and banning guns would be both be extraordinarily hard, if not completely impossible.

If you want to use a car simile for some reason, then a more accurate phrasing would be: It's like saying that the easiest way to reduce traffic deaths would be to choose not to drive and to encourage others to make the same choice. I would agree with that, and it is coincidentally how I personally approach the danger posed by traffic deaths in my own life.

It isnt?" if you want to reduce shooting deaths, then the fastest, most effective, least disruptive intervention is to get the guns out of your homes and your communities to the greatest extent that you possibly can." This sounds a lot like removing the guns. I agree with you in the fact that if you dont drive your less likely to be in a car accident the same as if you don't shoot people there would be no gun deaths.

You're not going to remove all the guns just like cars, but you can regulate guns like you can cars. To drive a car, I need a license which comes with training (in some cases), insurance, plates, trips to the DMV ect... Why is it so tough to do at least the same with firearms? Require training, certifications, storage standards ect... Have rules on who can operate them just like cars. Responsible ownership is what's required. Many things had to happen for this shooting to occur, removing even one of them could have prevented it. The gun is simply the instrument.

 

[goldmom]

First hand experience with this “alleged” shooter from different classmates in various settings seems to indicate that he fits the narrative used to describe so many of these people - a sad out of place loner who had severe limitations on social skills and a person continually “on the outside looking in”.
I think these persons have always existed in society, but in more recent years their inability to be part of society has become a larger challenge for them. And a growing trend of drastic attempts to achieve the attention they’ve never been able to achieve by the path afforded to their peers.
I think this person and others like him have to be “noticed” more and better efforts to help them learn socialization skills and also help them understand that they’re okay as humans.
Not everyone is going to be the captain of the football team or voted most likely to succeed but somehow the great majority of us are okay with that - sadly these people don’t seem to get that.

 

[BrainVision]

It isnt?" if you want to reduce shooting deaths, then the fastest, most effective, least disruptive intervention is to get the guns out of your homes and your communities to the greatest extent that you possibly can." This sounds a lot like removing the guns. I agree with you in the fact that if you dont drive your less likely to be in a car accident the same as if you don't shoot people there would be no gun deaths.

You're not going to remove all the guns just like cars, but you can regulate guns like you can cars. To drive a car, I need a license which comes with training (in some cases), insurance, plates, trips to the DMV ect... Why is it so tough to do at least the same with firearms? Require training, certifications, storage standards ect... Have rules on who can operate them just like cars. Responsible ownership is what's required. Many things had to happen for this shooting to occur, removing even one of them could have prevented it. The gun is simply the instrument.

It isn't. I have not suggested or advocated for banning guns or forcibly/legally removing them. As I have said, I do not believe that approach would work, as I generally do not believe that prohibition is an effective behavior modification tool or public policy.

When I say "removing the guns," I am advocating for people to choose, voluntarily, to remove guns from their homes and communities, just as I advocate for people to choose, voluntarily, to drive their cars less, to consume less, to exercise more, and any number of other health-, safety-, and society-improving actions.

I absolutely agree that neither I nor the government are going to remove all guns. For years on this board, I advocated for the types of regulations, requirements, policies, etc., that you are describing, and for years, other members of this board argued against these approaches on the basis of the 2nd Amendment. I even used your analogy to cars and driving. As I was told repeatedly: "there is no Constitutional amendment protecting the right to drive." Eventually, they convinced me that advocating for these changes to law and policy was just not going to overcome the entrenched resistance to infringing on the right to bear arms.

Those conversations, combined with my on-going professional experiences with attempting to assess and mitigate threats of harm, have resulted in my stance that we can not ban, regulate, or even punish our way to reduced gun violence. We have to empower and encourage people to make the choices necessary to reduce gun violence. And the fastest, most effective, least disruptive, easiest choice that we can make is to remove guns from our homes and communities.

To use another analogy: the fastest, most effective, least disruptive, easiest choice that a smoker can make to improve their health, increase their longevity, and reduce their risk of dying from cancer is to not have cigarettes in their house.

 

[BrainVision]

First hand experience with this “alleged” shooter from different classmates in various settings seems to indicate that he fits the narrative used to describe so many of these people - a sad out of place loner who had severe limitations on social skills and a person continually “on the outside looking in”.
I think these persons have always existed in society, but in more recent years their inability to be part of society has become a larger challenge for them. And a growing trend of drastic attempts to achieve the attention they’ve never been able to achieve by the path afforded to their peers.
I think this person and others like him have to be “noticed” more and better efforts to help them learn socialization skills and also help them understand that they’re okay as humans.
Not everyone is going to be the captain of the football team or voted most likely to succeed but somehow the great majority of us are okay with that - sadly these people don’t seem to get that.

I agree with a lot of this, though I think the issue is more about people attempting to achieve acceptance and affiliation, rather than attention. I have a lot of thoughts about what has been happening societally that is worsening the alienation, loneliness, and hopelessness that so many people are experiencing. I definitely agree that we have to develop more mechanisms for connecting with and supporting people and facilitating kind, pro-social, compassionate perspectives on each other.

 

[seminoleed]

It isn't. I have not suggested or advocated for banning guns or forcibly/legally removing them. As I have said, I do not believe that approach would work, as I generally do not believe that prohibition is an effective behavior modification tool or public policy.

When I say "removing the guns," I am advocating for people to choose, voluntarily, to remove guns from their homes and communities, just as I advocate for people to choose, voluntarily, to drive their cars less, to consume less, to exercise more, and any number of other health-, safety-, and society-improving actions.

I absolutely agree that neither I nor the government are going to remove all guns. For years on this board, I advocated for the types of regulations, requirements, policies, etc., that you are describing, and for years, other members of this board argued against these approaches on the basis of the 2nd Amendment. I even used your analogy to cars and driving. As I was told repeatedly: "there is no Constitutional amendment protecting the right to drive." Eventually, they convinced me that advocating for these changes to law and policy was just not going to overcome the entrenched resistance to infringing on the right to bear arms.

Those conversations, combined with my on-going professional experiences with attempting to assess and mitigate threats of harm, have resulted in my stance that we can not ban, regulate, or even punish our way to reduced gun violence. We have to empower and encourage people to make the choices necessary to reduce gun violence. And the fastest, most effective, least disruptive, easiest choice that we can make is to remove guns from our homes and communities.

To use another analogy: the fastest, most effective, least disruptive, easiest choice that a smoker can make to improve their health, increase their longevity, and reduce their risk of dying from cancer is to not have cigarettes in their house.

Very reasonable and well thought out. But I'm afraid the kind of proselytizing that would be needed will fall on mostly deaf ears.

 

[BrianNole777]

Very reasonable and well thought out. But I'm afraid the kind of proselytizing that would be needed will fall on mostly deaf ears.

Is persuasion effective these days?

It rarely works. IMO.

 

[seminoleed]

Is persuasion effective these days?

It rarely works. IMO.

It'll work...if the stick has the proper carrots at the end of it.

 

[BrainVision]

Is persuasion effective these days?

It rarely works. IMO.

Persuasion is a skill, like any other. Its effectiveness is proportional to the skill with which it is practiced. Personally, I observe persuasion working all the time.

 

[BrainVision]

Very reasonable and well thought out. But I'm afraid the kind of proselytizing that would be needed will fall on mostly deaf ears.

Thank you. I share your fear and accept that societal and cultural change happens in very small, individual increments, but I also think that paradigm shifts do occur, as we have seen with behaviors like smoking or drinking or wearing seatbelts in cars. I remember a great deal of opposition to gay marriage when we discussed it on this board 20+ years ago, for example. That has certainly shifted over the years. Things like that keep me hopeful and optimistic about societal and cultural change moving forward.

 

[BrianNole777]

Persuasion is a skill, like any other. Its effectiveness is proportional to the skill with which it is practiced. Personally, I observe persuasion working all the time.

Wow...do you often witness it in the political realm or online?

 

[GeddyLee09]

Persuasion is a skill, like any other. Its effectiveness is proportional to the skill with which it is practiced. Personally, I observe persuasion working all the time.

Persuasion is a lot like leadership. If it's all talk you come off as a car salesman and ineffective. Back up the talk with action or just action without the chatter and you'll get somewhere.

 

[noletaire]

Very reasonable and well thought out. But I'm afraid the kind of proselytizing that would be needed will fall on mostly deaf ears.

It was well thought out but its also a fundamentally flawed idea, as many theoretical ideas are just that (ie. Marxism).

Sure it sounds good on paper, but its not grounded in any form of reality. That's because criminals and the mentally ill, who are people we would need persuade to not use firearms, are NOT reasonable or rational people, so it would fall on "deaf ears". The idea of "persuading" a criminal or a mentally ill person not to use guns is detached from reality.

IF the idea is to persuade, normal sane people to not use firearms because it those weapons might fall into the hands of those who would use it to harm others... well, that's just nonsense.

 

[seminoleed]

It was well thought out but its also a fundamentally flawed idea, as many theoretical ideas are just that (ie. Marxism).

Sure it sounds good on paper, but its not grounded in any form of reality. That's because criminals and the mentally ill, who are people we would need persuade to not use firearms, are NOT reasonable or rational people, so it would fall on "deaf ears". The idea of "persuading" a criminal or a mentally ill person not to use guns is detached from reality.

IF the idea is to persuade, normal sane people to not use firearms because it those weapons might fall into the hands of those who would use it to harm others... well, that's just nonsense.

Exactly.

 

[BrainVision]

Exactly.

Exactly inaccurate.

My perspective is not theoretical; it is grounded in the reality of 20+ years of practical experience in the mental health field, literally persuading people to give up their guns and to not use them to kill themselves or other people.

It is also grounded in the reality that people are far more complex and dynamic than a simple sane/insane dichotomy.

 

[goldmom]

Exactly inaccurate.

My perspective is not theoretical; it is grounded in the reality of 20+ years of practical experience in the mental health field, literally persuading people to give up their guns and to not use them to kill themselves or other people.

It is also grounded in the reality that people are far more complex and dynamic than a simple sane/insane dichotomy.

This.