The horrific incident that occurred in Aurora, Colorado is only the latest of a long series of actions that occur from time to time committed on the general population. Our first response, beyond revulsion, is to search out why something so horrific could happen. As we come to grips with the reality of the incident, we question if there was anything displayed by the perpetrator that would be an indication of the perpetrator’s future action/s. This is much different than our understanding of routine violent action perpetrated in the commission of a crime. What makes that difference?
Violent acts that occur during the commission of crimes are what are called goal directed behavior/s. The perpetrator/s has specific goals in the commission of these acts. Armed robbery, assault, homicide, breaking and entering, etc; all are acts that follow some sort of common logic, even though the act itself appears to be illogical. Ferreting out the intent, the history of the individual, etc. usually provides us a fairly good idea why this particular individual committed this particular act. Just like someone who commits armed robbery and then kills the victim; it is logical that he doesn’t want to be identified as the perpetrator of the armed robbery, thus, killing the victim. We can usually take preventative action/s to prevent ourselves from becoming victims by altering our behaviors such as not travelling in high-crime areas late at night. Our ability to take command and control of our possible victimization is empowering and some take it even a step farther by arming themselves against such aggression. However, with the perpetrator who commits random acts of unanticipated violence, our system of risk probability is inadequate and we find ourselves completely vulnerable.
What makes the single individual “lone wolf” so dangerous is that there may or may not be any preceding behavior that is recognized, resulting in such an incident. James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, is a prime example. From what we know now; he grew up living in an affluent area, in a stabile family, he was bright and high achieving academically and seemed to be a pretty stabile individual. But, from the surfacing reports; his recent behavior had taken some unexpected changes. What happened to this kid?
You have to understand that I am now only speculating, but the possibility is that latent schizophrenia began to manifest itself. He is in the right age group and right gender for onset of the condition. Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, also met this profile. Schizophrenia for this group usually manifests sometime during middle adolescence to young adulthood, from age 15 through 25, and it also affects some females as well. Another fact about schizophrenia is that it only affects between 0.3 to 0.7 percent of the population. Therefore, it is extremely rare and can only be identified and diagnosed through observation and self-reports, making early diagnosis very difficult. With many who begin manifesting the symptoms after gaining majority independence, their family and associates may not even be aware of the changes that have occurred. More likely, the average person will come into contact with other types of psychosis rather than schizophrenia. Chronic depression, bi-polar disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, etc. are much more common, making contact with such a disorder more likely. However, these disorders have not been associated with the “lone wolf” behavior. I guess in one sense we should feel lucky that violent schizophrenia is so rare. One report I read indicated that the type of incident like Aurora, on average, only occurs about four times a year.
Although the risk to public safety from a lone wolf is there, the probability of it occurring is so small, to overly express concern is not warranted. What presents the greatest danger to the general population is the drunk driver, the overly confident teen driver, distracted drivers, etc. This is where our attention should be focused.
What should be taken away from this piece, is to go and enjoy your movie and leave your firearm in the car.
Here is a link for the opposite situation...conceal and carry owners killing innocent people. Obviously vigilantes are going to succeed some of the time... but the idea they will not hurt innocents or, critically, that only "law abiding citizens," will have conceal carry permits...is absurd and factually wrong. In your story, btw, the gun owner didnt shoot thank god.
Once again, defensive use of a gun prevents an average of 600,000 crimes per year, with about 92% of them never having to fire a shot. I don't see that in your link anywhere? Oh that's right, that's because your link has an agenda. You see, that's the problem with the gun-control crowd. Every statistic they post has been manipulated or presented in a way that fits their agenda. That's because if you look at real statistics directly from the US government and you look at the whole picture, all of the data supports pro-gun and refutes anti-gun.
You will need to do some extrapolation of the data. The last year we have such data is 2005. Since then it's likely the number has gone up based upon NCIS checks, increase in gun sales/ownership, and more states adding CCW. The data itself in the NCVS has 110,000 DGUs (defensive gun use) per year used to stop a crime. Using weighting, population, and percentage, and regional differences, the low number I've seen posted from the data was 600,000 per year. It also includes an error percentage since not everyone reports a DGU. Also, we should clarify DGU. It means any time the showing or using of a firearm was done in order to stop a crime in progress or prevent what the gun owner felt to be a violent situation. So, one can argue there is also likely some incidents in which there was no threat or crime at all, but rather was only perceived, but someone thinks their gun is the reason why nothing happened. There are also occasionally surveys and gallup polls and the like done, which also end up with much higher numbers when you extrapolate the data. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html The bottom line is, we know there is defensive gun use, but without asking every single american the best we can do is extrapolate data based on what we have. So again for argument's sake I'll stick with the lower numbers, because even then it's above accidental and homicide gun use.
INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment. Gun Facts has 112 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy. Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts (with nearly 500 detailed footnotes). Thus when a neighbor, editor or politician repeats some sound bite about firearm control policy, you can quickly find that myth then rebuke with real information.
Investigators say a search of Prescott's home turned up more than 20 guns, including assault rifles and handguns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. He had a Maryland state gun collector's permit. The guns appear to be collected legally, authorities say.
Also Brian, please actually read citations. You read the link at the website, but not the citation and source of the information that was posted on the site.
I actually dont think it is a straw man argument. Gun supporters claim it's not the weapon that kills. I say I would much prefer to have someone leap up in a movie theater who had only a knife or a simple pistol than meet the guy with the 100 mag semi auto assault weapon. If the weapon makes no difference then... Why not any weapon...or do you want everything permitted? If you see some sense in restricting people from owning armored humvees.... Give me your rationale please. What does the second amendment cover according to you?
Or the 30 illegal hand grenades the killer had made? "What does the second amendment cover according to you?" It covers firearms.