Another US school shooter - Portland, this time

[Malthus]

The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?

One step at a time.

Start with 11B4V. Apparently, he owns most of 'em. 

[Caliga]

You take the guns away. Using Force.

Hee.  Ok.

[Barrister]

The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?

i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.

Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.

If the US wanted to drastically change its gun laws to could be done - it'll just take a long time.  For example - ban a huge number of rifles / ammo types, but grandfather in existing owners.  Prohibit the sale or transfer of such guns - except to immediate family.  Ban where and how they can be carried (e.g. in Canada must be securely locked unless in use while hunting or at a shooting range).  Offer buy-backs.  Introduce mandatory gun owner licensing.

You're not "taking away anyones guns" (which is the NRAs biggest line in the sand) but still seriously restricting their availability and use.

[Valmy]

The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?

i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.

For what purpose?  It seems the gun rights people would be against that for background checks.  Are we talking about profiling?  That was my prediction but we seem slow on the uptake.

[Admiral Yi]

Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.

Why not?

Unless I'm mistaken we already have laws on the books prohibiting sales to people with certain mental illness diagnoses.

[Barrister]

Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.

Why not?

Unless I'm mistaken we already have laws on the books prohibiting sales to people with certain mental illness diagnoses.

4th Amendment.

Unfortunately the biggest predictor we have for future actions is past actions.  So we can have great confidence that someone who has been convicted of multiple gun crimes in the past will be engaged in future gun crimes.

But these "spree shooters" have never engaged in that kind of behaviour before (how can they - it invariably ends in the shooters death or life imprisonment).  So if you attempt to determine a statistical risk assessment model for people likely to be involved in a spree shooting it will not be terribly accurate.  So it'll either identify grotesquely large number of false positives, or else will be of little actual assistance.

Plus - when do people have to go through this kind of statistical risk analysis?

[CountDeMoney]

Identity of the shooter.

Fuck the shooters, they're all interchangeable after a while anyway, one's no different than the next.

[Admiral Yi]

Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.

It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.

As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past.  So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.

[derspiess]

You take the guns away. Using Force.

MOLON LABIA

[Valmy]

Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.

It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.

As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past.  So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.

I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted?  More background checks?  I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile.  Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.

[Barrister]

Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.

It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.

As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past.  So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.

At what stage are you doing this risk analysis?

It seems to me you'd be getting 1000 or even 10000 false positives or more before you stop a spree shooter.  There doesn't seem to be any good means to detect such people and you'd have to cast an exceedingly wide net in order to make any difference.  There are practically no common threads behind all of these recent spree shooters.

[CountDeMoney]

MOLON LABIA

A "molon labia" is:
1) A West African dictator
2) A crater site on the Moon
3) Mrs. Anger's private parts

[PRC]

You take the guns away. Using Force.

MOLON LABIA

You'd get in a shootout with the Feds if they did come to take them?  I'd figure you'd either just give them up or try and hide them.

[Valmy]

Spicey longs to kill cops FOR FREEDOM

[Admiral Yi]

I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted?  More background checks?  I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile.  Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.

Not really.  My understanding is he wanted to close the gun show loophole.  I'm talking more about reexamining the criteria that go into the national no-gun database.