Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

If it doesnt fit anywhere else but you still want to share, this is the place
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Aesop »

It might be instructive to look into the particulars of the Mumbai Massacre.

I thought they had basically set up shop to shoot it out as long as possible and keep killing peple despite the clowncar response of the local authorities.

If everyone gets used to facing down bullied adolescents, it's going to be a big shock when the pro-active active shooter response sees a couple of patrol cops run full bore into a group of whack jobs who understand small arms marksmanship and small unit tactics, including ambush kill zones.

If the North Hollywood robbers had possessed better marksmanship and/or helpfully not have popped drugs right before their last stand, the LAPD would have buried a busload of officers that day.


In any event, my takeaway on active shooters is that only headshots count, and that the contributions of sociology to the problem approach nil.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Jered »

doc Russia wrote:This also plays into survivor bias, (or in this case, revers survivorship bias) where we can only conduct forensics on the shootings which occur. That is, we cannot "see" those others who have similar traits where no shooting occured.
Here is a great article on survivor bias:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2013/05/23/ ... ship-bias/
Wow. Thanks for that. What a really good read.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Langenator
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Langenator »

Dub_James wrote: The Author's mention of the reluctance to kill coincides pretty well with Grossman's similar thesis, and explains the large ammunition amounts, but the relatively modest fatality rates. It explains the presence of a blackpowder revolver at the recent Santa Monica shooting. Obsession with the device as opposed to its effectiveness. Columbine was done with handguns and pump action shotguns, not AKs or ARs which would be more effective.
Except the Columbine killers didn't really intend to be just shooters...they meant to do most of their killing with bombs in the lunchroom. The guns were mostly for herding people into the bomb kill zone, killing the odd one to ensure compliance. Lucky for everyone but Dillon and Klebold, their bombs didn't work.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
User avatar
Windy Wilson
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Windy Wilson »

Aesop wrote:But then we get to this, in reference to the Aurora theatre shooting:
taking advantage of the fact that groups are always emotionally stronger than individuals, if they can keep themselves together and put up an emotionally united front: they could probably have made him stop shooting.
Well, yeah, except for all those bullets flying into them, sure. And that trick worked so well for the Japanese charging a machinegun on Guadalcanal, or for Custer's men at the Little Bighorn. If only they'd been more emotionally united. :lol:
I think he's arguing for the Ghost dance cult that resulted in the Wounded Knee Massacre.
"If my medicine is strong bullets cannot hurt me."
Dub_James wrote:Like I said, some technical errors :D
+1

The North Hollywood shootout started as a bank robbery and turned into something like the Northfield Minnesota raid by the Younger gang. The North Hollywood shooters placed too much faith in full auto.

The main flaw in this article is what Doc Russia called survivor/not survivor bias. It may be useful after the fact but has zero predictive power. It's like arguing for suspecting the husband after a wife turns up dead, vs using domestic violence as a predictor for who will wind up dead or accused of murder. There are a lot of factors here.
The use of the word "but" usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
User avatar
Termite
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:32 am

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Termite »

Langenator wrote:Except the Columbine killers didn't really intend to be just shooters...they meant to do most of their killing with bombs in the lunchroom. Lucky for everyone but Dillon and Klebold, their bombs didn't work.
Actually I believe their "bombs" indeed went off, but were rather poorly designed. IIRC, they used smokeless powder in PVC piping. That makes for a very poor "bomb".
Smokeless powder burns, it does not detonate. And unless it is confined so that the pressure curve increases repidly into the 1000s of psi, it doesn't burn particuliarly fast as compared to, say, blackpowder. A smokeless powder/PVC piping "bomb" will rupture before the pressure gets very high.

Had the two goblins used blackpowder inside sch 80 or heavier steel piping, the lethality of their bombs would have been far greater.
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Greg »

Windy Wilson wrote: The main flaw in this article is what Doc Russia called survivor/not survivor bias. It may be useful after the fact but has zero predictive power. It's like arguing for suspecting the husband after a wife turns up dead, vs using domestic violence as a predictor for who will wind up dead or accused of murder. There are a lot of factors here.
No a good sign for this field as a science. In a field, it's only worth publishing something that is maybe explanatory but not predictive, when you're starting from zero and have absolutely no idea what's going on. If your explanation then turns out to have some after-the-fact correlation with other events of a similar type, maybe you might have something to work with- you might be able to go from completely clueless to "almost completely clueless but we think we've at least noticed some patterns." (The social 'sciences' only sometimes even get that far, and never much farther....)
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
Langenator
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Interesting piece on Mass Shooters - Pretty readable

Post by Langenator »

Termite wrote:
Langenator wrote:Except the Columbine killers didn't really intend to be just shooters...they meant to do most of their killing with bombs in the lunchroom. Lucky for everyone but Dillon and Klebold, their bombs didn't work.
Actually I believe their "bombs" indeed went off, but were rather poorly designed. IIRC, they used smokeless powder in PVC piping. That makes for a very poor "bomb".
Smokeless powder burns, it does not detonate. And unless it is confined so that the pressure curve increases repidly into the 1000s of psi, it doesn't burn particuliarly fast as compared to, say, blackpowder. A smokeless powder/PVC piping "bomb" will rupture before the pressure gets very high.

Had the two goblins used blackpowder inside sch 80 or heavier steel piping, the lethality of their bombs would have been far greater.
The cafeteria bombs were propane bombs, roughly 20 lbs each, IIRC, and didn't go off. They may have had other bombs that were pipe bombs.

Poor detonator construction was most likely the cause of failure.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
Post Reply