Mass Shootings: How we can deter potential mass shooters in the US? List some major mass shootings in the US and identify some major similarities and major differences among them.
Mass shootings have become an issue in the United States. There are ways mass shootings can be deterred. One way is strict gun regulations. By making it hard for people to possess firearms, it makes mass shootings less likely. Also strict screenings and regulations can be put in place so people with mental health issues are not able to purchase a firearm. Also another more extreme example of a way would be strict security in public places. For example, mental detectors and security guards could be a way to bring down the number of mass shootings. However, I think the easiest most effective way would be train people on how to respond should a shooting happen. I understand this doesn’t deter mass shooting however it can prevent as many people from dying or being injured in the result of a mass shooting.
There have been many mass shootings over the years in the United States. While there have been many, a few of the most notable include the “San Bernardino, California shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the Columbine High School shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooting” ( L.A. Times Staff). The San Bernardino, California shooting occurred on December 2, 2015. Two shooters, a married couple opened fire at a holiday party. 14 people were killed and 22 were injured. “One of the shooters, Malik pledged allegiance to the Islamic state via Facebook. The shooting was investigated as terrorism and also with the relation to workplace issues” (L.A. Times Staff). “The shooters died in a stand-off with police” (L.A. Times Staff).
“The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14 2012 and 28 were killed (20 of whom being children) and 2 were injured” (L.A. Times Staff). “The shooter killed himself after massacring the elementary school” (L.A. Times Staff). According to Wikipedia, the shooter suffered from mental health issues.
The Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting occurred in July of 2012. “The shooter had an assault rifle, shotgun, and two pistols for the shooting that killed 12 and injured 58. The shooter was also wearing many pieces of armor” (Muskal). “‘The Dark Knight Rises’ was the movie the shooters chose to interrupt” (Muskal). The shooter was apprehended by police as he was sitting in his car after the shooting” (Muskal). It was determined in trial that the shooter was “mentally ill, but legally sane” by Dr. William Reid a court appointed psychiatrist. He is serving life in prison.
Columbine High School is located in Littleton, Colorado were 13 were killed, and 24 were injured. The shooting happen in April of 1999. “Two students massacred the school with handguns, pipe bombs, and shotguns” (Cart, Slater, and Braun). Some believe the violence stemmed from the two students being “social misfits who lovingly talked of death, played out war game fantasies, and singled out the victims as lethal payback for old taunts and prejudices” (Cart, Slater, and Braun). Some believe the shooters had some sort of mental instability. “Police were even baffled over how well-planned and methodically carried out the shooting was” (Cart, Slater, and Braun).
“The Virginia Tech Shooting occurred in April of 2007 and claimed the lives of 33 and injured 17 more” (L.A. Times Staff). “There were two separate attacks the shooter made on the university. The first attack claimed two people in the dormitory” (Zucchino, Reynolds, and Braun)” “The second attack was at the engineering building on campus. After the second attack the gunman turned the gun on himself” (Zucchino, Reynolds, and Braun). “There was a lot of uproar over why campus authorities didn’t place the campus on lockdown after the first shooting occurred. Allegedly campus authorities thought the first shooting was a result of domestic violence and didn’t see the second attack coming, so it was thought that lockdown was not needed” (Zucchino, Reynolds, and Braun). According to Wikipedia, the shooter was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and was accused of stalking to female students before the shooting. After the stalking incident the shooter was declared mentally ill and was ordered to attend treatment. He did not attend treatment and was still able to purchase handguns.
While each mass shooting have their individual features, a lot of the shooting mentioned have a lot in common. For example, most the shooters have some sort of mental illness. Most of the shootings happened at a school or gathering of some sort. Most of shooters ended the massacre by taking their own lives. The major difference in the San Bernardino shooting was the ending. There was a shoot-off with police in which the perpetrators died. The major difference in the Sandy Hook shooting was no motive for going to the elementary school was ever discovered. The major difference in the Aurora shooting was that the shooter didn’t commit suicide after the shooting.
Do other countries also face the risk of massacre killers? What counter measures have been taken by countries such as Australia?
All of the shootings I compared took place in the United States. It is said that the United States leads in massacre shootings. However, it isn’t only the United States. “Massacres have also rained down on Australia, the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, and many other countries” (McKirdy and Armstrong). This proves that massacres aren’t central to the United States. Furthermore, in Australia, steps have been taken to prevent massacres. “In April of 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people died, pushed Australian Prime Minister John Howard to reform gun control laws across the nation” (McKirdy and Armstrong). “The reform included a gun ‘buy-back’ scheme that took 650,000 guns out of circulation. High caliber rifles and shotguns were banned, licensing was tightened, and the remaining firearms were registered” (McKirdy and Armstrong).
Gun Violence and Gun Control: Briefly summarize the significance of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision (554 US 570(2008). Does this decision in DC apply to the 50 states regarding the 2nd Amendment?
Gun violence and gun control is a highly debated issue in the United States. “There is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment of the Constitution that a person can possess a hand gun in his home” (Unknown). Dick Heller applied from a license to keep a hand gun at home. He was denied. He sued the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court backed Heller and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. “Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said that the Second Amendment should be read as ‘to guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’. Therefore, banning handguns hinders one’s right to protect himself/ herself and home and belongings violates the Second Amendment” (Unknown). The landmark case is significant because the Supreme Court shows support in one’s right to protect him/ her. This is especially important in light of the gun control legislation that is flying around in today’s society.
This decision to uphold the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court does apply to the rest of the 50 states, however it is indirectly. According to Wikipedia, since the Heller decision, many cases have been brought to lower courts regarding the constitutionality of banning guns in places like post offices. These laws have been upheld. So the Heller decision doesn’t mean any case regarding guns and the Second Amendment will win. However, it does mean the Second Amendment will be upheld when it is an actual Second Amendment issue. Heller wanted a gun for his residence and he was denied that right. That was a Second Amendment issue. When someone wants to take a gun into the Post Office it is not a Second Amendment issue.
Summarize Sieberg’s position on gun control policy in America. State the reasons you agree or disagree. Support your arguments.
When discussing gun control, Katri Sieberg is a difficult person to not bring up. In her book, ‘Criminal Dilemmas: Understanding and Preventing Crime’, she doesn’t explicitly denounce her position on gun control. However, in reading short parts of chapter 6, titled Gun Control one can assume Sieberg’ position. Sieberg believes that crime can be reduced by reducing the availability of firearms. By reducing the availability of firearms, this lowers both purposeful and accidental firearm injury and death. Sieberg is also a supporter of the Brady Law. The Brady Law is a mandatory five day waiting period on handgun purchases. This lapse in sale gives vendors time to run a criminal background check. The Brady Laws has already blocked an attempted 40,000 criminal firearm purchase. Sieberg’s big point in her book is that we, as Americans, need to better understand the issue at hand with firearms. If we better understand the issue, we then have a better chance to design effective public policy. I completely agree with Sieberg’s points of reducing the availability of firearms, the Brady Law, and educating American people of the issue. These three proponents can greatly impact the deaths and injuries, both purposeful and accidental, associated with firearms. Specifically, the Brady Law has already prevented 40,000 criminals the access to firearms. If this law would become more widespread the amount of criminals or people with mental health instabilities that could obtain access to firearms would dramatically lower.
What is the negative role of the NRA and gun industry lobbying?
The counterpart of Sieberg is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun industry lobbyists. Both the NRA and lobbyists wields their power in a negative way. “The NRA strong-arms legislatures into doing their bidding. In 2012, the NRA used its powerful influence to push through legislation in Florida that will punish doctors if they ask patients if they own a gun” (Watkins). Furthermore, “the NRA claims to be making sure that political agendas aren’t pushed through on taxpayer dollars. This may be true. However, the NRA pushes through their own political and business agenda via their own funds” (Watkins). The NRA and gun industry lobbyists do not have America’s best interests at heart. They are only concerned with how sales will plummet if strict gun control laws as passed into law and enforced. “In the mid-1990’s, Dr. Mark Rosenberg was conducting a gun research study. In Dr. Rosenberg’s research, it was found that the risks of having loaded gun in the home far outweighed the benefits. Once the study’s outcome was released, the NRA pushed for legislation that ended up killing Rosenberg’s research” (Watkins). Further proving the point that the NRA is only in favor of pushing their own agenda.
List the major gun manufacturers selling in the United States.
While there are many gun manufacturers both internationally and nationally, there are four top producers in America. The top manufacturer is the Patriot Ordinance Factory (POF). The second top manufacturer is Remington Arms. The third is Ruger (Sturn, Ruger, & Co). The fourth is Smith & Wesson.
Crime Control: How have advanced in DNA analysis changed the criminal justice system?H
Gun control brings up another kind of control America needs; crime control. A huge proponent in crime control is DNA analysis advances. In the recent years there have been many advances in the DNA analysis field which in turn affects the criminal justice system. “The advances in analysis make it a much faster process” (Romeika & Yan). When the process is faster, the results are found faster, which in turn means police can find and apprehend a suspect faster. “While the long term storage of DNA is still a bit of an issue, the newfound advances make storage easier via dehydrating the DNA or specially designed storage containers” (Romeika & Yan). This particular advancement helps for long trial in which the DNA samples are still needed evidence. Another newfound technique that works to assist investigators “is the ability to identify male DNA in a mixed sample which leads to sexual assault arrests” (Romeika & Yan). Furthermore, the advances in DNA help to better investigate formerly cold cases. Old DNA can be analyzed or re-analyzed which could lead to the perpetrator.
List the ways a large number of police cold cases in a city can raise the murder rate.
In speaking of cold cases, a large number of cold cases in a city can raise the murder rate. I believe the foremost reason that a large number of cold cases in a city raise the murder rate is clearance. Clearance rate is the murder that leads to arrest versus the ones that do not. If a murder occurs and an arrest is not made it is not considered cleared. Cold cases are not cleared cases. They are not cleared because no arrest has been made in the case. When a large number of cold cases plagues a city then city has a lot of cases that aren’t cleared. Another scenario is serial killers. There are many notable serial killers that eluded arrest. All of the victims would be considered cold cases. If a serial killer terrorizes a city the murder rate would rise.
Why would effective anti-gang policies lower the murder rate?
Gangs are stereotypically associated with violence and murder. Some gangs even include murder on their initiation list. Furthermore, a huge part of gang life is rival gangs. The gang from one side of town kills the members of the gang from the other side of town because of a deep-rooted generations old rivalry. Therefore, anti-gang policies and procedures which lower gang involvement and participation can lower the murder rate.
What policies or change would you recommend to make cities safer?
There are a lot of ways in which to make the city safer. Some of these ways include cracking down on gang violence. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published a four-prong approach to crack down on gang violence. The first prong is targeted oppression of youth who commit serious and chronic crimes. The second prong listed by the OJJDP is intervention with young gang members. The third prong is prevention efforts to those considered to be high risk to join. The fourth prong is implementation of programs that address risk and preventative factors and targets entire populations of high risk and high crime areas. If all cities put the OJJDP’s prongs into practice it would deter the youth population for joining. It would also lower membership on a long term plan. Therefore over the course of time the number of members in gangs would go down, which would in turn limit the crimes committed by said gangs. Another effective way to curb gang violence is to institute a zero tolerance policy in relation to gang violence and crimes. If a zero tolerance policy is enforced then the gang members would either be in prison or less inclined to commit crimes knowing the zero tolerance policy should they get caught. Another way to prevent crime that is gang related and not gang related is to increase patrols. The higher influx of patrols would mean more officers could spend more time in higher crime areas which would in turn lower crime with officers constantly patrolling the area.
More on Terrorism: discuss the role of the media in terrorist attack planning (CNN Effect).
While crime is an issue that the media loves cover, another issue, terrorism is covered much more. The media plays a huge role in terrorist attack planning. This is coined the CNN effect. “The CNN effect is a theory that explains the effect of 24-hour news networks (such as CNN) has on the general political and economic climate” (Wu). “Media outlets provide a narrowly focused prolonged coverage of certain subject matter. This causes individuals to absorb the material in a much more aggressive way” (Wu). Furthermore, terrorist and militant organizations receive a lot of attention from the media. “Media coverage of terrorist organizations does raise awareness of the violence. However, in raising awareness it also allows the terrorist organizations to spread their message, create fear, and recruit followers” (Wu). Jamie Doward, a reporter from the Guardian, said research has shown that coverage for terrorist acts has in turn encouraged more terrorist acts” (Wu). This is the copycat and attention theory as well. Terrorist group see other terrorist groups on the news and copycat their actions and receive the same attention as well.
According to Posner, it appears to be the administrations policy that any probability of a terrorist attack that is equal to 1% should be treated as a certainty.
With the CNN effect that plagues most media outlets and in turn plagues most Americans’ attitude the hype of terrorism goes all the way up to the administration. According to Eric Posner, the One Percent Doctrine from Bush’s administration also infects the Obama administration as well. To better understand the catastrophe, one needs to better understand the One Percent doctrine. According to Wikipedia, the One Percent Doctrine is a nonfiction book by Ron Suskind and is about American’s hunt for terrorists since September 11, 2001. The book criticizes the Bush administration for forming terrorism policies based on political goals rather than geopolitical realities. In the book Vice President Dick Cheney describes the doctrine toward terrorism as treating the probability of a terrorist attack that equals or exceeds 1% to be treated as a certainty and to formulate a response. The Obama administration is following in the footsteps of the previous administration in the absurd One Percent Doctrine. “The Obama administration expanded the war in Afghanistan to prevent Pakistan from giving nukes to Al Qaeda” (Posner). The way the past two administrations have chosen to deal with “remote but potentially disastrous terrorist organizations” (Posner) is absolutely absurd. Treating a 1% probability as a certainty means we, as a nation basically have to treat everything as a certainty. This ideology then overextends already overextended military forces and budgets. It is virtually impossible to respond to all 1% threats as certain. Furthermore, if something has a 1% chance of happening, there is a 99% chance it won’t happen. For example, there is a 1 in 84 (a 1.19%) chance you will die in a car accident but that doesn’t stop you from driving work in a careful, conscious, calculated manner. The odds that something will happen doesn’t mean it will. Furthermore, actions can be taken to prevent that as well. I’m not saying to put military forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan but maybe just remain conscious of the situation.
Comment on the probability of a terrorist in 2017 from ISIS is 10% becoming 100% 2027.
Assume that the probability of a female age will raped in .05%. What are the chances over the next 40 years?
Along with trying to figure out the odds of a terrorist attack, people try to figure out the odds that a woman will be raped. Research supports that females age 18-21 have a .05% (5 out of 10,000) chance of being raped. Therefore, according to odds the cumulative risk that a woman is raped within the next 40 years is 2% (2 out of 100). If the .05% chance is multiplied by the 40 years timeframe the chance is up to 2%. Of course there are independent variables that can make a particular woman’s odds a little higher or a little lower. While I totally disagreed with the ISIS attack probability, I fully agree with the probability in this. Terrorism is unpredictable but unfortunately rape is not. It happens to 5 out of 10,000 women age 18-21 every single year. Therefore, if she has the .05% every year for 40 years it makes sense that the odds go up to 2% over the course of the 40 years.
Works Cited
Cart, Julie, Slater, Eric, and Braun, Stephen. (21 Apr 1999). Armed Youths Kill Up to 23 in 4 Hour Siege at High School. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: http://articles.latimes.com/print/1999/apr/21/news/mn-295002
McKirdy, Evan and Armstrong, Paul. (2 Oct 2015). Are Mass Shootings Preventable? These Countries Have Tried. CNN World. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/world/can-legislation-prevent-mass-shootings/
Muska, Michael. (20 July 2012). In Colorado, 2 Crime Scenes After a Night of Terror. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/20/nation/la-na-nn-colorado-shooting-crime-scenes-20120720
Los Angeles Times Staff. (2 Dec 2015). Deadliest US Mass Shootings (1984-2015). Los Angeles Times. Retrived 15 May 2016 from: http://timelines.latimes.com.deadliest-shooting-rampages/
Posner, Eric. (17 Dec 2009). The One Percent Doctrine Revisited. The Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved 16 May 2016 from: www.volokh.com/2009/12/17/the-one-percent-doctrine-revisted
Romeika, Jennifer M. and Yan, Fei. (2013). Recent Advances in Forensic DNA Analysis. Forensic Research. Retrieved 16 May 2016 from: www.omiconline.org-recent-advances-in-forensic-dna-analysis.
Unknown. District of Columbia v. Heller. (N.D.) Oyez. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Watkins, Tom. (10 Jan 2013). How the NRA Wields it’s Influence. CNN. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/nra-gun-research
Wu, Jessica. (2016). Role of Media in Context of International Security. Pacific American School Model United Nations VII Annual Session. Retrieved 16 May 2016 from: www.pasmun.com/uploads/5/8/1/0/58103337/gal_jessica.pdf
Zucchino, David, Reynolds, Maura, and Braun, Stephen. (17 Apr 2007). 33 Die in Campus Massacre. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 15 May 2016 from: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2007/apr/17/nation/na-man17
