Ebon,

Thanks for another of your epic and insightful posts. 

I must especially agree with the points about crowded urban environments. As I'm fond of pointing out, where I live, rural Wyoming, as you might guess, there's a good chance that, quite literally, the number of firearms in my community not only matches the number of people, but actually surpasses it. 

But, we have very little gun crime. (We do have an unusual amount of sucides, but more on that later.)

Again, as I've already pointed out the last two recent murders (as in the past decade) here were both stabbings.

Wyoming gun laws are also incredibly loose, even by American standards.

"Open carry" is perfectly legal, and not all that socially weird. It's not unheard of to see somebody walking around with a handgun strapped to their hip. I've seen it in Wal-Mart here. Heck, I've walked through my hometown to a costume party in the park with a real six-shooter on my hip. It was part of my costume, and unloaded -- the ammo was all locked away securely in my off-site location near our house. But still, how many places in the world, or even the U.S., can a guy do that without freaking people out? Also, I never get even so much as a grunt out of the neighbors or people passing by when I move my long guns to and from my vehicle for hunting or target shooting outings. Again, in many other places in the world, including much of the U.S., folks would be crapping their pants.

Concealed carry, without a permit, is now also perfectly legal, thanks to our wise and insigtful Legislature just last year. (Yes, that was sarcasm). In other words, anybody could be packing concealed heat here in Wyoming, without ever having had to go through a class or get a permit first.  

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying, where I live, firearms are just part of the scenery, yet gun crime is low. So why aren't we shooting each other on a regular basis here?

Two reasons, I think.

First, it's not an afore-mentioned over-crowded, stressful urban environment. I recently said to a cousin of mine, who is very much a city slicker -- "I like my personal space. And sometimes, my personal space is at least 1,000 yards in every direction." The thing of it is, that kind of "personal space" is readily accessable where I live. I think that does wonders to help keep people from wanting to kill one another for kicks.

When I get stressed out or pissed off, all I have to do is load my dogs into the back of my pickup, drive for a couple of miles past the edge of town, and take off across practically endless, empty country where I can stride vigorously, mutter to myself and watch the dogs' antics until I feel better. If I was stuck in a city without that option, I don't know what I would do. (get a treadmill in a soundproof room?)

Second, the reasons for owning a firearm here. They can be many. Target shooting for fun, organized competitive shooting sports, hunting, protection from large predators or other potentially dangerous animals (I don't like going unarmed into rattlesnake country) and so on.

In a big city, for what reasons would a person own a firearm? Most of the time, it has to do with deadly harm other people. In a city, you generally keep a gun either to commit a crime, or because you think you need it for protection from somebody trying to commit a crime on you. 

Lastly, I think you're spot on with the mental health thing. I have a mentally ill son, and also through my work deal quite a lot with people involved in mental health issues. It's getting better, but the safety net is still way too thin. 

Which takes me back to the issue of suicide, which is a problem in Wyoming and other isolated places. There is, of course, the isolation. The sometimes dreary weather. And also, the "cowboy up" mentality. Tough Wyoming cowboys and cowgirls like to think they don't need a shrink. A bottle of whiskey, maybe, but not a shrink. 

Go into a depression, self-medicate with whiskey, and have guns within easy reach...

... the outcome isn't difficult to predict. 

Anyway, thanks, again, for sharing your insight. 

Thank you to GC, Stardove and mouse for the kind words.

Jul 31, 2012 -- 3:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And I would bet that in many cases, when a mass killing is done for political reasons (such as in the name of extremist Jihad groups), the workings of the group prey on the mentally weak, or mentally ill -- to be the ones to strap on the bomb and run into the crowd.

Very likely to be the case. People often think that criminal groupings come about because two or more criminals come together and encourage one another and that does happen on occasion (see Leopold & Loeb or Fred & Rose West) but far more often, it's a case of the psychologically stronger persona dominating the psychologically weaker. In psychology, we divide people into high-, medium- and low dominance and most people, naturally enough, are medium. But those who exhibit high-dominance can often psychologically dominate those at the lower end of the spectrum. As one example, look at the Moors Murderers and you have a classic case of a high-dominance person (Brady) manipulating a low-dominance follower (Hindley). And terroristic groups work much the same way. The people who make the plans and issue the orders are high-dominance but those who actually carry out the acts are low-dominance, psychologically weaker or mentally unstable.

Jul 31, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Ebon,

Thanks for another of your epic and insightful posts. 

I must especially agree with the points about crowded urban environments. As I'm fond of pointing out, where I live, rural Wyoming, as you might guess, there's a good chance that, quite literally, the number of firearms in my community not only matches the number of people, but actually surpasses it. 

But, we have very little gun crime. (We do have an unusual amount of sucides, but more on that later.)

Again, as I've already pointed out the last two recent murders (as in the past decade) here were both stabbings.

Wyoming gun laws are also incredibly loose, even by American standards.

"Open carry" is perfectly legal, and not all that socially weird. It's not unheard of to see somebody walking around with a handgun strapped to their hip. I've seen it in Wal-Mart here. Heck, I've walked through my hometown to a costume party in the park with a real six-shooter on my hip. It was part of my costume, and unloaded -- the ammo was all locked away securely in my off-site location near our house. But still, how many places in the world, or even the U.S., can a guy do that without freaking people out? Also, I never get even so much as a grunt out of the neighbors or people passing by when I move my long guns to and from my vehicle for hunting or target shooting outings. Again, in many other places in the world, including much of the U.S., folks would be crapping their pants.

Concealed carry, without a permit, is now also perfectly legal, thanks to our wise and insigtful Legislature just last year. (Yes, that was sarcasm). In other words, anybody could be packing concealed heat here in Wyoming, without ever having had to go through a class or get a permit first.  

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying, where I live, firearms are just part of the scenery, yet gun crime is low. So why aren't we shooting each other on a regular basis here?

Two reasons, I think.

First, it's not an afore-mentioned over-crowded, stressful urban environment. I recently said to a cousin of mine, who is very much a city slicker -- "I like my personal space. And sometimes, my personal space is at least 1,000 yards in every direction." The thing of it is, that kind of "personal space" is readily accessable where I live. I think that does wonders to help keep people from wanting to kill one another for kicks.

When I get stressed out or pissed off, all I have to do is load my dogs into the back of my pickup, drive for a couple of miles past the edge of town, and take off across practically endless, empty country where I can stride vigorously, mutter to myself and watch the dogs' antics until I feel better. If I was stuck in a city without that option, I don't know what I would do. (get a treadmill in a soundproof room?)

Second, the reasons for owning a firearm here. They can be many. Target shooting for fun, organized competitive shooting sports, hunting, protection from large predators or other potentially dangerous animals (I don't like going unarmed into rattlesnake country) and so on.

In a big city, for what reasons would a person own a firearm? Most of the time, it has to do with deadly harm other people. In a city, you generally keep a gun either to commit a crime, or because you think you need it for protection from somebody trying to commit a crime on you. 

Lastly, I think you're spot on with the mental health thing. I have a mentally ill son, and also through my work deal quite a lot with people involved in mental health issues. It's getting better, but the safety net is still way too thin. 

Which takes me back to the issue of suicide, which is a problem in Wyoming and other isolated places. There is, of course, the isolation. The sometimes dreary weather. And also, the "cowboy up" mentality. Tough Wyoming cowboys and cowgirls like to think they don't need a shrink. A bottle of whiskey, maybe, but not a shrink. 

Go into a depression, self-medicate with whiskey, and have guns within easy reach...

... the outcome isn't difficult to predict. 

Anyway, thanks, again, for sharing your insight. 

This is the most sensible thing I have ever read anywhere about guns.  I wish you were in a position to set government policy.

Aug 1, 2012 -- 1:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Aug 1, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Cowfornow wrote:

Jul 31, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 

This is the most sensible thing I have ever read anywhere about guns.  I wish you were in a position to set government policy.

I'm flattered. 

But I don't think you would want me anywhere near a position of actual responsibility. 

Ok, that disqualifies you - you have some level of self-awareness, which is unheard-of in the political world.  Sigh.

Jul 31, 2012 -- 1:05PM, Erey wrote:

Jul 31, 2012 -- 12:49PM, mindis1 wrote:

I have noticed that after mass shootings such as this, many Americans recommend more or better “mental health” services as a way to prevent such shootings. I wonder what exactly would these more or better services be that would have made any difference in this shooting?

If you believe that mental disorders are diseases like, say, cancer or Graves disease, then should James Holmes be punished for having a mental disorder? If you believe that Holmes (a) has or might have a mental disorder, and (b) should be punished, then why should he be punished?

It was reported that Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist, and I believe it was reported that he was being treated for schizophrenia. Do you know of any to objective criteria to determine whether or not a person has a mental disorder?

Oftentimes bartenders and other people are held responsible for giving alcohol to someone who then injures or kills someone else. Should psychiatrists and other doctors likewise be held responsible when they prescribe to people drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence, and the person then commits such an act of violence when taking the drug? If not, why not?

 

Mental illness care can be done better.  However, one of the problems with some of the mentaly ill is that they really do live in thier own grandiosity.  They are not going to take well to this idea that their view of things is not reality and they are perhaps mentaly ill. 

My oldest friend is off her rocker, completely.  She refuses to aknowledge that she is not living in reality.  She sees herself empowered by God to end crime and call people out for being criminals.  she has a binder that is full of letters where she had different nurses, etc sign saying "W* has asked me to sign this letter that she believes she is not mentaly ill"  You know these nurses are humoring her they are not at all signing a letter that she is sane but instead saying she asked them to sign the letter.   It is very clear to anyone, but to her it is proof positive that the professional world has declared her sane.  She is not going to see it any other way. 

 

When I worked in social service I had people on psychotic tirades call up and carry on and on about how the room is bugged by the government and goverment is anally raping them through the computer.  They are angry when you suggest they go to the mental health clinic. 

I feel bad because these people are tortured but there is very little you can do for them because they don't want that help, mostly they don't want the idea that they are mentally ill.  You can't force them because they have not commited a crime. 

 

 

Apart from all that I do have friends that have done very well with serious cases of bi polar disorder.  They had hard times in the past but they were able to come through it. Some have done very, very well and have some genius about themselves.   I have known schizophrenics who take their medication regularly, they seem dull and handicaped but they do not have a violent life.  I just thought I would throw this last bit in because mental illness is not hopeless but you do have to come to terms with your situation.

Erey, thank you for your response, but did you answer any of the questions I asked?