Interesting interview about the findings from two professors on the subject of mass shooters. One a criminology professor and the other a criminal justice professor. A bit of a read but they seem to take a good analytical look, not typical knee jerk political responses. They wrote a book and the interview just covers some bits from their book. I haven't read the book but I am going to order it on Amazon to read further.
A few takeaways:
-These aren't merely murders, they are violent suicides.
-These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil
-An effective approach needs to be multi-pronged including gun control, mental health services, and interventions by schools, police, and parents.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?fbclid=IwAR1hJ0RSlgAS0tJkW8eo0r6vRWFkLoIL7TGHytZpRX_6ujpC0CCUsCVVeOM

I have ordered the book (not available yet) and also follow their IG site.  The information provided is SUPER INFORMATIVE.  Espeically on the Websites.  Now if POLITICANS (MORE DEMOCRATS) can get this information, they MIGHT make REAL Headway in making a difference.

Everyone should review and see what they think.

Aloha!

Interesting interview about the findings from two professors on the subject of mass shooters. One a criminology professor and the other a criminal justice professor. A bit of a read but they seem to take a good analytical look, not typical knee jerk political responses. They wrote a book and the interview just covers some bits from their book. I haven't read the book but I am going to order it on Amazon to read further.
A few takeaways:
-These aren't merely murders, they are violent suicides.
-These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil
-An effective approach needs to be multi-pronged including gun control, mental health services, and interventions by schools, police, and parents.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?fbclid=IwAR1hJ0RSlgAS0tJkW8eo0r6vRWFkLoIL7TGHytZpRX_6ujpC0CCUsCVVeOM

Unless you aren't too observant, these shooters are all suicides and they don't want to go alone.
Kind like a moslem.
Politco is a Democrat party functionary so I treat them as such and do not trust anything they produce as it is likely a lie,
or at least very biased.
 
"Interventions by schools, police, and parents."
hasn't worked thus far.
Y'all left out Church.
They need the fear of God.
In my religion belief the worst sin is suicide.
You can be forgiven most anything, you have done but
you can't ask for forgiveness for killing yourself.
 

I think your missing the point if you dont review what their reaseach was and did.  Put your BIASED POLICITO thinking aside!  Where is the "MIDDLE GROUND".  I think their reseach is NOT biased.  It talks about "MENTAL HEALTH".  It talks about other things like the AR-15 is NOT the most used weapon.  This is important to note.  Again, we all need to read with an "open mind".  I think this is a great "starting point".  We must be able to bring ideas thou not perfect but to the table of discussion.    Aloha!

Politco is a Democrat party functionary so I treat them as such and do not trust anything they produce as it is likely a lie,
or at least very biased.

This^^^

Definitely a leftist site not to be trusted as anything but a DNC jockstrap.

I think any news agency that names itself "Politico" is advertising itself as a biased political group.

MediaBiasFactCheck.com has this to say:

Overall, we rate Politico Left-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that slightly favor the left.
We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

I tend to agree with that assessment.  While Politico does tend to publish more Leftist-leaning opinions, the facts they publish tend to be more trustworthy than the rest of the big MSM agencies like CNN.

Having said that, before distrusting the information they publish, take the time to not only read it, but also click the links to the sourced articles (or, in this case, the book) and read that, too.  Most times I find they are factually accurate albeit supportive of Leftist positions.

Basically, their lies are based on the truth.  You just have to make the effort to sift through the BS.

The first thing that caught my eye in the OP article was this:

Melanie Warner is a writer in Honolulu and author, most recently, of
The Magic Feather Effect: The Science of Alternative Medicine and
the Surprising Power of Belief.

So, right away, I'm not sure I'd take the OPINIONS (or loaded questions) of the author on face value, but that's not the issue.  Is she honestly conveying the facts of the study? I think she's trying:

Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic,
reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental
health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only
politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions.

That sounds like what we've been saying on this forum forever.  We need to stop pushing an agenda (gun control, Assault Weapons ban, raising legal ages to purchase, etc.) since there's no evidence any of those "solutions" could have prevented any of the past mass shootings -- not one.  Looking for commonalities and treating each shooting independently to gather the FACTS surrounding the shooter's mental status, motivations and potential preventative factors BEFORE trying to do comparisons with other shooters/shootings makes sense to me.

The anti-gun politicians and media will find one common thread -- or make one up -- and plaster that all over the Internet.  "Shooter was a White male with ties to White Supremacist group."  That's the agenda talking, not analysis and in-depth research.  "Ties to White Supremacist Group" could mean he was friends with a guy who shared racist memes on FB.  The next day, you find out the shooter was a Clinton supporter who hated the GOP and all Conservatives, especially Christians.  I get tired of these buzzwords that rarely tell us what's behind the characterization.

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/about-us/our-book/

I think this is ONE way of searching for solutions that work in a nation hell-bent on using these tragedies to justify taking away second amendment protected rights.

I don't, however, think this is THE solution.  Focusing so heavily on hiring so many psychologists to identify potentially violent kids in school is problematic.  Privacy issues, liability, and so on can restrict how much a mental health professional can do.  How do you know you stopped a school shooting that never happened?  Hard to show the results of such efforts unless the would-be murderer admits he was planning to commit crimes, but he was prevented by the school psychiatrist -- either by talking it out or being reported to authorities.

We have billions of people in the country.  Add to that the millions who come to the US every year from foreign countries.  It's impossible to believe we can stop everyone who plans to commit mass murder.  The only way to prevent a mass shooting is to have enough people present who are prepared to stop it once it starts.  We've seen many stories of churches and schools where armed individuals, both official guards and regular attendees, stopped the killing before it became a "mass shooting."  These criminals usually look for soft targets.  Making schools "gun free zones" only creates a safer environment for those seeking to do harm.

Plan for the worst, but hope for the best.  When all efforts of prevention fail, there's only one solution that remains: prepare to meet force with force.

But, I'm probably preaching to the choir.   

I think your missing the point if you dont review what their reaseach was and did.  Put your BIASED POLICITO thinking aside!  Where is the "MIDDLE GROUND".  I think their reseach is NOT biased.  It talks about "MENTAL HEALTH".  It talks about other things like the AR-15 is NOT the most used weapon.  This is important to note.  Again, we all need to read with an "open mind".  I think this is a great "starting point".  We must be able to bring ideas thou not perfect but to the table of discussion.    Aloha!

Exactly, that's why I am going to get the book first and read it. Politico may slant their story so by buying the book I can go to the source. At least since this is an interview instead of a book review we are hearing what the author's themselves are saying, not paraphrased stuff.

An open mind is vital, everyone gets defensive on this topic and progress comes to a standstill

I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.

As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.

We are now having more boys that fail to launch. Many have behavior problems and
have difficulty with learning and social skills. Girls raised in the same family as the
boys do not have the same problems. I know that this is not politically correct since
the feminization of our educational system is now the norm.

I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.

As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.

What’s also meaningless is trying to appease the anti-gun crowd. People who don’t even care to get even a little educated about the topic they are discussing aren’t even worth trying to appeal to. I’m curious how you can say “hardening schools is heartless or not that good of a solution”? Shooters literally target these areas because they are soft targets.

I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.

As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.

Hardening schools should be tried. Give teachers/staff the option to carry.  Health services only go so far as many go un-diagnosed (like the Ulvade shooter). We harden many other places of value, so why not our schools. 

Anyone who is protected by guns, should not have  a say in disarming the people until they too give up their armed protection.  Like politicians, it's easy to talk when you have an army protecting your work place and in public (depending on what position they are). Or how about HPD, as long as the officer is inside the station, they do not need to be armed.  So like Japan or even our military stationed in the USA, you need to get your gun from the armory, and only when it's needed.  Ex-chief  Ballad's statement for denying CCW applicants are to call 911.

"These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil". This statement is worry some because it sounds like providing an excuse.  Which is pretty much the statement that the Ulvade shooters mom made. Maybe she read the same book?

We are now having more boys that fail to launch. Many have behavior problems and
have difficulty with learning and social skills. Girls raised in the same family as the
boys do not have the same problems. I know that this is not politically correct since
the feminization of our educational system is now the norm.

Having been on of those "troubled" boys in my youth.
Have your ever met any that boy was suspended from Kindergarten several times?
and first, second, third, and fourth, et al?
Schools are a problem as they are very feminized, but the real problem is the lack of a father
figure for a lot of boys.
You can recover from the political BS
that schools dump on kids if you have a dad that acts like a man.
You are supposed to learn most your "Life skills" from your parents,
not some frustrated person that can only get a BA , MA degree, or
Phd in education..
 

This wasn't a problem 20 years ago. What changed?

"easy access to firearms"

Bzzzzzz.... WRONG. Try again.

How about pumping our population full of ultra-profitable and extremely dangerous psychoactive medications?

Oh right. The "researchers" can't risk pissing off Big Pharma. That would be the end of their careers.

If your only rationale for implementing a proposal is to appease a group of people in an attempt to prove to them that you care about kids, then you've already lost.  Acquiescing on anything other than a well-defined and specific solution wastes time, money and resources.  Doing this will only result in another school shooting, and there still won't be armed adults on campus to meet the threat with lethal force.

Who cares more?  The anti-gun crowd who refuses to let faculty carry concealed weapons, or the gun owners who refuse to implement "solutions" that would have stopped zero mass shootings?

Anti-gun activists do not have solutions for identified problems.  They have an agenda which they push anytime there is a mass shooting.  Period.

People desperate for a solution to a life-or-death problem will grasp at straws, especially if they don't understand the problem at hand.  It's up to the adults in the room who see the problem clearly to talk those people out of falling for scams that are designed to only take from us our liberties and wealth even though the proposals are based solely on emotion and have been proven to be ineffective.

I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.

As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.

There are many "realistic steps" that have been proposed or even offered. Just that those living in their "safe space utopia" are too fragile to admit that A) evil exists and B) evil doesn't follow laws.  Until the "other side" realizes that and take a good hard look in the mirror and sees the ignorance, nothing is going to change. 

Also don't "need" to harden all schools.  Just make it a point to implement deterrence, or at least give appearance of such.  Same thing as why the sheep feel protected. . .   

What’s also meaningless is trying to appease the anti-gun crowd. People who don’t even care to get even a little educated about the topic they are discussing aren’t even worth trying to appeal to. I’m curious how you can say “hardening schools is heartless or not that good of a solution”? Shooters literally target these areas because they are soft targets.

I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.

To me part of that image management means coming up with and/or supporting ideas to help address the problem. Part of that should include some level of gun control legislation. Some may chide it as another compromise of our rights but I look at it as a balancing act. No right is absolute which means we have to figure out where to draw the line, balancing the necessity of firearms against the risks that come with them.

I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.

I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.

I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.

The entire system of laws are not preventative.  They only REACT to people AFTER they commit crimes.

So, you're of the opinion that gun laws would need to be the first laws in US History to actually prevent crimes?

The only time laws prevent crime is when the criminal has broken the law once and is either put to death or incarcerated.  Otherwise, there is nothing preventing them from committing more crimes -- especially not the law.

Murder is illegal.  Maybe we need stronger laws to prevent that?

nothing is free.

This wasn't a problem 20 years ago. What changed?

"easy access to firearms"

Bzzzzzz.... WRONG. Try again.

Yes and no. Clearly access itself is not the problem because ar-15s were available long before mass shootings became a thing but easy access to firearms, along with other factors combine together to make the problem.

The entire system of laws are not preventative.  They only REACT to people AFTER they commit crimes.

So, you're of the opinion that gun laws would need to be the first laws in US History to actually prevent crimes?

The only time laws prevent crime is when the criminal has broken the law once and is either put to death or incarcerated.  Otherwise, there is nothing preventing them from committing more crimes -- especially not the law.

Murder is illegal.  Maybe we need stronger laws to prevent that?

Many laws work to prevent problems, what you are saying is simply not correct.

The whole argument of "criminals don't follow laws" is a silly one. Might as well just not have any laws then if that logic holds true. It's just an empty saying anyway, it's true by definition. It's like saying only dihonest people lie.