Mass Shootings: A Systems Analysis

Apparently, liberals have never heard of systems analysis, “the process of studying a procedure or business in order to identify its goals and purposes and create systems and procedures that will achieve them in an efficient way.”
Having been a systems analyst since 1989, I can attest that it’s also a great way to blueprint any system or situation in order to identify what’s wrong with the system, as well as what’s right or wrong about what’s being said about the system.
We now have enough data on mass shooters in order to analyze it as a system.

Here’s the lead in the article:  “Frustration is mounting in the medical community as the Trump administration again points to mental illness in response to yet another mass shooting.”

Dr. Louis Kraus (article) is apparently incapable of thinking through the issues using systems analysis. Perhaps he’s forgotten the the class in which we consider mass shooters: Violently Criminally Insane.

Certainly, most mentally ill people are not prone to violence.

Certainly many violent people and criminals are not mentally ill.

But anyone who would indiscriminately murder large numbers of human beings outside the bounds of lawful warfare is, by definition, violent, criminal, and insane.

Then along come the armchair quarterbacks like Dr. Kraus: “Mental health professionals welcome more resources and attention, but they say the administration is ignoring the real problem — easy access to guns.”

Dr. Kraus, that is absolutely NOT the problem: 150,000,000 (150 MILLION) Americans have INSTANT access to guns, yet I don’t see them running around blowing holes in school children or predominantly conservative concert-goers in Las Vegas. DO YOU, DR. KRAUS? Of course you don’t. Furthermore, the UK’s violent crime rate shot up from near-US levels to nearly triple US levels when their government banned and confiscated most guns. Clearly, the fact that they had an armed general populace was a significant DETERRENT to violent crime, WASN’T IT, DR. KRAUS???

So what’s the difference? Out of those 150 MILLION gun owners, many can be violent, but they’re not criminals. A few are criminals, but they’re not insane.

The difference is simple: 99.999998% of those who have access to firearms are NOT violently criminally insane. Put another way, simply compare 150 million to the roughly 3 people per year who commit indiscriminate mass murder of the kind we see in school shootings, mall shootings, and theater shootings. Nearly all of them DO Have mental health issues, DON’T THEY, DR. KRAUS?

Please pardon my allcaps, but I’m trying to point out what is clearly obvious to the vast majority of Americans who have had properly military and/or law enforcement firearms training: It’s NOT the guns. Guns are NOT the problem. In fact, mass shooters rarely exhibit either violent or criminal tendencies before the snap. But SNAP they do, and when they do snap, it’s psychological in nature i.e. broken mental health, and many people die.

Thus, when people like Dr. Kraus come along and claim, “The concept that mental illness is a precursor to violent behavior is nonsense,” I find such statements themselves to be nonsense. Don’t get me wrong: It may very well hold true for the 99.999998% of gun owners who do NOT commit a mass shooting during any given year.

But that’s not the group we’re discussing, is it? We’re discussing the 3 people each year who go on indiscriminate shooting sprees against dozens of people. We’re talking about the mass shooters in Orlando, San Bernardinao, the Navy shipyard, Sandy Hook, Aurora, at Gabby Gifford’s talk, Virginia Tech, the church in Texas, the church in Charleston, SC, Luby’s, etc. Each and every one of them is, by definition, MENTALLY ILL.

So OF COURSE President Trump is talking about mental illness.

What YOU can do, Dr. Kraus, is help identify the 0.000002% of gun owners who meet the full definition of “violent criminally insane” AND are likely to go on a shooting spree.

THAT’S how you can help, Dr. Kraus. Please do THAT, instead of sitting back on your high horse and obfuscating the issue.


Gun Control in its Proper Perspective

According to Statista, there are 1.25 million violent crimes in the U.S. each year.  However, roughly 725,000 (37%) are stopped before they happen by armed, law-abiding citizens with guns.

Gun control’s success rate in stopping violent crime is less than 1%. Armed, law-abiding citizens stop 37% of all violent crime.

Armed, law-abiding citizens are roughly 50 TIMES more successful than gun controlSo why do politicians keep pushing gun control instead of encouraging armed, law-abiding citizens?

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

Media Incapable of Even Formulating the Gun Problem

Given the fact that “Roughly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides,” please tell me what percentage of those were committed with the OWNER’S firearm and what percentage were committed with someone ELSE’S firearm? In particular, I would like it broken down thusly:

Suicide committed with the OWNER’S firearm: X%
Suicide committed with someone ELSE’S firearm: Y%
– firearm owned by an IMMEDIATE family member: A%
– firearm owned by an EXTENDED family member: B%
– firearm owned by a friend, acquaintance, or their immediate or extended family: C%
– firearm owned by someone unknown to the suicide victim: D%

Such that: X%+Y%=100%
Such that: A%+B%+C%+D%=Y%

This information is VITAL in determining both IF and WHAT might be done to mitigate the issue.

If you’re incapable of properly formulating the question, you can NOT answer it as a journalist.

Mass Shootings and Random Acts of Violence

I’ve long been a strong advocate of an armed populace as the best means of self-defense. I also believe it is by far the best deterrent and way to stop both mass shootings and terrorist attacks involving firearms.
Back when I first became interested in the topic of mass shootings, however, there weren’t as many, and at least here in America. It was largely relegated to the occasional insane person run amok. Aside from 9/11, we did not yet have to worry Muslims conducting their own mass shootings in the name of terrorism.
Now we do, and it looks to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better.
Society has several tools available to deter terrorism and mass shootings:
– Intelligence (costly, even when highly focused)
– – requirements
– – planning and direction
– – collection
– – processing and exploitation
– – analysis and production
– – dissemination
– Security (the physical deterrence and protection of people 
– – Law enforcement (federal, state, county, and local)
– – Personal protection (planning, training, and weapons)
So, should we make it more difficult for people to obtain guns?  Should we reduce magazine capacities?  Increase background checks?  Reduce calibers?  Limit ammunition capability?  Create more “gun-free” zones?  Mandate the use of “smart” guns?  Increase waiting periods?  Ban certain types of firearms based on their appearance or general level of public trepidation?  Put a cop on every street corner?
anti-gun desperation
No.  NONE of these measures has proven effective in either deterring or stopping mass shootings or random acts of violence, and most of them significantly increase the cost of obtaining a firearm to the average law-abiding citizen who seeks protection.
By far the most immediate and most effective deterrent against both mass shootings and random acts of violence, whether the result of insanity or terrorism, is a well-armed general populace comprised of law-abiding U.S. citizens who are both properly armed and well-trained.
The greatest threat to our security comes not from the lunatics and terrorists, but rather, from those second-guessers, the Monday-morning armchair quarterbacks who are NOT well-trained (if at all) yet who for whatever blitheringly idiotic reason feel like they’re *somehow* qualified to force their opinions down the throats of an otherwise free and well-trained general populace, usually in the form of ideas that sound good but either do nothing or actually do more harm than the harm they’re supposed to address.
mass shootingsThroughout history, a well-armed/trained populace has always been the most effective deterrent and counter to mass shootings and random acts of violence.

The History of Mass Shootings IS NORMAL, Obama

Obama was WRONG when he said, “This is not normal.  We can’t let it become normal.”  Mass shootings ARE normal.  They have ALWAYS been normal.  The “List of school shootings in the United States” Wikipedia page lists entries for the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.  That’s more than 251 years of NORMAL, Obama.  “The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where three men entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed ten children (reports vary). Only one child survived.” (Source:  David, Dixon (2005). Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac’s Uprising and the Fate of the British Empire in North America. University of Oklahoma Press)

Here’s what’s normal about them:  They are a reflection of the fact that the human race is sinful, and sometimes people go off the deep end.  Prior to the advent of the firearm, we had mass slayings, using bow, sword, knife, spear, and club, dating back to the earliest days of civilization, more than 10,000 years ago, and probably a few millennia before them.  There are words for mass-murderer in many languages, including ancient ones, so YES, Obama, IT IS NORMAL.

The question is, “What should we do about it?”

First, the idea of disarming honest, law-abiding citizens remains the most stupid, blitheringly idiotic, knee-jerk reaction anyone could take.  When bad guys are about, you NEVER disarm the good guys.  That’s unbelievably, pathetically ignorant.  The same goes for limiting magazines and other aspects of firearms, as all you’re doing is limiting the ability of the good guys to fight back.

Second, eliminate gun-free zones.  They’re magnets for the lunatics.  Despite the fact that so-called “gun-free zones” occupy less than 10% of the locations where we are likely to be at any given time, more than 4 out of 5 mass shootings occur in such zones.  If you’re in a gun-free zone, you’re a target.

Third, ensure that you are not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  Our Founding Fathers weren’t stupes.  They certainly weren’t like some of the blithering idiots we have in Congress today.  They knew what makes people tick, and established an extraordinarily successful framework — including the right to keep and bear arms — designed to give the good guys the best possible chance of success against evil, corruption, bad guys, and yes, mass shooters.  Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t slow down the bad guys one bit, and for one simple reason:  They’re criminals.  They don’t care about following the law.

Fourth, allow people in key positions to be armed.

Security Degree Hub came up with an outstanding graphic highlighting some key facts about mass shootings in America.

  1. Out of 67 shooters in the last 30 years, 65 had mental health issues.
  2. As far as locations are concerned, 4.5% occur in religious settings, 17.9% in schools (gun-free zones), 28.9% in the workplace (gun-free zones), and 47.8% in other public places (about two-thirds of which occur in gun-free zones, such as malls).
  3. As far as the types of weapons uses, nearly two-thirds of all mass shootings were accomplished using pistols, while only a quarter used rifles.

What does all this mean?

Quite simply, it means that the tried and true solution to the problem is the best solution to the problem.  If you see a mass shooter in action, pull your own firearm and stop them.

When We the People are armed, that’s an easy thing to do.

When We the People are disarmed, stopping mass shooters becomes impossible.

Scientists Botch Gun Control Debate

In answer to the question, “Where does science fall on the gun control debate?” the answer is “In the trash.”

Their approach, commonly known as Delphi or wideband Delphi, only works when you’re employing subject matter experts (SME) on the issue. The title of “scientist” does NOT automatically render SME status on an issue. Furthermore, most scientists are not only less likely to be familiar with the statistics surrounding America’s use of firearms, but they’re also more likely to be members of academia, a group well-known for its heavy bias against traditional issues involving Constitutional freedoms.

I am a scientist. I do not, however, share the typical anti-gun bias of most scientists. I’ve examined this issue for six straight years, including a 30-year database of all mass shootings in the U.S., as well as all available crime and accident statistics involving firearms over the last three decades.  The results are sprinkled throughout this blog.

“My” findings do not belong to me. They belong to the realm objective reality as clearly evidenced by the facts. Those facts stand in stark, raving opposition to the scientists’ opinions in the article.

Again, if you’re going to use Delphi, you’re must start with subject matter experts. The scientists who were polled were clearly not SMEs. If they were, they never would have agreed to this approach in the first place, as they would already have known about the massive volume of facts which tell a completely different story.

Sorry, guys, but you just racked up a big, fat “F” on that one.

Washington State’s I-594 is A Universal Handgun Registration Scheme

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Any law which violates the Constitution is NOT law. It’s a blight against our governmental system, a violation of our Constitutional I-594rights and freedoms. No U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer at any level is under any obligation to either follow or enforce an un-Constitutional law. In fact, is it our duty to ignore it, if not stand firm against it and toss the Constitution-violating legislators out of office.

State and Federal legislators take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution in order to PREVENT this from ever I-594happening. They are NOT authorized to “do it anyway” and let the courts legislate from the bench. That’s a heinous dereliction of their duty, and no matter what other good they may have done or might be doing, it’s completely undermined by their bad.

Allowing them to remain in office is like allowing a horribly abusive spouse to remain in the home because “he/she only beats me to a pulp every once in a while.” GET RID OF THEM!

Washing State’s I-594 bill regulate transfers, not just sales, of all firearms in the Evergreen State. It’s a universal handgun registration scheme, an INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms. Those legislators who voted for it are VIOLATORS of our Constitution. Get rid of them!

Law enforcement officers not only swore to protect the Constitution, but put their lives on the line every day.  They oppose I-594.  They’re smart enough to know how dramatically this violates the rights of the people.  They’re also experienced enough to know that it will do NOTHING to keep the criminals in check.

So who did this to the people of the State of Washington?  The people themselves.  They’re the ones who elected the Constitution-violating traitors into office.  They’re the ones who refuse to vote them out.  They’re the ones who, 7 out of 10 support universal background checks.

They’re the blithering idiots who allowed this to happen.