Comment by nickysielicki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickysielicki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unless you're a complete bore, if you look at someone hard enough you can make the case that they're a mental invalid. It's a useless thing to talk about, because prior to her shooting anyone yesterday, the only thing that could have warned us were just warning signs. Just as easily as she walked up to that office and shot people, she could have changed her mind and gone about a normal day and done nothing wrong. Does our society now support the idea of precrime?

I sure as hell don't. It bothers me when every time something like this happens, the question is always, "How could we have caught this?" or "how can we make sure she didn't get a gun?" or "how could we have institutionalized her?"

It's much more useful to talk about how to come to terms with the absolute chaos in our world and structure your life around the principle that the world is a fragile and dangerous place. Anyone can drive their car across the centerline. Any two-bit dipshit can learn how to make aluminum powder bombs and terrorize an entire city. Some crazy incel can walk up to your office and fuck your whole life up as you're leaving for lunch.

This will always be the case. I don't understand why people think it's reasonable to suggest that we can ever live in a world where your mortality isn't seriously exposed, or that it would be a world that would be nice to live in. Unless you're completely out of your fucking mind, most people are incapable of truly coming to terms with it and going about their day, willing to die at any time. Everyone else is afraid, and probably always will be.

I think some people cope with the fear by deluding themselves into thinking security is just around the corner, if only we can just fix a few things like gun access and mental invalids. We just need to do a few things just a little bit better, and then it's all going to be great. These people live in a fantasy world.

Others cope with the fear by isolating themselves and their families, avoiding cities and anyone unlike themselves, maintaining a small circle of trust, neanderthal style. This is antithetical to classical liberal values and thus is unappealing for most young and open-minded people.

If you think you reject both of these approaches, I think you're probably just in denial.

While I mostly share your point of view - not every horrible event is necessarily preventable short of some extremely draconian measures - I don't think it's just a matter of throwing our hands up and acquiescing that "Anyone can drive their car across the centerline" for example (and indeed there are sometimes barriers or physical space between opposing traffic lanes).

So the question isn't, "how could we have prevented this particular tragedy from occurring, at any cost?", but more "can we reduce the likelihood of an event like this in the future, in a way we're comfortable with?"

For example, locking cockpit doors on airplanes is a pretty low-consequence action we now take as a result of 9/11. Not entirely without tradeoffs, sure, but a fairly effective action nonetheless.

Air travel in general is actually a pretty great example of making something relatively chaotic considerably safer over time.

There is something to what you say but in this case, as with the Parkland shooting, law enforcement received specific warnings from family members that were not followed through on sufficient to prevent the incidents. The police likely already have all the legal powers they would have needed in these two cases to prevent the shootings if they had acted and a specific warning from a family member is a long way from treating some odd Internet postings as thought crime. Indeed there have been cases where police over reacted to much lesser warning signs. The biggest question to me is how can law enforcement do a better job of acting appropriately on warnings and tips they receive?

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter-...

If none of having guns, being inclined to commit crime, or having guns while being inclined to commit crime are illegal, there is little police can do to intervene before those things combine to manifest in an actual attempt at violence.

If police are incapable of intervening to prevent a crime then citizens certainly need guns to protect themselves.

It’s true absolute security is impossible, but mass shooting is much more prevalent in the UD than anywhere else not at war, so there is likely a chance to provide much more security by figuring out what goes wrong in the US that is less so in other places.

I am partial to approach 2, although i live in the city and agree that it is rather backwards and impractical. I have a third approach that I use, I go on adventures. Whether its backpacking in the wilderness for a week, summiting a mountain or swimming down a river and riding rapids with friends, the point is to expose yoursef to the dangers of the world, to have to rely on yourself to not make mistakes and to be hardy enough to overcome. Coming into camp after dark, freezing, tired and wet, setting up camp and sleeping through the night only to wake up at dawn, put on cold wet shoes and pack it all up and get to walking puts in perspective, for me at least, how powerful of a driver the will to live is. Experiencing the raw primal power that a life-or-death situation has on you, when your life is in your own hands(vs driving a car which is a team effort and much more controlled) really puts in perspective how dangerous society isn't.

My thinking wasn't to "stop" this fully - but seeings signs of mental health and offering support can vastly lower the occurrences. Something we as a society are terrible at. There's always a chance of course no matter how good we get at lowering the harm but if we can lower the harm that's always somethign to strive for.

I'm just making a point. Of course there is a middle ground that we should strive for. I would just caution that hindsight is 20/20. There's plenty of stuff on /r/deepintoyoutube that is made by perfectly sane individuals that, if you were told it was made by this shooter, we'd call it a clear warning sign.

Mental illness doesn't predict violent behaviour.

Drug or alcohol addiction do; previous exposure to violence or previous violent behaviour does; but mental illness by itself is a poor predictor for violence.

Increasing the amount of mental health support available is a good thing to do, but it probably wont do much to stop gun crime.

That is a great thought process that I agree with but haven't been able to put it in words. I ascribe it to 'hindsight being crystal clear'. Of course it is. There always seems to be dots that can be connected once 'something' happens - regardless of what that 'something' is. But until that 'something' happens, the dots are without meaning and who cares about connecting them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com