*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[wufwugy]

I don't think most mass shooters care about how many other people may have guns. I think most believe they will be killed before their spree is over. As such, I don't think the choice of location has anything to do with the level of gun control in that location.

Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?

[JKDS]

Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?

You assume killers target based on maximizing casualties, rather than targeting specific persons or groups. You also assume he believes success or failure hinges on the number of guns others are carrying.

The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back. At most, he's assessing whether his target will actually be there. It's the rare case where a killing is truly random, in that the killer had no connection to the scene.

If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)

There's more going on than numbers. It's emotional and personal.

[wufwugy]

You assume killers target based on maximizing casualties, rather than targeting specific persons or groups. You also assume he believes success or failure hinges on the number of guns others are carrying.

When large casualties is the goal of the killer, yes I am assuming that.

The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back.

He does assess that. In his case, concealed carry may be less of a deterrent than in other cases. However it would be a deterrent in other cases (Columbine type cases). In his case, there are other deterrents (like sufficiently credible metal detectors).

Note that here I'm not appealing for a policy, but claiming the existence of incentive changes dependent on relevant changes in variables.

If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)

I think it is pretty clear that there is never one impactful factor regarding shootings. Killers select targets and time and places for a variety of reasons.