As to having the presence of mind to select a soft target, yes, I think that happens to be the case most of the time
[quote]I suspect you have not been around too many folks who are unstable ...
Depends. What is the DSM classification for "unstable"?
these folks no longer think rationally due to a breakdown in their mental acuity (not because they are ignorant and can't think logically) and yet you impute a state of mind which is contrary to their mental condition
It's a bit more involved and a little more complex than that, isn't it?
a legally insane individual must have been diagnosed with a mental defect (typically by a court-appointed mental health professional) and either did not know right from wrong or lacked the ability to control an impulse that led to the incident
MPCok so you don't know the difference between and unstable person and a criminally insane person ... a common misconception
Well, yeah when "unstable" is an undefined and very broad term.
It was discussed it a bit on another thread how psychotropic drugs can be extremely useful for some people in varying dosages with or without certain additional drug combinations and cause other people to become unstable. You certainly don't seem to me to be in any way a violent person. However, the wrong combinations/dosages of prescribed drugs might quite possibly make you dangerously violent. Would you then be unstable or criminally insane? When and if you discontinued taking those prescribed would you then become stable and sane? If so, would that occur immediately? If not, immediately how long would it the transition take?
Police stations ... Gun ranges are usually full of people
well had you paid any attention to my "proposal" it was designed specifically to find an answer to your claim that mass killers only target "soft" environments ... no study has been done to my knowledge and the evidence is scant so deriving a conclusion without a factual basis is merely speculation. Thus I speculated a rebuttal and made a prediction which I suspect is more plausible.
Honestly, I don't know if research has been conducted. In that more than a few of the mass killers committed suicide, it would seem to make the possibility of valid research somewhat difficult, though probably not impossible.
I suggested in another thread that there is a possible correlation between psychotropic drugs and mass murders. There is some documentation. There is seemingly more readily available data there for research than there is data concerning target selection. Interestingly, no one here wanted to pursue that discussion.
As to soft/hard targets certainly there are possible factors worthy of research. Why don't mass killers target police stations and gun ranges or gun shows? We there is little history of it. Why do they target schools, malls, shopping centers, places of worship? History tells us those places are frequently targeted.
Are you suggesting that we ignore the possibility that hard targets are rarely selected because the possibility of armed response is much higher?
Are you advocating that soft targets should not be hardened?
Why do you suppose it is that the vast majority of people who own guns never commit a gun related crime? Would it be important to know? If so, then wouldn't it also be important to determine why some people commit gun crimes?
