Why is the category of ‘capable of getting into a Ph.D. bio-science program’ relevant? I can kindof see where you are going with this; it’s easy to say that someone who can design something that could hurt a lot of people has better access and is therefore more likely to do so.
But while this is evidence that someone of the category you’ve named can want to engage in mass murder, it isn’t evidence that he had better access or was more likely to do so given that he may have had better access. In actual fact, since the harm here largely involved a firearm and we don’t know if the canister was even related to his bio-science program you should be updating downward on someone in that category relying on a biochemical agent rather than just using a gun. You have evidence that, even with a (perhaps strong) bio-science background people who engage in mass murder for what appear to be their own preferences just use a damn gun like everyone else with the same preference.
People who kill with guns aren’t trying to kill lots of people. Mass murderers prefer armies, or if armies aren’t available, bombs. A backpack-sized IED have killed more people than a gun.
Generally I agree, for certain values of “a lot of people” and with the restrictions of a given person at a given time. Fortunately, not all mass murderers are optimal mass murderers.
Very fortunately, there have been very, very few optimized murderers. The most effective ones use armies and countries or religions, while the ones who use bombs are many orders of magnitude lower in effectiveness.
Part of the lesson is that guns in the hands of citizens helps prevent mass murderers, even though it facilitates group murders.
Why is the category of ‘capable of getting into a Ph.D. bio-science program’ relevant? I can kindof see where you are going with this; it’s easy to say that someone who can design something that could hurt a lot of people has better access and is therefore more likely to do so.
But while this is evidence that someone of the category you’ve named can want to engage in mass murder, it isn’t evidence that he had better access or was more likely to do so given that he may have had better access. In actual fact, since the harm here largely involved a firearm and we don’t know if the canister was even related to his bio-science program you should be updating downward on someone in that category relying on a biochemical agent rather than just using a gun. You have evidence that, even with a (perhaps strong) bio-science background people who engage in mass murder for what appear to be their own preferences just use a damn gun like everyone else with the same preference.
People who kill with guns aren’t trying to kill lots of people. Mass murderers prefer armies, or if armies aren’t available, bombs. A backpack-sized IED have killed more people than a gun.
Generally I agree, for certain values of “a lot of people” and with the restrictions of a given person at a given time. Fortunately, not all mass murderers are optimal mass murderers.
Very fortunately, there have been very, very few optimized murderers. The most effective ones use armies and countries or religions, while the ones who use bombs are many orders of magnitude lower in effectiveness.
Part of the lesson is that guns in the hands of citizens helps prevent mass murderers, even though it facilitates group murders.