What is the REAL CAUSE of mass shootings?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry - being a psychologist, this is not productive. It makes you feel good and has no causal inference that does us any good.

The dictionary is not empirical research. It explains nothing as to their motivations.

It is as useful as antis calling us homocidial gun nuts.

 

[cobra81]

I'm still waiting for Vanya to divulge the one common trait among most mass shooters.....

I personally believe every situation is different, and most likely there is a myriad of "reasons" for these tragic events occurring, with no "universal" common denominator. Is one factor frequently present? Probably so. Does that necessarily mean it is always the true culprit? Not likely. I would postulate that in most situations, several or even numerous factors combine to produce the end result. The permutations are endless, which makes these tragedies so difficult to predict and prevent.

However, focusing on what we do know, it is plain that humans killing each other is not a new phenomena. Since time immemorial, this has occurred. So I think it can be safely assumed that there exists within all of us the "capacity" to do such things. That is not a thought that makes us comfortable, but it is there.

Obviously, the vast majority of humans never access that capacity, so what is it that separates the majority of us who live peacably from those who commit atrocities?

There must be some code, some modicum of restraint that helps us not cross that line. Could it include things such as:
Fear of punishent? Respect for human life? Love of your fellow man? Respect for and adherence to the law? Spiritual desire to adhere to basic tenets of faith?

Conversely, there must be some trigger, some condition, some convergence of factors, that breaks through the restraints and allows individuals to access that capacity. This is why we endlessly search for WHY? when something like Columbine or Sandy Hook occurs.

The simplistic and rational side of us would say, "Let's just find the cause, and eradicate it." Or, if we can't do that, let's put in place safety processes that will prevent a line-crosser" from ultimately carrying out his/her carnage.

Unfortunately, neither is totally possible. While we may make strides in both areas, the sad reality is that the heart of man is inherently evil, and we do not live in a perfect world. Try as our society might to make us all as safe and risk-free as possible, it is a fool's errand to take any assurance that the various laws and societal norms will keep us safe.

It boils down to the individual. We must all take responsibility for ourselves first, and then for those around us whom we perceive could possibly be susceptible or prone to the identified risk factors.
And, we must avoid the trap of saying, "It couldn't happen here", or "I just don't know what I can do."
Finally, we must not retreat from the obligation we have to protect ourselves and our loved ones. As an Illinois resident, I am keenly aware of the lack of our state's support in allowing individuals to protect themselves, by denying us the right to conceal carry. However, that appears to be changing, and ultimately, we will have a very important tool in helping us in the area of personal safety.

 

[Dashunde]

I'm sorry - being a psychologist, this is not productive. It makes you feel good and has no causal inference that does us any good.

None of this is productive - we're a firearms forum, not a worldwide committee on mental heath with the ability to effect treatment change.

We're simply here to voice our opinions and discuss the subject with no expectation of "doing us any good".

I call an apple a apple...even a rotten one.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Cobra81, that is a great post.

It demonstrates exactly the kind of "good" that can come from a discussion like this: for us to help each other to think seriously about these events, and to understand that simplistic, single-cause wishful thinking leads only to unproductive, single-issue "proposals" to prevent them. It's no better when we engage in that kind of thinking than when the other side does so.

I'm still waiting for Vanya to divulge the one common trait among most mass shooters.....

And I'm still waiting to see if anyone else comes up with it.

Conversely, there must be some trigger, some condition, some convergence of factors, that breaks through the restraints and allows individuals to access that capacity. This is why we endlessly search for WHY? when something like Columbine or Sandy Hook occurs.

Yes, there must be such a convergence. However, I think the reason we search for WHY? has much more to do with our own emotional needs. First, we'd like to distance ourselves from the reality that we all, on some level, have the capacity to do evil. Second, we need to, as it were, put the universe back in order. Such events damage our belief that we live in an orderly, comprehensible world; and searching for THE explanation for them is an attempt to restore that sense of order.

But the world really is a very messy place.

 

[BarryLee]

And I'm still waiting to see if anyone else comes up with it.

They were white males ????

 

[Evan Thomas]

BINGO!!

There is a good discussion of some aspects of this here: that whiteness is the norm; that much of the reaction to the Newtown and Aurora shootings has been framed in terms of "It's not supposed to happen here;" that the killers are at first bewildering, because they're "nice young men," but end up being demonized as individuals:

...the constant quest to figure out what caused [Lanza] to snap, to speculate about the effects of his parents' divorce or medications, all refashions Lanza as a good kid, a victim of sorts. He just snapped so there must have been a reason. Yes, he was strange, but do good (white, suburban, upper-middle class) kids shoot up an elementary school? Thus, reports the New York Post: "Bloodthirsty child killer Adam Lanza might have snapped, and carried out his unspeakable atrocities after learning that his mom wanted him thrown in the loony bin, according to published reports today."​

Another good piece from the Examiner includes the following:

Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It's called "aggrieved entitlement." According to the authors, it is "a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine." This feeling was clearly articulated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. Harris said, "People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts..." A group of girls asked him, "Why are you doing this?" He replied, "We've always wanted to do this. This is payback... This is for all the [expletive] you put us through. This is what you deserve."
​

I think "routinely going crazy and killing people" is putting it a bit strongly, but it's often hard to see the obvious when it's really close to home...

Here's another good article that discusses the difference in the reactions to such murders when they're committed by men of color (Mr. Cho and Maj. Hasan) rather than white men:

...when white men commit mass murder we don’t hear how their skin color, their maleness, or their social class were contributing factors to their acts. As Peggy McIntosh famously wrote in her White Privilege Checklist, we see whites as individuals whose moral state reflects their individual will. In other words, white men kill simply because they are “sick” or “evil.” When men of color murder, it is because they are both those things and because of factors uniquely attributable to their race.​

And maleness is almost universal to this profile. On the very rare occasions when women commit mass murder, they tend to stay home and kill their children.

See my point above about the need to distance oneself from these killers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm sorry - being a psychologist, this is not productive. It makes you feel good and has no causal inference that does us any good.

None of this is productive - we're a firearms forum, not a worldwide committee on mental heath with the ability to effect treatment change.

We're simply here to voice our opinions and discuss the subject with no expectation of "doing us any good"....

Certainly ill informed opinions or misinformation or inaccurate information does no one any good.

But when those with informed opinions or those whose training, education and experience cause them to have good and accurate information on a topic share those opinions and that information, the rest of us can learn something. That is productive.

 

[Buzzcook]

Internet polls are worth the paper they're written on.


BTW in every shooting I remember, people have said we need to improve mental health service or access to mental health care or childhood screening for mental health care problems.

And it never happens.

Imagine a world in which the last few mass shootings had not happened. Imagine in that world President Obama trying to pass a bill that expanded mental health care in a meaningful way.

Now imagine how that would be greeted.

 

[Dwight55]

Imagine a world in which the last few mass shootings had not happened. Imagine in that world President Obama trying to pass a bill that expanded mental health care in a meaningful way.

I like your idea, Buzzcook, but anyone truly thinking will come to the conclusion simply that "Ain't gonna happen".

The reason it won't happen is also much deeper than Democrat VS Republican, or Liberal VS Conservative.

Money, . . . time, . . . effort, . . . research, . . . data, . . . all have been gathered, analyzed, expended, folded, spindled, and archived to the zenth degree: to no avail.

Why? It really is simple, . . . and I know Glenn will disagree, . . . and he is certainly welcome to his opinion. As a professional pastor, I also have an opinion.

All of the "human behavior" vocations have evolved from one common ancestor: "Not Guilty". They take the premise that no one is "bad", and assign their antisocial traits, . . . attitudes, . . . actions, . . . to some event or series of events or pressures in their youth, their yesterday, or their perceived persecutions of today or tomorrow, . . . and give them a pass.

The crux of the problem is "Guilty", . . . period, . . . end of discussion. We expect lawful, moral, ethical, upstanding attitudes and actions from our general population. But we have taken away the factors that beget those actions.

Schools cannot and will not discipline students for all practicality, no matter what they do.

Parents are not expected to properly train, advise, direct, and when necessary, . . . correct their children's behavior any longer.

Morals, ethics, and honesty are simply not taught outside of the church any longer.

Society needs to go back to a standard of acceptable behavior that rewards those who are honest, moral, ethical, and above board.

The behavioral "sciences" have given a pass on murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, unethical behavior, immorality, and we as a society are reaping the rewards of those free passes.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[TAKtical]

Gun free zones are the real cause in my opinion. Also a society of unarmed people. When a criminal robs a pizza shop at gunpoint and is shot to death by the staff, how many other criminals are going to try to rob that pizza shop? Realistically though, there will always be a small percent of crazies that take their frustrations out on the defenseless. If they cant get a gun they will use a knife. Take away the knife they will use a bomb, ban anything that can be used to make a bomb and they will use moltovs, ban every flammable liquid and sharp object and they will use a hammer. The only way to stop mass murders is to have everyone prepared and capable of defending themselves, and to provide adequate security for those who cannot defend themselves like our children in schools. I dont understand why you have to go through a security checkpoint to apply for unemployment but you can just walk into any school in america with no one there to even ask who you are.

 

[SIGSHR]

I checked off the answer about poor mental health programs though in reality I don't think anybody can tell when someone is going to snap and go off the deep end, and it's usually the case that those who do such things confide in no one and give no warning signs. One constant in these case is that they always go after soft targets. I like to quote the New City businessman whio answered a New York Times reporter who asked why he carried in violation of NYC's laws-"When was the last time you heard of a police station being held up?"

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

Maybe simplistic, but I think only 2 kinds of people commit violent crimes.
1. Mentally Damaged
2. Morally Damaged

The Mentally Damaged, to me, would be people like Lanza, Loughner Son of Sam. They are clearly not in their right minds. Not as an excuse for their behavior, or that they are criminally insane, just "crazy" (whatever that means).

A drunk falls into #1, not in control of his/her senses and not able to make sound judgements. So is a guy who flips out and shoots a co-worker for "no apparent reason". He's not in control of his actions. (Not an excuse, just a fact that he's NOT in control). Duggies too!

The Morally Damaged, to me, would be people like that guy who knifed another man (who was a deaf-mute and communicating with someone in sign language) because he thought the fellow was "dissing" him by "flashing gang signs at him". Apparently he was raised without a proper moral code. Now having one in which it is apparently acceptable behavior to attempt to murder someone whom you think is "dissing" you!

I'd lump most gang-bangers in this category. Human life doesn't even register on their radar. When they feel the need to bust a cap on someone, whether or not there are innocent bystanders within range is NOT part of the equation. Here too I put the robber or rapist who shoots a victim because he doesn't want a witness who could put him in prison. The criminal who kills another just because the victim is "different" (race, creed, color, ethnicity, etc). To me, all Morally Damaged.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About gun free zones - I think that is one factor. But if you study research design, you realize that there are interactions and you can't make grand conclusions.

The interaction is with the motivation of the shooter. We've had rampages in zones that allow concealed carry. We've had rampages in places known to have armed police immediately present.

Many of these folks expect to die and the target is important to them so they accept their own death as part of it.

Others who don't have the suicidal impulse may plan to avoid immediate armed response. That's the one case we know of with the guy who chose one Jewish location over another. But there have been folks who attacked a Jewish location with armed guards.

Those who attack the unarmed probably do this as they have a specific animus towards that location. They know that they will face armed response in a few minutes and die. But killing the innocents is the point.

The gun free zone issue is better served by stating that a gun free zone may or may not deter. That depends on motivation. But a gun free zone disallowed an efficacious and quick response to limit harm.

If folks just wanted to kill, they would adopt the DC Sniper like techniques and be able to kill for quite awhile.

Also, the bullying factor isn't one in many cases. It is so multicausal that we can't just say it's this or that.

 

[mehavey]

"The gun free zone issue is better served by stating that a gun free zone may or may not deter."

An advertised "gun-free zone" deters nothing. It merely advertises the deliberate helplessness of the people within it. I cannot conceive of any up side to proudly proclaiming "these sheep have no sheepdog."

Paraphrasing Mark Twain...'tis better to be silent and thought to be powerless... than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[dakota.potts]

If I remember, we recently learned that the Newton shooter had printed out names of past mass murderers and their kill counts as a form of "score". He wanted to beat their score. He choose an elementary school because it was unarmed and the targets were easy. He would not have attacked a heavily fortified location because (and I don't know how this was thought to be backed up) if somebody else killed you, they got your points. This is supposedly why he took his own life

 

[ScottRiqui]

Lanza did have a spreadsheet of past murderers, but the whole "killing spree as a video game", and committing suicide so the "other guys don't get your points" is all speculation from an anonymous Connecticut law enforcement official at this point.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If he had such ideation, it is not causal - but a symptom of the underlying pathology. No undisturbed mind would care about such.

A symptom is not a cause. We know that previous killers study the classic cases like Columbine or Virginia Tech.

A normal person can read cases of such and not be motivated to do such. Studying abnormal psychology or criminal psychology does not drive you to do such.

It is thought that the underlying pathology might be channeled by modeling but the modeling is not the cause.

The rampage shooters seem to show severe disturbances in the US cases. Other massacres can have different causalities as we seen in religious or ethnic terrorism.

Even the workplace avengers, in retrospect, show patterns of violence - such as Amy Bishop.

 

[Buzzcook]

Dwight55: The point of my post was that "It ain't gonna happen".

You and I disagree on the efficacy of mental health care. While I don't think it is a panacea, I do believe that it can be effective in treating people who might become dangerous to themselves and to others.

But for many reasons most people do not and probably never will have access to mental health care.

I find it disingenuous, when people who are ant-gun control decry the lack of mental health care, when on any other day of the week they oppose increases to government involvement in any form of health care.

Dwight55, I do not include you in that number or anyone on this forum.


Are there problems with lax parental and school discipline? Do we suffer from a lack of teaching morality and ethics? Perhaps we do.

That ignores the fact that many "mental" illnesses are genetic. The most determined parent and the most structured school are not effective at treating schizophrenia without modern pharmaceuticals.

As to the rest of what you mention, I see socio-economic causes and cures. I don't see behavioral sciences as having much effect at all.

 

[357 Python]

I would say that the reason is a combination of poor availability of competent mental health care and the press giving these people and there families their 15 minutes of fame (which seems to be 15 weeks instead of minutes).

 

[StagrLee]

I mentioned that I believe they have a commonality of cowardice not to categorize them but to provide my opinion on how to stop them. Some people have a big problem with placing armed security on school grounds; however, would this reduce the risk to children? I believe so, because the cowards will find a softer target. They are not looking for confrontation they are looking for helpless victims.