What is the REAL CAUSE of mass shootings?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a subtle point as to why the term cowards is useless. Remember that the Columbine school had an armed officer present who engaged them.

Some of these plan to die. They choose the victims as they have meaning to them, not because they are helpless as a category. There is a point to their being chosen.

Armed guards may deter or armed folks may deter if the person feels that they will not have free reign to kill the chosen victims. That is different from the victims being helpless. I don't think helplessness is a criterion for victim choice but a tactical consideration.

They want to accomplish a certain amount of killing before their own death. If they feared death, they wouldn't be on a suicide run.

Thus, the conventional use of cowardice is not useful.

 

[HiBC]

It was pointed out they were all white males.I could point out they all probably drank water.They were raised by white women.Yes,I'm being sarcastic.

In this forum,recently,I read a post by someone putting down John Wayne.

OK,John Wayne ,fallible,mortal human being could not be all that "The Duke "was. But,if you reference some of the work by Robert Bly,Joseph Campbell,Michael Meade,James Hillman,etc,you might understand that symbols,heros,mythology do play a roll in shaping a society.
A young person who lives and breaths John Wayne has a sense of what a man does and does not do.


There was a Mel Gibson of "The Patriot" and "We Were Soldiers"

Gibson's real life does not seem to be admirable.Mel Gibson is not on my hero list.
Does that change what happened at Ia Drang?Or our founders?Does it serve anything to tear down Washington?Jefferson?
Who is the politically correct butt for any joke on TV?White male.What young man wants to be Seinfelt or Drew Carey?Why do affluent suburban white kids try to be black gangstas?

If you make a kid ashamed to be a white male...people who are ashamed of who they are do not know how to be ashamed of what they do.

 

[StagrLee]

They all seem to have a variance of attitude and purpose but most of them planned to trap defenseless people and shoot them without much interference. This in itself is cowardly in my opinion and part of the character profile these lunatics possess and is a partial answer to the topic question. Not that I have studied all of these shootings but Charles Whitman seemed to be the only one to readily engage with law enforcement. At Columbine it was just circumstance that the armed security guard was at the opposite side of the building, had he been where they entered the school things may have been different. Of course hindsight is always 20-20 with these tragedies.

 

[breakingcontact]

Real cause?

Evil in the world, and our leaders not acknowledging that reality.

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I have my opinions on the subject but people don't like to hear them so...

I will say that I don't think its anything listed in the choice selection, that's for sure.

People will always rationalize their own sadistic/masochistic desires. Often times from personal or social pain, others from financial. Could be mental disease, or it could be someone wanting to make an example for misguided political/moral reasons.

While treating the causes of such issues is always the best way to do so, I fear that in order to fully eliminate such travesties we would have to eliminate liberty to an extent that society wouldnt be happy with. Why so many people die nowadays in these incidents, is because we have compromised on liberty. We can better defend ourselves as individuals if we have the full liberty to carry use firearms. We can also fear less of these crimes if our basic rights are curtailed to such a degree we have lost our individuality.

However, we keep part of our inalienable rights, while we restrict a little bit of individual responsibility, and instead we get the worst of both.

 

[Tinner666]

Firearms have been around for a looong time. Children being sedated for most of their youth to control them, and lack of discipline has only been around for 40-50 years. Oh yeah, and th
e media hype/coverage of killers. That's the change in the equation I see.

 

[Come and take it.]

We have a >>>worsening<<< culture of violence being promoted by Hollywood and video game developers.

We have a major problem with the DHS getting targets portraying various civilians holding guns, while at the same time we are glorified in the killing of zombies which surprisingly look like a contorted version of guess what? unarmed civilians.

There is a huge wave of lack of sympathy for death and injury to others by constant exposure to movies and games.

I heard a woman the other day discuss that here 3 year old daughters favorite show on TV was the walking dead.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Violence has been around forever. WWI, WWII, etc. were conducted without video games as a cause.

It is not settled that video games are a cause - it is thought that such portrayals of violence channel the actual nature of the attack by some. However, since some of them study real world violence, playing the games are just a side effect of their pathology. Also, since millions play them without violence, they cannot be a powerful cause.

The defenseless victims are chosen for some reason that is usually other than them being defenseless. The Amish school shooter wanted to rape little girls and then die. Amy Bishop was angry with her department. There have been attacks on police and courthouses that have a large number of armed people. The Tacoma mall shooter was in a place that allowed carry and the carrier screwed up. Whitman was driven by a tumor in his amygdala - a site of aggressive impulses.

I suggest the victim selection is more complex than simple use of the term 'cowardice'.

 

[StagrLee]

I'm not confidant a "real cause" can be defined, several causes have been discussed and all seem to be legitimate. Personally, I don't care what the cause is. I believe the focus should be on prevention and the best way to stop these maniacs is to shoot them.

Mature folks here (myself included) remember when you could walk on an airplane without any kind of security check and if you happened to have a firearm you could terrorize or kill people. Law enforcement finally broke the code on this and today it would be almost impossible to get a firearm pass security.

Also not so long ago, inner-city schools were plagued by gang violence, usually with firearms. The solution was metal detectors and armed security. Although this is not a total solution it has been effective.

People seemed to have an aversion to having armed security on school grounds or public areas the shooters target. I suspect Business owners and school officials don't want to pay for the level of security needed to protect students and customers.

Possibly part of the "cause" is our inability to define these targeted areas as worth paying to protect which allows the next maniac to terrorize and murder without much interference.

Passing guns laws only good citizens will obey will not stop any of these tragedies. As the current batch of politicians are fond of saying: "If the laws enacted save one child's life, it's worth it". Should this be re-phrased as "How much are you willing to pay to protect one child's life?

 

[StagrLee]

Mr. Meyer, I don't disagree with you; however, if we assign a list of nouns to describe these people, I believe "coward" is on the list (how do you describe a person that would shoot a child with an AR-15?). All these shootings are different and I believe the cause of their actions are different and probably will never be predictable but their targets do seem predictable. Is it reasonable to predict the next mass shooting will occur in a "Gun Free zone?"

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How would describe someone who drops an atomic bomb on a significant number of children? Were the B-29 crews cowards? There was little opposition to the raids at that time.

My point is that it isn't a useful term if used in an explanatory fashion.

Calling them despicable is fine - I'm just picky on the causal usage. Comes with the profession.

 

[tomrkba]

There is no one cause; humans are far too complex for a simple explanation. But, we do know that evil people have always existed. Our founders knew this and wanted us to be armed in our daily lives. They knew that carrying weapons was no guarantee of success, but it was better than relying upon the mercy of those who have none.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well said. I cannot understand those who won't defend themselves. Folks making 400,000 bucks a year will hide but expect someone who makes 40,000 a year to run into gunfire to save them.

Of course, I understand those who are physically unable to defend themselves but it is hypocritical to stop a law abiding citizen from being able to defend themselves when you expect someone else to risk their life for you.

 

[Big-Blue]

Five thoughts generated in my mind from this thread

This has been an interesting thread. A lot of good input which has caused me to rethink a couple of points. I'd have to disagree with some of the comments that the problem is too complex and the options too limited for an internet forum. This forum is the perfect tool to capture a general consensus of opinions—granted it is the opinions of mere lay citizenry, instead of the lofty knowledge of “professionals” who know more than the rest of us, but it is none-the-less a valuable collection of thoughts.

Here are five of my personal thoughts after having read the thread up to this point. I discuss labels, evil, suicide, punishment, and my own culprits for having caused most of the problems within this country.

1. Labeling mass murders, suicide bombers, or gang bangers as cowards is useful if it deters future killers concerned with their legacy. We shouldn't shy away from labeling them what they are.

2. “Evil” is not in the world, and people are not inherently evil. “Evil” is a convenient label which displaces responsibility for an individual's actions, or for a group of individual's actions (Nazi Party). Evil is no more a force of nature than is “Good.” What we label as “Evil” are actions which reduce the likelyhood that mankind will florish (murder, canabalism, theft, adultry, etc). “Good” actions are activities which increase the chances of humankind to survive (helping your neighbor, pairing with someone of the opposite sex, improving one's self, protecting one's family, etc).

3. Some people suffer through life. Depressed people are often in this situation, as are people with chronic physical pain. Medication can oftentimes provide a mechanism to help these people deal with these debilitating problems. Whether it is government's responsibility to provide that care or not is a separate discussion. An alternative would be to permit euthanasia. Yes, we'd have to put a number of controls on that practice, but without that option suicide is often perceived as their only recourse.

Suicide by cop is an easy way out. Sucide by cop is sometimes a solution sought as a last recourse for people unable to face life and unable to end their own life. Suicide by cop puts the burden on the cop. To reduce that burden the person may choose to execute a crime so heinous that the cop will feel justified for killing them. This is both cowardly and at the same time, sad, that someone would find themselves in this situation. Worse yet, are the victims of the heinous crime who themselves often times have zero role in the suffering or the solution sought by the person seeking suicide.

4. Punishment should be in kind. It shouldn't be cleaned up and made humane. I believe that if a killer planning to shoot five people knew that he/she would be shot four times prior to receiving the final killing shot, they would think twice about killing innocents as a way of establishing their legacy, or as a way of ending their own existence.

5. I travel for business. During dinner converstations I tell people from other countries that we in the US have many strengths, some small weaknesses, but two major problems. With a little tongue in cheek I say that our two major problems are lawyers and journalists. We have too many of each. We as a country would be much better off if half of them would find constructive carreers in honorable professions like engineering, medicine, education, or prostitution (humor here).

Lawyers take away personal responsibility and work to remove or reduce the punishment for actions taken. A mass murderer has every reason to believe he/she will come out with a punishment much less than the suffering they caused the victims and their families.

Journalists glorify the worst behavior. Journalists aren't news people, they're “bad news” people. They sensationalize the worst of life. This sensationalism encourages that very behavior. A mass murderer has every reason today to believe that his/her face and name will be plastered all over the news, and that their record will be repeated over and over again everytime a new tragedy occurs.

To close with a couple of quotes from Mark Twain. The first on Journalists and the second on Lawyers:

“That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.”

“Lawyers are like other people--fools on the average; but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other.”​

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Labeling mass murders, suicide bombers, or gang bangers as cowards is useful if it deters future killers concerned with their legacy....

What evidence do you have that it can reasonably be expected to have that effect?

 

[HiBC]

Forgive me for not being able to source it,other than I heard it on the radio,but I heard we are three times more likely to be killed by lightning than a mass shooting.

Airline crashes and hijackings get a lot of press,and fear,but fatal carjackings and car crashes kill more people.

Here is another factor;

Restrictive gun legislation is a platform of the party in power,and it seems to me they have media support.The doctrine of "Never let a crisis go to waste" is in effect.
Any gun violence will be expoited to maximum in order to advance the agenda.

Our bad guy will get nationwide attention and notoriety.

Now,how is our economy?Jobs?Right or wrong,how many people are desperate,or just giving up,losing hope?

Our heritage was about having the freedom to get back up,try again.

You can't have a lemonade stand as a little kid today.Would Henry Ford or Thomas Edison have made it past the EPA,etc today?

Where do you find hope and optimism today?

Was a time you could plant seeds in the ground,then see sprouts.

Now the drones will see,and agents will come to see your environmental impact study...

I'm being a smart alec,but Freedom is one component of a civil society.

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I agree with Big Blue except on 1 and 4.

1 is a reactionary assumption to the psychology of these perpetrators without any basis in empiricism. I agree with the notion of being brutally honest and concrete with our definitions and descriptions of events, commodities, policy, and people. However, you are almost suggesting a reverse of double-speak, which ironically makes it just that. Trying to demonize people as cowards through the over-generalization of the word is no different than Jim Carrey calling everyone one that owns a gun ignorant child-haters. It's simply name calling without precedent. While I might agree with you on a lot of people being cowards, I do not like to dissolve my philosophical believes into a manipulative political agenda.

4 is not the basis for perpetuating free society. While I assume we have a similar understanding on the tenets of a free society, I must say that punishment is not be expressed in such a draconian manner. Punishment should never be so "swift and just", because the application of that term often means "quickly, thoroughly, and without trial."
I think the core of your proposition is that a free society be ready and willing to use arms at a moments notice and not to be afraid to use them. I agree. If my life or another's life is in danger, I should not feel hindered from doing what must be done to minimize damage and neutralize the threat. But to present it in the manner you do, is not how I would go about it.

 

[chris in va]

The real cause? People that feel slighted by events in their life and aren't dealt with in an effective manner, whether it be therapy or force.

 

[MikeG]

My thoughts:

The problem of mass killings is a complex one. It is criminal that the left diverts the discussion of cause and solution to their ultimate goal of gun control, and won't hear any other ideas.

I feel that one contributing factor is the decline in ethics and morals we've seen over the last few decades. Some groups have steadily eroded religeous morals, ethics and social standards to where life has no value and almost anything is acceptable.

Also, some of the younger generations are self absorbed and demand to be respected just for existing. Being "dissed" is a crime worthy of a street level death penalty in some circles.

I've observed that most mass killers displayed warning signs before the final act. These were realized in retrospect, but at the time no action was taken which could have prevented tragedy. I'd like to think that a profile could be drawn up and clues watched for to prevent future killings.

I also think that the entertainment and news media must shoulder a large part of the blame. The entertainment media has lately depicted only glorified 'antiheros' with no morals, who go out and rack up huge body counts when wronged ("dissed"). The news media emotes and dwells ad-nauseum on each shooting spree and its toll. The next shooter sees this and craves the attention, notoriety and fear their predecessor gained.

(These are just my thoughts, and may not be worth more than the hot air they're spoken with.)

 

[ScottRiqui]

I've observed that most mass killers displayed warning signs before the final act. These were realized in retrospect, but at the time no action was taken which could have prevented tragedy. I'd like to think that a profile could be drawn up and clues watched for to prevent future killings.

That's an attractive thought, but the problem is, for most characteristics or actions that a killer exhibits, there are thousands (millions) of other people who exhibit those same characteristics who will never go on to commit violent crimes, with our without intervention.

It all looks painfully obvious in retrospect, but I'm wondering how many "false positives" any proposed profile would generate.