What is the REAL CAUSE of mass shootings?

[Frank Ettin]

...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....

Except --

1. Rampage mass killings aren't new. Wikipedia lists rampage killings going back to the end of the 19th Century.
   
   
2. Rampage killings are culture independent. They are not unique to the United States (see the Wikipedia article linked to above).
   
   
3. We are all subject to a variety of indignities, frustrations, insults and vexations simply because we live in proximity to other humans. Yet only a miniscule number of us respond by committing mass murder.

 

[Come and take it.]

mass rampage killings probably go back to the beginnings of civilization. One man with a sword on horseback could slay a lot of people in a short time.

 

[Dashunde]

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?

Its known that many of these killers pour over news coverage of prior events. As Glenn pointed out earlier (paraphrased) a normal brain discards the notion that it’s a good path to follow for a variety of reasons, but the killers often see the same news coverage as motivation of sorts.

Its reasonably self-evident that if the news coverage conveyed clear contempt or disgust, and referred to their acts as cowardly or pathetic at least some of these would-be copycats might take a pass on having their names etched in that particular stone.

The current crop of major news outlets who feed on these stories like piranha are not only benefiting from them, they're also serving to indirectly perpetuate them.

 

[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?

Its known that many of these killers pour over news coverage of prior events. As Glenn pointed out earlier (paraphrased) a normal brain discards the notion that it’s a good path to follow for a variety of reasons, but the killers often see the same news coverage as motivation of sorts.

Okay, but so what?

...Its reasonably self-evident that if the news coverage conveyed clear contempt or disgust, and referred to their acts as cowardly or pathetic at least some of these would-be copycats might take a pass on having their names etched in that particular stone....

No it is not "self-evident." "Self-evident" is nonsense. Assertions must be proved. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You're just guessing -- in part because you're projecting your sensibilities on these deranged individuals. You're assuming that they don't want to be called "coward" or "pathetic" because you wouldn't want that. But you have no data or evidence to support the contention that those twisted psyches will respond in a normal way to such obloquy.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is an empirical question whether the cowardly terminology will influence these folks.

I do think the coverage affects them but it is more in the vicarious reward of seeing the pain they cause. Supposedly, they have a mission to target population group X. This is correlated with a suicidal wish and to die a death in seems what is combat to them. A warrior's death, so to speak - either shot by the law or a noble suicide. They see the pain and uproar of a previous rampage and it rewards them as they think about their own plans.

So when, Dad and Mom Tommy Football are seen as crying and wailing when their hero son is dead and Dad calls the killer a coward - what is the impact on the next guy? The grief and pain rewards him more than the insult deters him. He or she would regard that as just a utterance to be expected.

It is thought that cutting down the coverage is more important than ranting about the killer. Seeing the pain is what they want. Or so we think about the motivations of some.

So I heard that Holmes wants to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty and get life. I would take that deal and get him off the front pages as compared to a trial. Same with Hassan - don't want a show trial for the next nut to fantasize about. The military court, IIRC, turned down a guilty plea. That's stupid - take it and get them out of the media circus.

The social impact on them, IMHO, isn't in the classification but in the grief they cause and we replay.

 

[Come and take it.]

In response to an earlier rebuttal, I think it is pretty clear that the violence in the media in the past (bugs bunny and the lone ranger) is very civil compared to todays movie and video game violence.

To say that this stuff doesn't have an effect on young peoples mental development is an absurd notion. The evidence is increasing to support the hypothesis.

In Adam Lanza's specific case, video game violence clearly paid a part. At Columbine the kids involved played doom and duke nukem to hone their shooting skills. The Norway killer used video games to hone his combat skills.

A bloodless simulation of death from a black and white shootout and a coyote falling to his death in a cartoon pale in comparison to the desensitation among people that todays excessive violence plays a part in.

Only once in history has entertainment ever catered to such horrid violence. The age of the Collisseum and massacres of minorities in front of the general public. Violence and blood and entertainment, with free food so the people will forget that their empire/nation is falling apart.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...To say that this stuff doesn't have an effect on young peoples mental development is an absurd notion. The evidence is increasing to support the hypothesis...

1. It's not a matter of whether you think it's absurd. It's a question of what the evidences shows.
   
   
2. And exactly what evidence is it that is increasing to support your hypothesis?

 

[Evan Thomas]

Based on some of the research on the motivations of certain kinds of rampage shooters, such as what one study calls the "pseudo-commando" type -- a designation that fits Adam Lanza to a "T" -- labeling such killers "cowards" might even backfire. From the abstract of this study:

Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback. <snip> It is argued that revenge fantasies become the last refuge for the pseudocommando’s mortally wounded self-esteem and ultimately enable him to commit mass murder-suicide.​

One could equally well make the case that these dynamics would make such a person more likely to identify with a previous mass shooter who was labeled a "coward," on the basis that they are both misunderstood and persecuted.

For links to, and summaries of, some of the studies focusing on the influence of media on rampage killers, see this article. The evidence from these and other studies does show that media coverage influences such people, but it's not the "cause" of their behavior.

 

[Buzzcook]

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.

Sadly this is not true. There are an estimated 40 deaths per year from lightning strikes.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

Mass shootings average about 100 deaths per year.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18/nation/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218

Seems like an odd argument if it were true. Should we stop concealed carry and equip ourselves with personal lightning rods?

 

[Buzzcook]

Only once in history has entertainment ever catered to such horrid violence. The age of the Collisseum and massacres of minorities in front of the general public. Violence and blood and entertainment, with free food so the people will forget that their empire/nation is falling apart.

Oh please, only once? I'm not even going to google; loosen your color before your get heat stroke from the over heated rhetoric.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Witch burnings, public executions, and lynchings have all been very popular public spectacles. In the case of the last, this was so until well into the 20th century. Moreover, it's important to remember that, unlike those three examples, neither movies nor video games involve the killing of actual human beings. There is a difference between a fictional depiction of something and the real thing.

 

[ScottRiqui]

In Adam Lanza's specific case, video game violence clearly paid a part. At Columbine the kids involved played doom and duke nukem to hone their shooting skills. The Norway killer used video games to hone his combat skills.

If you're going to assert that video games actually contribute to the violence, then it's your responsibility to answer the question of why the tens of millions of other people who play these same video games *don't* go on to commit violent crimes.

You're trying to make a leap from "homicidal asshats play violent video games" to "video games contribute to homicidal asshattery", and that's simply a bridge too far, logically-speaking.

 

[Dashunde]

I do think the coverage affects them but it is more in the vicarious reward of seeing the pain they cause.
It is thought that cutting down the coverage is more important than ranting about the killer. Seeing the pain is what they want. Or so we think about the motivations of some.

Good post Glenn... it makes quite a bit of sense, unfortunately.

Frank, you have taken several opportunities to debunk others thoughts and opinions in this thread, perhaps correctly in a factual context.
Do you have any personal or original thoughts on the subject at hand?

 

[Dashunde]

In Adam Lanza's specific case, video game violence clearly paid a part.

If you're going to assert that video games actually contribute to the violence, then it's your responsibility to answer the question of why the tens of millions of other people who play these same video games *don't* go on to commit violent crimes.

I think in those two particular quotes its important to remember that Lanza was not like everyone else due to having already been diagnosed with Aspergers/Autism.
From a layman or common sense standpoint combining those particular conditions with excessive amounts of immersive violence seems like a poor idea.

Maybe the professionals can shed some light on it?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, you have taken several opportunities to debunk others thoughts and opinions in this thread, perhaps correctly in a factual context.
Do you have any personal or original thoughts on the subject at hand?

As far as having an opinion in response to the poll, exactly what are you looking for? A one word answer? A short statement? Nothing of that sort makes sense. Rampage killings have been going on for a long time in multiple cultures. The causes are therefore no doubt complex, multilayered and relate to the responses of persons with certain psycho-pathologies to certain types of social stressors.

I am always interested in learning, and am more inclined to wait until I have a good foundation of knowledge, data and/or evidence upon which to base an opinion, before forming or stating an opinion. So that's about as far as I'd be prepared to go at this stage.

Glenn, who is the professional here, has offered some good insights. The information Vanya provided in post 88 looks very helpful. Other, essentially "off-the-cuff" opinions not grounded in data -- not so much.

As Glenn put it in post 34:

• It's multicausal with interactions between factors...

  and
  
  

• ...Very smart people have looked for simple causes and there isn't one....

  and
  
  

• ...You can pick a cause based on your beliefs and ideology but that's not worth much without empirical tests.

Much of this thread has involved folks trying to identify simple causes based on their beliefs and ideologies.

 

[Come and take it.]

http://www.ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html

This article was written by the leading researcher in the connection between violent video games and violence.

 

[dakota.potts]

That article didn't actually say anything. The biological effects it have are shared in common with horror movies. Does this mean anyone who's seen Night of the Living Dead is more likely to commit a murder?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's the problem with just reading pop sources. One should look at the work of Ferguson and others who have contested the Anderson model research. Bushman is out of Anderson's lab.

There is a substantial number of nonreplications and demonstrations that the effects are short-lived.

If we are going to argue this issue, it has to move to the professional literature and the causal nature of media violence is not conclusively demonstrated in the rampages. We do think it shapes the form of the behavior as I said before.

Note the same paradigms used in the video game research has demonstrated that Biblical passages and holding firearms does it also.

Thus, for an RKBA population using the video game link damns us as gun ownership on its own has a similar effect. Banning the games and guns go together. We don't want to ban guns so we want to ban the games (maybe some do). Antigunners don't want to mess with Hollywood, so they want to ban the guns.

Maybe we should ban the Bible? Same techniques show the same thing.

BTW, I see that the DA won't take a guilty plea with life without parole for Holmes. I regard that as stupid.

1. Is it just for revenge or DA PR on TruTV? Let's have a show as I'm a tough prosecutor.

2. The insanity plea may actually work and he gets out in 10 years and serves his time in a hospital - who wants that?

3. The TruTV trial will be watched by sympatico nuts.

Take the plea and make him disappear. I don't need to see Nancy Grace talk about this guy for 6 months.

 

[Evan Thomas]

BTW, I see that the DA won't take a guilty plea with life without parole for Holmes. I regard that as stupid.

Yes, it is stupid.

 

[Come and take it.]

Holmes is a treasure trove for psychiatrists. It would be valuable to keep him alive for the specific purpose of determining what makes these people tick.

Michael Carneal for a long time was one of the few mass shooters in the US who was willingly cooperative in being studied. There was a lot of information learned from him, but that was a very long time ago and the culture since his crime and conviction have changed somewhat.