The motivations of Rampage Killers...

Good afternoon, friends.

Given the discussion of rampage killers on this website, I thought people might be interested in this late 2012 article about the subject by Randall Collins - a notable sociologist and Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

It's a very long piece, so I won't reproduce it here - but it's a fascinating insight into the underpinnings of such attacks. In it he specifically discussed the Aurora incident (which I assume the piece was written in response to) and also Breivik's disgraceful crimes in Norway.

CLUES TO MASS RAMPAGE KILLERS: DEEP BACKSTAGE, HIDDEN ARSENAL, CLANDESTINE EXCITEMENT

It's hard to pick out a quote or two that illustrate the piece as it's very wide ranging - but I'd certianly like to hear ATS' thoughts on his points.

Some background about Professor Collins and his credentials...

It's very simple. The person starts with a plan and then executes. No books need to be written about it. Simple: plan and then execute. These people are off-balanced mentally. A subject that is almost impossible to nail, like why can't we have see wind.

a reply to: KingIcarus

While I agree with some of Collins' points, I think he overlooks the revenge aspect of some of these rampage attacks.

He says:

In mass rampage killings, the killers are not aiming at particular individuals at all. The victims are anonymous, representatives of a collective identity that is being attacked.

In some of these killings, the attackers sought revenge on people who bullied them. They definitely were targeting specific individuals.

originally posted by: musicismagic
It's very simple. The person starts with a plan and then executes. No books need to be written about it. Simple: plan and then execute. These people are off-balanced mentally. A subject that is almost impossible to nail, like why can't we see wind.

Although continually claiming that guns aren't the problem, the article keeps concluding guns are the problem. Kind of dual natured in that regard.

Guns are part of it, like a car is used in drive by shootings. Does that make cars part of the problem too?

The reasons for what the press calls "rampage shootings" are much more complex and long developing. The writer does address that…

In all known school shootings, the perpetrators were outside the popular group; many of them had been manhandled, punched, trapped in a locker or thrown in a garbage can, taunted and jeered at. For Michael, the worst was when a gossip column in the school paper implied that he was homosexual, precipitating a further barrage of taunts. Like most school shooters, Michael was unathletic, unattractive, and easily dominated: a clear counter-ideal by which the teenage status hierarchy could remind itself of what it is not, and an easy target for attacking the weak.

Guns didn't make the monster, his own peers did (in that case). Be careful who you bully, things may come back around to bite you. Hear that US government?

A much stronger clue, I suggest, is amassing an arsenal of weapons, which become the center of an obsessive ritual; the arsenal is not just a practical step towards the massacre, but has a motivating effect that deepens the spiral of clandestine plotting into a private world impervious to normal social restraints and moral feelings.

As far as that goes, politicians are surrounded by security that carry mass arsenals out of sight of the general public. Governments amass arsenals in secret, too. If that were the crux of the problem though, you'd have to remove all the "arsenals' from your average collector / hunter / plinker nationwide.

Whoops, there it is.

Interesting read. Despite the anti gun bent, the article goes into a lot of detail about recent "rampages".

a reply to: ColeYounger

You make a good point about revenge - I suppose Collins' article is about less targeted attacks. I guess targeted revenge against individuals is motivation enough in those cases.

I find this back/front stage stuff very interesting.

The real cause of most of the school rampage attacks is MK-Ultra mind control. There are three items of evidence common to most of these rampage attacks that lead to this conclusion:

--Lack of any believable motive. Even when the shooter survives the attack, he will not be able to give a reason.

--A strange look on the shooter's face, often described as 'vacant' or 'expressionless,' instead of a rage-filled visage, as one would expect in a 'rage' attack.

--A prior history of mental-health 'treatment.' The shrinks are the mind-controllers, hiding in plain site.

a reply to: intrptr

I would argue access to guns is part of the problem, but there is also an element of mental health.

basically it's the combination of the two that leads to these shootings.

One could probably see some blame being placed on the left-wing, it's identity politics have alienated many a straight-middle-class-male. if you notice, almost every mass shooting/spree killing is committed by a working-to-upper-middle class individual, usually frusterated by some problem or issue, this frustration augmented by various mental conditions/disorders.

But one could also blame the right-wing for a steadfast insistance on neither addressing the issue of the availability of mental health, nor attempting to rectify the issues with present gun-laws.

I think this thread will probably turn into a boring sh*tfight, where the arguement is polarized to an extent that policy issues cannot be addressed in any real manner, and thus there is no progress. For what It's worth, I personally do not wish guns to be banned, nor do I think the 2nd amendment really secures the individual right to possess firearms. (though that has been the supreme court interpretation since Heller v. DC). attempting to ban/place additional restrictions on long-guns seems to me a silly practice, as they're often not the culprit of many shootings, it's pistols/handguns that are needed to have heavier restrictions placed on them.

originally posted by: starviego

--Lack of any believable motive. Even when the shooter survives the attack, he will not be able to give a reason.

--A strange look on the shooter's face, often described as 'vacant' or 'expressionless,' instead of a rage-filled visage, as one would expect in a 'rage' attack.

--A prior history of mental-health 'treatment.' The shrinks are the mind-controllers, hiding in plain site.

I'm sorry - but none of those things support the idea of mind control.

- There is no 'believable' motive for going on a murderous rampage - except perhaps revenge involving specific victims. All rampages have a motive - it matters not whether you or I believe it, providing the rampager does at the time of the attack.

- Being 'expressionless' is a well established symptom of a complete mental break from reality. This article talks about the steps rampagers almost always take to create the dissociative state required to commit their crimes.

- People who rampage do so as a 'last resort' of sorts - in their mind at least. The majority are intelligent people with issues. Seeking support is entirely consistent with this, but the rampage comes when the issue isn't resolved as fully/quickly as they anticipate.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

I think this thread will probably turn into a boring sh*tfight, where the argument is polarized to an extent that policy issues cannot be addressed in any real manner, and thus there is no progress.

People are polarized by the media to reflect their conclusions.

Their segments usually bear a label in the background that reads…

Gun Crime

Gun violence

Gun deaths

If that isn't polarizing enough.

The issue in my mind is what led to the shooting, not the shooting. The shooting is called a rampage by the writer, but the article describes how these events are carefully planned over a long period. That doesn't really describe a rampage.

A rampage is more like road rage, occurring in the heat of the moment? A carefully planned mass murder is more like vengeance, payback "for all the stuff they did".

But we can count on the media to always blame the gun.

This thread isn't really about guns - not all rampages are committed with them, even if most are.

For me, guns aren't the problem - it's people and mental health.

That said, most rampages are committed by folks who feel alienated or 'lesser' in some way. Within these power differentials, guns are a good leveller. They allow the self-seen 'little guy' the chance to get one over people they couldn't ordinarily. Of course, knives and such could do similar - but the range of a gun adds to the deassociative aspects of it all.

That's not the fault of guns or the very, very vast proportion of gun owners who are responsible though.

a reply to: intrptr

I think the blame, or attention on guns, is due to the number of fatalities that a single individual has caused.
To put it simply, I doubt you would have seen the massacres in colleges or high schools having the sheer bodycount if the offenders used a knife.

as well as the lack of any meaninful policy-response from the government.

If we could have a meaningful policy response, perhaps we could turn attention to other issues having to do with these incidents.

the thing is; I doubt there would be as much of a problem if we could agree that guns, are a factor in these crimes.
by becoming outraged at even mild reform of flawed gun-legislation, you get the argument focused there, because that's something people expect to be more easily addressed than youth-cultural issues in high-schools, or alienation, or access to mental-healthcare.

a reply to: KingIcarus

Within these power differentials, guns are a good leveler.

So is a car. The dude who shot up Santa Barbara was able to continue on shooting until they found his car and stopped him.

But no mention of the car as part of the problem was forthcoming. Driver education, license, registration and insurance are all required to own one and it still won't stop willful intent.

People use cars all the time as weapons in crime. They bash in store fronts to get the goods, do drive bus and use them to escape from scene of the crime. They might not do any of these things without one.

I guess the car manufacturers are enjoying their immunity in this regard. Maybe we should sue the car manufacturer… which makes little sense.

But the media continually whips the gun "crime" into a frenzy and thats why the focus on guns.

I agreed with what you said about the focus should be on preventing it from coming to that. Sadly thats impossible. More often than not, the perpetrator is already raising red flags in the community long before "going overboard".

Double sad the community effort to combat the problem, the real problem, is lacking. In some ways I think this kind of thing is actually promoted with willful intent.

The more people go off with guns the more cry for more gun confiscation laws.

Like cars used in crimes, guns should't be demonized, Its societies fault for not preventing the long term build up of rage in the first place.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

the thing is; I doubt there would be as much of a problem if we could agree that guns, are a factor in these crimes.

I have to agree with that. The problem though is waiting for the fuze to burn down on the dynamite and then over reacting to the carnage. What about putting the fuze out before it burns all the away down?

Dude that blew up the Norway was very calculating. He did not have ready access to guns and had to take courses, qualify and pay for licensing, etc,. before finally being allowed to buy a handgun.

His problem was not "mental health", unless you count a brainwashed point of view.

A cold calculating killer will find a way.

a reply to: intrptr

yes; but saying that is defeatism; Norweigian gun laws were not perfect, and probably still aren't pefect, there were flaws that allowed a calculating madman like Brevik to slip through the cracks.

however we must be aware of the will to go about circumventing regulation. Brevik might have been completely crazy, but he was patient, and determined, and above all a person who wasn't interested in killing himself. Timothy Mcveighm, or the Unabomber(Ted K.) are probably more comparable to brevik than Holmes or Rogers.

it could be said that no amount of mental-healthcare, or gun-control measures, can completely forever prevent another mass/spree-killing, but they can reduce the number or rate of shootings that occure.

But one could also blame the right-wing for a steadfast insistance on neither addressing the issue of the availability of mental health, nor attempting to rectify the issues with present gun-laws.

The steady drum beat in the US is always take the guns, take the guns! If there were no guns there would be no crime!

There has always been a steady mantra of "but what about lack of mental health?" but you have to listen very hard to hear it, and it always comes from the opposition to the "take the guns" mantra.

The problem is that the very same people who want to take the guns also oppose increased mental health treatment because they feel it will unfairly stigmatize the mentally ill.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

it could be said that no amount of mental-healthcare, or gun-control measures, can completely forever prevent another mass/spree-killing, but they can reduce the number or rate of shootings that occure.

My counter to that is that these mad men chose unarmed places to have their way. You notice they don't attack police stations? They purposefully choose places they know people will be that have little chance of shooting back precisely because of the gun control laws.

See, only law abiding citizens will obey the no carry laws.

Cretins that intend people harm are directly taking advantage of this.

Really, the best counter would be to find out what it is about our society that tends to increase the number of sick individuals that want to snap and take out so many others.

Why do they miss having even a basic respect for life? I can understand having no respect for one's own life although it's extremely sad, but not respecting the lives of random others around you? That boggles me, and I can't conceive of it no matter how badly I think I might have been abused by someone else.

a reply to: intrptr

I recall columbine actually had an armed security guard on campus.

fort hood had armed security personnel on it, virginia tech had armed security personell on campus.

but that isn't what you meant most likely.

I wouldn't object to having teaching staff possibly armed with some sort of multi-shot taser or something, hell I wouldn't mind people conceal carrying a less-than-lethal weapon that was possibly more effective than a taser (the Russian "SuperShocker" comes to mind)

the issue I have with people carrying guns is that people get into heated passionate arguements, or otherwise ticked-oft, and while otherwise would be resolved by a fistfight or something, with no-one dying, turn into a gun-fight where the chance of death from even just being around it skyrockets upwards.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

the issue I have with people carrying guns is that people get into heated passionate arguments, or otherwise ticked-oft, and while otherwise would be resolved by a fistfight or something, with no-one dying, turn into a gun-fight where the chance of death from even just being around it skyrockets upwards.

Actually there is ample evidence to suggest that people who are armed don't get into fist fights. Unless they are being arrested or crazy, drunk that is.

If you think about it, would you throw a punch or otherwise assault someone who is armed?