Studying the Life Histories of Mass Shooters

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
I found this interesting and surprising,
Apparently there have been 140+ mass shootings in the last 12 months with a mass shooting defined by 4 or more people shot in 1 incident.

Some guy did some googlefu and came up with this article and pic
Check it out and I think you will be as surprised as I was considering what’s in the media
Mass shooters info graphic

Second row down, third picture in from the right is a woman from here in MI who murdered her kids and committed suicide. That's a different ball of wax than mowing people you don't know down deliberately. Makes me wonder how many OTHER photos are utterly misrepresented on that collage.

Misrepresented?

These people all killed multiple innocents in 1 sitting, what is being misrepresented exactly?

And when you say misrepresented do you mean like how the 2 killers who are all over the news right now are both being portrayed as inspired by Trump when one was a democrat and the other was a socialist? That kind of misrepresented?

The one I pointed out only focused on her kids and killed no others. THAT is the defining difference between mass shooters, and family murders. And you damn well know this.

So it's better that people kill their kin, than kill strangers?
Both should be condemned equally.

Honestly (as a father of 3), those that kill their children should be reviled more so. Not given a pass.

But I will allow you to clarify your statement.

What we see today has been festering since 1999 (Columbine) which has not really changed much and still continues. IDK why but think a combination of factors involving society breakdown (poverty/inequality) often leads to abuse resulting in fractured family/fractured minds, changing culture due to Internet and other factors, public schools degradation, neglected therapy or misdiagnosed therapy, calls for help ignored, poor mis-managed mental health institutions & clinics. Many people especially young are driven by pure emotion, anger issues, weak minded, easily recruited & manipulated.

Humans become a product of their environment. The longer one is in that environment the more one becomes part of that environment.
Everyone learns methods to harmonize, cope or escape it; sometimes violently.
I realize not all will agree but nobody has yet to come up with logical solutions. Just my 2cents based on personal experience.

Here's a detailed site that tracks all mass shootings and gun violence with charts/maps, stats, reports, export to excel. Though it only has data going back to 2014 it still paints a staggering picture.

Interactive mass shootings map 2019

Note that they group ALL mass shootings regardless if anyone was killed or not. With that in mind, from Jan 1, 2019 to Aug 4 according to the site data there has been 254 mass shootings. Staggering huh? I'll venture to guess this is where the "250" number floating around msm/twittersphere comes from.

Going by the federal definition (but not widely accepted) of mass shooting = 4 or more deaths and that 254 goes down to 20.

3 or more = 31
2 or more = 53
1 or more = 125
0 = 229 (people shot but lived)

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow


"Note that they group ALL mass shootings regardless if anyone was killed or not. With that in mind, from Jan 1, 2019 to Aug 4 according to the site data there has been 254 mass shootings."

I assume you want to think about your argument further.

"ALL mass shootings regardless if anyone was killed or not" is not only a bad statistic, it defies logic.

Perhaps we should look at the statistics of mass shootings where no one was killed?
Wouldn't that be every practice round at any gun range?

a reply to: Nyiah

The one I pointed out only focused on her kids and killed no others. THAT is the defining difference between mass shooters, and family murders. And you damn well know this.

I agree, it is a very significant difference in this discussion of histories, motives and means.

The one targeted specific known persons... as opposed to those targeting unlimited random persons.

The one is done covertly... as opposed to those conducted overtly for the whole world to see -- literally.

Other cases targeted known persons -- schoolmates or coworkers -- but unlimited targets as opposed to specific targets.

Motivations, provocations, triggers -- all will be different and distinct. As will means and methods.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

So it's better that people kill their kin, than kill strangers? Both should be condemned equally.

Nothing she said in any way qualified one murder as "better" than the other. YOU went there.

Honestly (as a father of 3), those that kill their children should be reviled more so.

Confirming that YOU are the one qualifying murders and murderers, NOT the previous poster.

Not given a pass.

She noted significant distinctions between the crimes. She didn't give any free passes.

But I will allow you to clarify your statement.

Oh wow. You will allow her to clarify the inferences that YOU are making??? Just freaking wow.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
I found this interesting and surprising,
Apparently there have been 140+ mass shootings in the last 12 months with a mass shooting defined by 4 or more people shot in 1 incident.

Some guy did some googlefu and came up with this article and pic
Check it out and I think you will be as surprised as I was considering what’s in the media
Mass shooters info graphic

Second row down, third picture in from the right is a woman from here in MI who murdered her kids and committed suicide. That's a different ball of wax than mowing people you don't know down deliberately. Makes me wonder how many OTHER photos are utterly misrepresented on that collage.

Misrepresented?

These people all killed multiple innocents in 1 sitting, what is being misrepresented exactly?

And when you say misrepresented do you mean like how the 2 killers who are all over the news right now are both being portrayed as inspired by Trump when one was a democrat and the other was a socialist? That kind of misrepresented?

The one I pointed out only focused on her kids and killed no others. THAT is the defining difference between mass shooters, and family murders. And you damn well know this.

I think that does a terrific job of pointing out one of the biggest fallacies in the media’s representation of mass shootings. There is no one definition of “mass shooting” and that gives the media license to run articles like “there’s been more than one mass shooting a day so far this year.”

What they won’t tell you is that almost two-thirds of those shootings are family and domestic incidents.

Regardless of whether or not these mass shootings are random or domestic, can most of us agree that they all meet 3 out of the 4 points that were made in the original post?...

1. The vast majority of mass shooters experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age.

2. Practically every mass shooter studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.

3. Most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.

4. The shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.

It would be nice to know what constitutes as "childhood trauma". Does a late teen diagnosis of mental illness count?

An excellent subject matter thread.

Here is some more perspective on that subject: www.lewrockwell.com...

And a little bit more, regarding veterans: davidswanson.org...

a reply to: Salander

One of your articles just goes to show how hard it is to pinpoint who a potential mass shooter might be, unless they've mentioned such notions online.

Needless to say, or rather, I wish it were needless to say, but I have to say it in every interview, veterans vastly outnumber mass shooters. Most veterans — virtually all veterans — are NOT mass shooters. Similarly, those with mental health issues vastly outnumber mass shooters. Virtually all people with mental health problems, or all men who’ve abused women, or all males, or all gun owners, are NOT mass shooters. The facts that ought to dissuade people from bigotry or profiling are painfully obvious, even if only selectively required.

a reply to: Deetermined

I agree with your point.

I'm not trying to predict who might, despite several facts that might point that way. No, I'm not ready for a Minority Report scenario, and I am not an advocate for more gun control.

Formally, "gun control" began after RFK's shooting I think, and it has not accomplished what was intended, but that could be said many or most legislative efforts.

Humans have always killed each other for an infinite number of reasons. It's just that now the media covers it so quickly that the numbers become scary.

More people die in auto accidents than die from terrorism or mass shootings.

a reply to: ABNARTY

What is the one common thread in all of them?

They all watched the news.

You can say anything you like but this is what's going on. The media is (in this case) literally toxic. If you look at the history of mass shootings, one thing becomes blatantly obvious. They increased sharply after Columbine. Now when you look at all other forms of crime, most of it has either been steady or has actually dropped off sharply. This is one type of crime that has been rising. People aren't getting more violent. There are not more shootings than ever before. This particular type of shooting has been happening more often since the media has been gleefully reporting every single one of them, harping on them for days, weeks, months, years, even.

Is it complicated? Most of these people may have had psychological problems but they were not clinically insane and obviously knew what they were doing was wrong. They chose to do what they did. But they certainly didn't pull the idea out of thin air. Guess what? Murderers watch the news. So if you have 50 identical crimes and the only thing they have in common is they watch the same news and read the same news articles and they all know what's going on in the world, you can reasonably say they are getting the idea from the news media. Which the MSM knows and doesn't care because the end result is they still get what they want. They are basically fanning the flames on purpose while pretending they're just doing their job.

So a few people get shot in some dumpwater town and everyone on the planet needs to know about it before they hear about anything else? There are what? 7 BILLION people on this planet and there's nothing else going on besides a few people getting shot here and there? Well, if you watch the news, you'd think there's nothing else going on anywhere in the world. And it's not that dramatic and things are not happening anywhere else. The MSM is choosing to amplify this artificially. And has done so ever since Columbine. Why? They had nothing better to do? Not plausible.

Mental illness is not statistically more common now than it ever was. Mentally ill people are not flipping out and killing people any more often than they ever were. So you have a phenomenon that feeds on the media hysteria. And you have a media that loves every minute of it.

You simply don't actually need to look at the history of a given person to figure this out. You need to look at the big picture. The more the media covers it and the more people rant and rave about it and react to it, the more it seems to happen. It turns out that violent people are kinda stupid and they tend to feed off of other people's violence. Shocking!

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I think that too. I'm not sure how it could be quantified to test it though.

My guess is back in the day if someone committed a crime, just the local community would know about it. He/She would suffer the social derision on top of the criminal consequences. Now? They get their name 'up in lights' as it were.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Here is the WIKI page supporting that graphic. Very interesting.

www.docdroid.net...=3

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Try this one:

www.docdroid.net...=3

a reply to: Nyiah

While the definition of a "mass shooting" or a "mass murder" does vary, the FBI defines it as four or more people. This has been in place since the 1980's and is used regularly by the media when you hear numbers of shooting tossed around.

Aubrianne Moore killed her three children and then herself on 18 FEB 19.

By this commonly used definition, that incident was a mass murder and is counted in the stats thrown around in the press.

Sticking with the OP, I am guessing she met the four outlined criteria.

a reply to: darkbake

I agree there may be a means to stop a few.

However, there are lots of people who fit the criteria but DON'T shoot the place up. While a good start, I wonder what that next piece in the puzzle is.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Interesting. What is your definition of "innocent"?

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Thanks for the link to that source. Pretty substantial.

I agree on the "250" getting thrown around.

The OP source identified those 4 criteria. However, lot's of people fit that criteria but don't shoot the place up. I wonder what the critical trigger is?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I agree on the media coverage aspect. So did the OP's source.

3. Most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.

I am wondering if this is a 100th monkey sort of thing or what?

a reply to: ABNARTY

id guess it would be random people going about business vs home invasions,murder suicides, discounting gang related crimes and . ie the general public tends to not give a toot about gang banger's shooting each other unless randoms get hit and most people don't care about mass shooting where its burglars getting lit up for breaking into peoples homes . drive bys probally counted as either or depending on if non combatants get hit