Search

[Kimber45]

I want to know what exactly makes people snap and go off killing people. There are a lot of disturbed people in the world; what is it that sets a few off, that pushes them over some edge? How much of it is genetic, how much environmental? Is the cause, or trigger, for lack of a better word, the same in every case? The same in most cases? Why are most (All?) of the  shooters young to middle aged males? Are there any warning signs that only future shooters demonstrate that other disturbed people don't? Is it just me, or have these shooting sprees increased in frequency in the last decade or two? If so, why?

 Note: This is not a discussion about gun control or the 2nd Amendment, and is a discussion about guns only if you can suggest that guns, or weapons in general, have some psychological influence on certain people, which I think might be a component of the answer.

[Paracetamol]

Why are most (All?) of the  shooters young to middle aged males? Are there any warning signs that only future shooters demonstrate that other disturbed people don't? Is it just me, or have these shooting sprees increased in frequency in the last decade or two? If so, why?

I can only find one example of this sort of killing being done by a female, otherwise, they almost all appear to be done by young or middle aged men. I suspect an unhealthy fascination with firearms is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. If I could guess a common tie that binds these people together it would be excessive feelings of isolation coupled with the frustrations of modern life... except... plenty of us get frustrated at life, and plenty of people feel incredibly isolated, but don't go on to commit these kinds of atrocities.

It's a genuine mystery to me why these people do what they do.

[oball]

I can only find one example of this sort of killing being done by a female, otherwise, they almost all appear to be done by young or middle aged men.

Here's another female mass-shooter.

[Porkchop]

Another thing I've read about is feelings of inadequacy. Especially the younger rampagers. Often they were bullied (I know this was the case in Vtech and the most recent shopping mall shootings) and bullying has a powerful, dangerous effect on the victims. I think i read somewhere, though I cannot find the source, but people who are bullied are more likely to suffer psychotic episodes than people who aren't. It also has the effect of making them bitter at people in general, especially if they were bullied by many different people.

This effect of making people feel insignificant or worthless can drive them to do things an emotionally and mentally healthy person wouldn't, and this sort of rampage seems like a good idea for to reasons;

1: They'll be someone. I know in the most recent shooting in America, the kid left a note to his friend with the line "I'm really sorry, i know people are going to think I'm some kind of monster... but just think, I'll be famous". It's like the video on youtube called "Kiwi!", someone whospent their entire life being denied of what they long for is prepared to give up the rest of their life just for those few moments of living their dreams, in this case, of having power and of being important.

2: Revenge on society. As well as the people that directly drive them down, many people who were bullied as kids say that their cries for help were ignored or replied to with a token action such as suspension from school or whatever. This makes them angry at the establishment which is supposed to protect them, but instead ignored them, and as they move through life this bitterness shifts on to society in general.

[Kimber45]

 So could anyone potentially become a killer, if the world shits on them enough?

[colsen]

I would says that it depends more on natural dispositions, but that would likely underestimate the world's capacity for shitting on people. In any case, both are important factors.

One aspect that I think has a big impact is the presence of deep, meaningful relationships. In many cases, the shooters were either put in a position were they would logically feel it was them against the world, or had an irrational perception seeing himself or herself in such a position.

[Sa9jev]

* This is not directed at anyone's argument in particular *

I think it has more to do with these particular people that perpetrate these shootings just being fucked up in the head. Most of us have been picked on at one time or another, and granted some have gotten it more than others, but I hesitate to give that factor too much weight, since we ALL haven't gone on rampages. I think it has more to do with a person's upbringing, their parents' level of involvement in their lives, their family's history of mental illness, etc.

[Atanamis]

I think it has more to do with a person's upbringing, their parents' level of involvement in their lives, their family's history of mental illness, etc.

The same problems you mentioned for bullying also apply to upbringing and parental involvement. Many, many people have crappy parents, yet most of THEM don't go on homicidal rampages either. They may tend strongly toward criminal or anti-social behavior, but there's a huge difference between being a thug and doing your best to kill as many people as you can. The family history of mental illness would be interesting to see statistics on. I am curious whether the bullying and isolation are a cause (pushing the person to kill), or a symptom (a person who lacks the skill to interact well with others being likely to kill). Either way though, it seems like a good reason to try to integrate people who feel isolated from the culture. (Whether to prevent their snapping or to better know when a snap might occur.)

[LightningCount]

So could anyone potentially become a killer, if the world shits on them enough?

Well that's just it. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone. What happens when you hit that point is different for different people. Suicides, mass shootings, drawing on the walls in your own feces. Depends on you. I think that, for a variety of reasons, young-middle aged males have the lowest breaking points. Guys are expected by society to keep their emotions in check. Ya know, don't cry, don't express it when shit gets back. Just be a man about it. So holding it in lets it build up more. I think you find that women who are in a position where they feel they haveto hold it in also hit their breaking point. But I read somewhere that women tend to introvert their helplessness, whereas take it out on everyone else. That's why you get women with huge stress in their life getting eating disorders and suicide and stuff.

That's not to say that the point of "I think the people who do this are fucked in the head" is wrong. Having an incredibly low breaking point, or a predisposition to this sort of outburst are definitely qualifications for "Fucked in the head". But at the same time, it could happen to anyone.

The last thing is that different things fuck with different people to different degrees. What I mean by that is that some people get along fine in jobs they hate. They just tune out their brain and do it and ignore the fact that they hate it. Some people, it grates on them. Little minutae that one person finds insignificant might drive another person to murder. So it's not really a surprise, to me at any rate, that you hear about the occasional person snapping from the sort of stress that everyone else deals with fine. They just got into the wrong position for some reason and it got to them.

[jimminy14]

You didn't even attempt to answer the question you quoted.

Although I think you raised an interesting point with the differing ways the sexes deal with issues.

As you said, men are less likely to talk to a friend or a family member when they are having problems. And about women committing suicide; men do it around twice as often. This is despite the fact that women are around twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression (I'm remembering Australian figures from around 5 years ago here - but I'm sure they're still somewhat accurate).

I think there's a big argument to made that gender roles have left a lot of men ill equiped to deal with modern despair and isolation. When this is coupled with sociopathic traits (whether you believe they are natural or learned) it could lead to mass murders. I think it's very wrong to say that anyone that is isolated and depressed is a potential mass murderer if they reach their 'breaking point'. 

I don't think everyone is a potential mass murderer, and I think the incredibly similar personality traits of most mass murderers would back me up on that one.

[LightningCount]

Point by point:

I did actually. I explained that, as far as I understand it, not everyone is likely to become a mass murderer, but everyone hits a breaking point. Which is my answer to the question.

Also, you're right. Not everyone is going to be a mass murderer if they hit that breaking point. A certain kind of person breaks a certain kind of way. Other people break different ways. That was kinda my point. Some people kill themselves when they break instead of others. Etc.

[Glenn]

The most important determinant is probably social ties. People with strong social ties are likely to resist or reject impulses to perform mass killings. It is kind of a protective factor. Studies have shown that women get more endorphins release from social interactions than men. So, they seek out social interaction more, on average. They also would tend to have a correspondingly lower rate of antisocial activity (e.g. mass killings). Basically, you would be concerned on some level about what the people you care about think about you, even after you die.

I don't think going on a mass-killing rampage could literally happen to anyone, at least not in the way that has been implied. If you are talking about a hypothetical like, if you were born to certain parents and in a certain environment and then were bullied, etc..., ok. But a normal well-adjusted adult would not suddenly go on a killing spree, short of suffering a psychotic episode (which is different from making a conscious decision to mass-murder).

It is interesting to note that about 10% of the population demonstrates psychopathic tendencies (e.g. lack of empathy). Most of them live among us, and you wouldn't notice anything unusual (except maybe a string of short-lived friendships/romantic relationships). Such people are incapable of empathy (though they may be very good at reading emotions in others, which is a different matter entirely) and sympathy, or at least they experience it very weakly. When such people meet the right circumstances, then watch out.

[the gray fox]

There is a common element that many mass killers share and people already touched on it here. And that is personal frustration. Guys like Kimveer Gill (shooting at Montreal's Dawson College) are seriously frustrated individuals. They have no or very little friends. They feel that their lives are empty. They see no hope for the future. And they hate themselves. Deep down beneath all the cheap nihilism/nazi/violent gun crap ideology they claim to epouse thats what it boils down to. They hate themselves and their seemingly meaningless lives. And when you hate yourself and your very existence its easy to beat down on others. Its also the easy route to some kind of warped demented sense of success. As David Wong (I believe) once said: people seek to destroy because its the easiest way to leave a mark on the world if nothing else seems possible.

But beyonds personal frustration and social isolation there is no real determining factor. Would Kimveer Gill have done what he did had he been born in a different context? Its impossible to say. I'd be weary to only attach violence to "psychos." I believe bullying, frustration and a sense of hopelesness have more impact on a normal individual than one might think. There was a case in Quebec where a public transportation bus driver who stuttered ended up gunning down several of his colleagues before ending his life. By all accounts he was an average guy. No prior cases of violence. A calm home life. Apparently he could no longer stand being ridiculed and the frustration that came with never being taken seriously by anyone because of his disability. Colleagues admitted to sometimes teasing him about his stuttering. Was this man a "psycho?" His personal history is certainly not indicative of that. Or was this man someone who did in fact snap? Most people can leave their bullying experiences behind them because often enough they grow up and accomplish things after high school. But what about this stuttering man who still had to endure humiliation at 30-something years of age? How many of us would not snap if we were constantly hounded from an early age until the rest of our lives?

I agree. I think it would be interesting if we could get information on the family or geneology of these mass murderers. Perhaps then it would be more possible to make a case for psychopathy. But psychopathy is rare. I'm talking full blown absence of conscience. Also, psychopaths tend to be socially oriented. They mesh well with whatever environment they choose to be apart of. They are the smoothe talkers and appear to be experts on topics that interest them. A psychopath is more inclined to be a bully or a serial killer rather than a one shot mass murderer who goes beserk and ends their life in the process. The fact that mass murderers often have a death wish after they do their deed leads credence to the fact that they do not like themselves and probably do not want to be around to face the ramifications of their action. Whereas a psychopath enjoys the game of power and manipulation that life is to them. They probably want to stick around for more pleasure.

And psychopathy in itself is not immediately indicative of a future of crime. A psyhopathic child who is raised in a caring home and has positive influences in his or her life is not doomed to a destiny of violence and crime.  So outside and social factors still play an enormous part in the transformation from person to mass murderer. I'm willing to wager that sociopathy (person's personality forms into a hard "me" versus the "world" shell mentality due to negative life experiences) is more prevalent than full blown psychopathy.

[Onebrain]

There's a nice piece on psychopathy (here). The idea that the capacity for empathetic understanding might be a barrier to mass violence is a reasonable one, I think, though it doesn't necessarily explain how people who appear normal and functional successfully conceal this sort of behaviour for years or decades before discovery.

[Glenn]

I do not use the term psychopath to mean "crazy person". I use it to mean somebody who has a specific set of personality characteristics that are a little extreme on the continuum (i.e. we all have some psychopathic tendencies, just like we all occasionally have depressive tendencies). This group of people is more prone to deviate in various ways. I certainly do not use it as a catch all to differentiate normals from crazies, or to excuse us from examining and addressing the potential environmental factors that might incite mass murder, or that make people more psychopathic (or sociopathic, as the case may be).

When such people meet the right circumstances, then watch out.

I merely brought it up as a relevant psychological condition that is more common that most people might think.

In specific reference to the bus driver, such a person can hardly be called "normal". He probably had a traumatic childhood. This probably affected his ability to cope with stress, and the development of his social skills, even though he appeared normal. Put that guy in an abusive environment, and yes the outcome that was observed is predictable (even though we are talking about extremely rare events, that are actually quite impossible to predict beforehand). I actually feel for the guy even though, clearly, nobody deserves to be gunned down, even if they tease a stutterer.

Feeling empty and having a constant need for stimulation (hurting others, yourself) are symptoms of personality disorders (so is psychopathy). Again, these are just extreme forms of normal experience that psychologists classify as problematic because they are extreme.

Extreme acts are symptoms of an extreme psychological problem. The development of some psychological problems usually requires a predisposition, which may arise from genetics, childhood experience, a tumor, whatever. For example, some people are predisposed to depression and extreme acts like suicide. Suicide is far more common than mass-killing. So, occasionally you will get somebody who seemingly kills himself out of nowhere, without any previous history (e.g. in reaction to a specific incident, like a job loss). Mass-killings are much more rare, which suggests that the special cocktail that creates a mass-murderer doesn't happen very often.

You need either some genetic predisposition or extreme early experience or a combination, and then plenty of opportunity to develop warped perspective, etc..., while avoiding the acquisition of normal human social skills and interactions (the internet age probably promotes certain types of craziness). Then the idea would have to occur to them (unfortunately, the example is out there now), and it would somehow have to feed whatever problems they have developed (need to feel any emotion, need to feel powerful, need to get revenge).

Now, if you have a small group of people that agree to do something like that together, I think that is a different case. Just like suicide is much more likely when there is a "suicide pact", mass-killing would be more likely when you have social support for your craziness (it would allow you to override any guilt or doubts you might have).

[DevHyfes]

I think it is all about the reality checks.

Operation: Last Straw

That was my detailed plan to take over my school- George Washington High School- Denver, Colorado. My friend and I had blueprints, security statistics, and even police response times. We went out and tracked the cops coming arriving at the accidents nearby. We experimented with explosives, and studied the science of shaped charges. We researched welding with thermite, and kept studious notes. I had two binders filled with graph paper schematics and step-by-step runbooks. We had escape plans, and attack plans.

But we never pulled the trigger. Why? Well part of it was that we were caught early. Our "Role-Playing" of this and other miscreant deeds were getting worse, and eventually we got in over our heads. Two stupid suburban kids who didn't know what the fuck they were doing. And our parents and teachers noticed. And we were whipped back into line.

That was 1992. 7 Years later, two kids named Harris and Klebold flipped out in a school not 20 miles away from GW- and not 5 miles away from where I lived. I still remember that day- my friend emailing me to say that someone else had executed "Operation: Last Straw". And I was at work, watching CNN on the internet and thinking to myself, "there but for the grace of God go I." This most recently resonated with me when I was reading a chapter of Wong's JDaTE novel.

I really think that I might have ended up in a similar place as them. I'm older now, and realize how stupid I was- seriously clueless stupid. I mean Prom Date girl who thinks her date asked her because of her intelligence stupid; 15yr old believing in santa stupid. I was in this world of make believe where I was a master thief. I had learned how to pick locks and do other really bad things. We both had computers and learned stuff like cracking copy protection, and war dialing and phreaking. My friend was a fucking genius chemist. We did so many dumb things that I cannot even think about today.

But we did it because we felt powerless. I don't know about my friend, but my Junior High was hor. rid. Miserable. It was like some social experiment gone bad. We met in High School- and it honestly wasn't that bad. But we were still shy, and unable to blend in. No one treated us that bad, but we weren't enjoying a real social life. It was much easier to play these games. So we dabbled in what we called "Dark Arts".

At some point we just kinda drifted from reality. At some point, if you test enough boundaries and no one notices, you press more and more. I think this was clearly what happened with Harris and Klebold. They were doing things like buying firearms, and making explosives- all against the law. Finally they had something that made them feel important; powerful.

If you look at the Wikipedia Article article, you'll see a lot of the same tendencies...All the way down to stealing tools out of a van (we actually were never caught for that). If there are any differences between my younger self, and these kids, it was this:

1) No Suicidal Tendencies: I certainly never considered this, but I did definitely feel pretty self-loathing.
2) I was Caught: Before I could do anything REAL bad, people noticed that I was doing bad stuff and intervened.

I know that many may disagree with me- and I'd understand- but this is why I believe that a strong social- not government- fabric is important, despite the other problems it may cause. It was stigma and morality that set me straight, not cops and government programs. Not teaching- I had received plenty of teaching before this in church- but a community embracing me and showing me what I had done wrong- and how I could participate in the future. That community started with parents who saw me drifting away from reality into self-empowered, socially-dysfunctional lala land and continued with other friends and interested individuals.

-hb

[the gray fox]

How was the stuttering mass murderer not normal? I am not intimately familiar on the case but from the newspaper articles that I read on it they all pretty much came out saying that he had a fairly normal life. He didn't torture cats. He was not sexually or physically abused as a kid. He didn't beat his kids or wife. He didn't enjoy setting fires. Good behaviour and decent marks in school. And he had no criminal record. Obviously the guy killed a handful of people before putting a bullet in his own head so that automatically sets him out apart from most people. But had the man not stuttered or not been constantly ridiculed for it can you still picture him doing something so drastic? Its entirely possible that there was something biological or sociological that we don't know about that might have made him more predisposed to such an action. But the stuttering and social alienation that came with it is a pretty glaring element. 

I feel a special kind of sympathy for this man because as a stutterer myself I understand the endless psychological pain that comes with this disability. I know how it feels to be ridiculed by others. I know how it feels to be dismissed in a conversation. I know how it feels to have someone feel uncomfortable talking to you as you sometimes struggle to get a word out. I know the constant anxiety that comes with every phone call or conversation...wondering if I can make it through without looking like too much of an idiot. I know how it feels to give up on possible career choices because they include a heavy social interaction (i.e public speaking) factor that I know that I cannot satisfy. And I know how it feels to avoid social situations (parties etc) and forget about calling that girl who gave me her number because I feel that my stutter will turn her off and turn off new potential friends or romantic interests. I know how it feels to not be able to just enjoy a conversation with someone else but instead view it as a chore that I wish to finish it as soon as possible before I block on a word and look stupid. I know all of that and more.

And when I was 15,16,17 I had an incredible amount of frustration and anger within myself. I hated my life. And I hated people. I got into fights constantly. I punched holes through walls at home. I had serious anger management issues. I broke a classmate's jaw with a metal pipe that I brought from home because he was bigger than me and I wanted to even the score. I gave my best friend at the time a black eye over some trivial matter and his mother forbid him to see me anymore (I don't blame her). My marks were good in high school but my behaviour was horrible. I spent plenty of time in fantasy land akin to DevHyfes. Fantasy was escape from my seemingly miserable life (the irony being I was responsible for a lot of the social alienation because my explosive temper scared away a lot of people). I never planned anything so elaborate but I often fantasized about murdering those who ridiculed me. I also dabbled in cheap thrills like theft and vandalism. I had people who cared about me in my life but I never saw them because the frustration and anger was just blinding.

But now at 24, I have done a complete 360. Speech therapy, counselling, maturity and getting involved in activities that channel that anger (weight lifting, post-secondary education) better confidence and making more friends cured the sick cloud that was orbiting my brain. I am a much calmer. At my latest high school reunion people could not believe where I was at this point in my life. Everyone figured I'd be dead or in prison. I see that younger self of mine as a completely different person. But even now I can look at that other person and see myself perhaps doing something tragic. The violence I did as a frustrated youth was petty in the grand scheme of things compared to mass murder but had I not changed at some point I often wonder how far I could of gone.....I woke up and made a conscious decision to change my life. All that violence may have built up to something worse.

Am I psychopathic? I don't think so. I loved my mother. I loved some people. I was and I am capable of feeling and understanding love. I had and still have empathy. I had a conscience. I often felt guilty after I did something violent when angry. I was devastated after losing my best friend at the time after hitting him...I tried several times to apologize.  I do have a short temper. That has never left me but now I do not exhibit anger by lashing out. The point I'm trying to make is that had I not stuttered (the stutter being probably the biggest factor responsible for my anger at that young age) would I have been even half as violent? The short temper can be genetic I suppose. But would my short temper be given so much free reign had I not had to deal with the social frustration? Had I been a regular fluent talking boy I like to think that in fact no, I would of been a tad calmer. But then again most stutterers are indeed non-violent. So my own experience may be that of someone with a genetic predisposition to violence.

But then again my own personal experience and that of Deshyves shows that if anything even someone with a predisposition to anti-social behaviour (sociopathic, socially conditioned or psychopathic) is still entirely malleable when it comes to social forces.

[Glenn]

Mass killings are extremely rare. Psychopathy and other personality disorders are relatively common. Another common thing is people being rejected so they end up developing all sorts of weird perspectives. Obviously, there are some very powerful forces at work that ultimately prevent people from acting on their urges. Rarely (but the frequency seems to be increasing) whatever psychological and social safeguards we have break down.

A stutterer, somebody with severe anxiety, a physical handicap, whatever, will have very different experiences from "normal" people. Their experience can hardly be called normal, and so it is likely that they have developed some peculiar perspectives. Sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

[ZenMojo]

Men are more likely to commit suicide, it doesn't surprise me that they're more likely to commit mass killings.  I agree with the breaking point sentiment but think the expression is probably based more on personality.  If you're more likely to resort to aggressive solutions or if your hate is reflected in your own personal lack of strength rather than simple self-hatred, then killing seems to make sense.