Finding and Fixing the root causes of Mass Shootings

I think he's a wierd exception to any rule. That said, IIRC, his father was a noted bank robber, and was in prison for most of his formative years, i.e. he fits into the lack of good father figure profile.

 

Just the vibe I get from reading about a lot of them. Look at Parkland--adopted dad had died, no known father figure. Same with Lanza--dad left family.

 

Thank you for this post. I have been beating a similar drum for awhile now. And I think it is time that good people who want real solutions to stop the carnage start requiring that the national conversation be focused on how we as a society by our rhetoric. Not only our angry, denigrating, accusatory, dehumanizing rhetoric, but ignoring how the violence and anti-hero worship on TV and movies and electronic games, etc. are glorifying and promoting anger, hatred, judgmentalism, demonization, and worse of public figures, groups, individuals.

I do think our failure to reject dehumanizing rhetoric--it constitutes a particularly incendiary form of bullying--the violent/immoral/anti-traditional values entertainment medium coupled with the systematic dismantling of the traditional American family, making fathers unimportant and unnecessary are a huge part of the problem. Add to that a systematic devaluing of human life via making it expendable and suppression of religious faith and expression and you have a recipe for the worst of human nature to come out.

When the hue and cry consists mostly of accusing the President and gun control, I am confident we will never address the real issues.

 

Thank you for the answers.

We really need a list of the incidents that fit the OPs description to come to any conclusions about commonality.

SPLC cannot be trusted to refrain from cherry-picking data, and many of these incidents aren't classified as terrorism. These other incidents cannot be dismissed if one wants an unbiased discussion. The FBI link was discussing terrorism, and many of the mass murders are not classified as terrorism as I mentioned. The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism - The Hague is certainly not a reliable and unbiased source to be used concerning mass shootings/attempted murders in the U.S. Example: the Douglas Park incident is not going to show up in any "terrorism" data.

 

These sources are fine. The SPLC is an established and well received database for talking about terrorism and hate crimes. It's a fine source. You can say that's a biased source. It doesn't touch my claims. Why? Just because there's a bias, doesn't mean it interferes with what we're talking about. A store employee may want you to buy their products, but they will tell you what the price is. If you look at the theory I posted (post 3), I explicitly mention that my theory makes more sense when we're talking about hate crimes and terrorists. So talk of terrorists and hate crimes makes sense for what I'm trying to establish. As for the OP's definitions. I don't need to define mass shootings for my theory to work. It should work without needing to talk about them.

To make a long story short. I'm establishing my theory and how I can prove it works in one particular instance. Then I have to expand it to other areas to show how my theory can be universalized.

 

Does that mean they lacked a father figure, or they lacked a father figure as according to how you see father figures?

 

Of course the sources are wrong for this discussion. The data you present is about terrorism and hate crimes. Not all mass shootings are classified as terrorism and hate crimes. Why would those incidents be excluded? For example, Douglas Park - was that classified as terrorism? No. Was it classified as a hate crime? No. Was it a mass shooting? Yes.

We must include the shootings that were not classified as hate crimes and terrorism, otherwise we are cherry-picking data to arrive at preconceived conclusions. That is NOT what the OP intended.

 

The overall answer has to to withe fundamental values. These are best learned by children who see the examples in their parents- respect for each other. love, strength, responsibility, fairness. The education actually starts at birth, because the foundation of it is learned by impression, not by instruction. Family unity, shared time, shared burdens, mutual support, things like that. I used to tell people in a growth class that the best thing a father can do for his children is love their mother. Also- that the children are temporary residents in the family home; take care of the parental bond, and the children will thrive under that umbrella- but let the children become your purpose for living, and you will spoil the kids while you ruin your marriage.

These things are hard to learn right after you have been raised with the wrong impressions and fundamental values as a foundation.
Good people, strong people, have no serious insecurities and no need to harm others, no desire for revenge on an unjust world.
The last couple generations have raised a lot of children that got big- but never matured. They look like men and women outside, but there is too much boy and girl inside.

 

Can we talk about all mass shootings that happen and then make conclusions from that? No. We would have mass shootings all over the globe. Way too many variables to control for. Culture, economics, politics, different legal definitions, the list is literally way too complicated to use. So what social scientists do is pick specific categories to study. This way we make better sense of the data that we have. You're right. Douglas Park may not be considered an act of terrorism even though it's a mass shooting. I'm trying to establish what I think the OP is getting at. The need for violence in society. Why do we have violence in civil society? I'm going to ground my theory in one particular set of data, ie terrorism. And then try to universalize it by expanding it to other data sets.

 

We need better mental health approach.

Aside from the obvious problem of no funding for it, we go further and decentivize folks from seeking treatment by threatening them with nullification of their rights. Many people avoid seeking help because they don't want to risk being barred from certain jobs, losing custody of their kids, losing their right to own/carry a gun and even risk getting locked away.

Seems to me it would be better to at least allow them to seek worry-free help and allowing to remain a risk to society than decentivising their seeking of help while they still remain a risk to society.

Perhaps (just brain-storming here) we offer public assistance for mental health to folks who will volunteer to be listed as 'a risk' for certain jobs, gun rights, etc, while at least allowing folks willing to pay their own cost the ability to do so without risking the loss of any rights (basically allow them to be anonymous in the system).

Obviously what we're doing now isn't working. People just hide from help until its too late.

 

When the OP mentioned mass shootings, I for one, and probably most of us, assumed that the OP is speaking of all mass shootings in the United States.

The OP specifically asked to leave politics aside. Your first post claimed that the perpetrators were right wing. You came to that conclusion based on studies that omit a great many U.S. mass shootings. Your conclusion is wrong when speaking of all U.S. mass shootings. And your bias is going against what the OP is asking for.

It is easy to cherry-pick data to make it fit preconceived biases. The OP asked to set that aside.

 

But more people with mental illness are victims of attacks. They're not going out and hurting other people. It's more likely they will be the victims in a crime. Not the perpetrator.

 

I find the answer quite obvious. Again as we have become an ever more Godless society we have become and ever less caring society and an ever more selfish society and an ever more narcissistic society. Used to be rejection meant you tried to figure out what it was about you that was objectionable and fixed it now it means you get to beg the government for a law to fix everyone else.

 

There is a vast amount of data on crime, suicide, and mental health in relation to family life and fathers/lack thereof. I assume at this point it’s common knowledge if one has researched these topics before.

 

Likely. If true, its even more of a reason to not restrict their civil rights in exchange for treatment.

 

So, I have been thinking. It would be nice if we could dig deeper into the lives and backgrounds of the perpetrators.

I wonder if any of them were in, for example, the FFA, or any other organizations in school - things that gave them something constructive to do, activities to look forward to, something to be responsible for?

Were any of them actively involved in sports or other things? Were they involved in any social groups where they were accepted as one of the "team"? Were they made to feel that their input was necessary and wanted and even expected?

Did their parents give them positive direction? Did their parents set expectations and help them set life goals?

Were they passionate about any hobbies? Were they even ever exposed to any productive hobbies?

Did they ever participate in activities that were fun, that built self-esteem? I wonder if they ever cut a board with a circular saw. Or built a birdhouse. Or went fishing with their Mom or Dad or Uncle.

Did they ever go hiking or camping? Were they exposed to mother nature's profound beauty? Did they marvel at the cosmos around us?

Did they have positive things to look forward to each day? Did they have things in their life that made them realize just how wonderful and valuable life can be? That their own life was precious?

Or were they isolated and withdrawn? Did they see no value in life? Was there nothing in their lives that made them look forward to tomorrow?

 

So two points
1. You picked a specific category to talk about. Mass shootings in the US. Not the world, but the US. Exactly what I said a scientist does. But how do you compare mass shootings across states when states have so many different cultures, economies, politics, etc? Too many variables to control for. I simply specialized in it more than you by picking a more specific subset, terrorism in the US. That's how social science is done.

2. There's a reason I mentioned right wing. The need for affect to continue to make cognitive sense is modified by authoritarianism. The way I use authoritarianism is the need for the system as the whole to be coherent. People are ordered, social statuses are clearly defined. People in positions of power are there and those without it are clearly definable. Think slurs as an example. You can't say the n word to denote someone of a lower position than you. It's not socially acceptable. So my theory is that those who are authoritative need society structured a particular way, and if this is disrupted then they need something to cling to. Like a raft in a storm. In turn this clinging creates the need for violence. As for why right wing, it's because authoritative people tend to be on the right. To be fair, originally authoritarianism was developed as an explanation for the rise of fascism. Which created problems because it left out left wing authoritarians. Now they fixed it new questions to ask people. So in the end, that's why I mentioned right wing. Because right wing terrorism is the subset I'm using to justify my theory.

 

A young man (or woman) is best served by being around a like figure that they can observe a learn from. There are just certain aspects of being a boy/young man that a mother does not understand - likewise it is difficult for a man to teach a girl/young lady about... well lady stuff. Just as important though are the influences we receive from the opposite sex. More than that though, children develop better from being in the home with two loving parents. That teaches them how to be in a successful relationship themselves, which nearly everyone will attempt at one point or another. People who succeed at this are typically a lot happier and more stable in their adults lives - and thus the cycle repeats. When the family unit breaks down, well - thus the cycle repeats.

 

So... "I have a theory... now I just need to cherry-pick some data to support my theory!"

By all means, carry on with your endeavor, at least you have explained your modus operandi. Honestly, I do appreciate that.

 

I'm aware of it yes. But notice how the idea of a "fatherless" household doesn't include other kinds of households. Like LGBT ones or extended households. Maybe a household doesn't have a dad in it. Maybe they have grandparents, aunts, uncles, or lesbians. Most studies on the topic agree that single parent households aren't as good at raising children as two parent households. But there doesn't seem to be any problems when it comes to LGBT parents and their straight cis counterparts. And I'm not aware of any studies that say that extended households are significantly better, or better than their nuclear counterparts.

True and I agree with you. You're right. They can need help and they should get it without fear. So then let's focus on them still. Why do people hurt people with mental illness?

 

Because we're responding to them more out of fear than love.

 

Agreed. And the internet is a poor replacement for parents.

I know this will offend some, but placing one's young children in daycare can't generally be good. Someone else is raising that child, influencing them, mentoring them, and unfortunately that someone else may not give a care for that child - may even see that child as a burden and a nuisance.

But still, millions of kids are in daycare, and very few of them end up as mass shooters.

Does anyone know where to find real data on the childhood upbringing of the mass shooters?