It's only been about a decade since psychological research has begun looking at what's increasingly being called "rampage violence," of the type that led to this morning's elementary school shooting in Connecticut as well as this year's shooting in Aurora, CO, and so many more. They are all separate events, but the psychological community has begun to attempt to analyze them as a whole to see if we can better understand why these "rampages" happen--and if there's a way to prevent them.
Journalist's Resource rounds up a whole bunch of these studies, which attempt to nail down such specifics as the motivation, the aesthetics, the specific classification, and the attitudes of the shooters in these events. "The 'Pseudocommando' Mass Murderer: Part I, The Psychology of Revenge and Obliteration," for example, identifies a type of murderer "who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident."
A few other studies try to predict the dangerousness of various people perceived to be at risk of displaying this kind of behavior, a few look at the post-traumatic effects on those who have survived or known victims in shootings, and there are also a couple oddballs. One compares support for gun rights with support for gay marriage, and one takes an aggregated look at studies comparing violence with videogames.
And of course you have to take these with a grain of salt; it's a new area of study, and one which requires a lot of guesswork and shaky connections. But examining these events from a psychological perspective could hopefully give us clues in the future that could help stop them from occurring.
Cool, figure out how to stop crazy. In the mean time, maybe it's time to consider force on force. If you are charged with the care and protection of ~30 kids, perhaps it's time to arm yourself sufficiently to protect them. How many kids might have been saved had every teacher in the school been armed and trained for such and event? They have drills for fire, why not insurgence and assault?
I am at a mystery to a better solution for stopping these mad men. It does not feel correct to arm teachers and train them like military solders as NVDragon suggest.
This is a complicated issue and everyone is current emotional shocked.
I want the children\babies to be safe and I want them to be free too.
Perfect answer for a solution STOP IGNORING MENTAL HEALTH! Some state governments have already adopted measures to help decrease mental health cases by actually investing money in the care needed for individuals who could lead "normal" lives by giving them therapy. However when state and local governments are fixated on cutting back expenses the first thing to go is services for those who usually need therapy and are willing to get better. Everyone wants to be a productive member of society at heart. Given the right help they can be and perhaps other social services wouldn't be needed as much
Unfortunately, the psychopath-killers have notoriety paired with a need for suicide in mind while pre-meditating their terrible intentions. It's a terrible reality that we all feel the need to remedy.
Most of the "rampage attackers" DO have a mental disability or similar psychological malady.
I know this isn't about gun control but when will the fascists feast buckets that we pay to maintain our FREE nation get off their pimpled behinds and Think!
No matter how so-called control is placed there will always be a miserable soul that is willing to break the laws and kill.
My rant ends as such: What if the firearm manufacturers create a bio-metric firearm that can only be used by the owner? (like in the new bond movie) There's already registration and guns privately sold can be registered to the new owner at he local sheriff's office while resetting the bio-metrics.
That is about all I'm willing to bend on my 2nd amendment.
I'm so disgusted at people that think if the guns are outlawed their problems are solved. If gun control worked; Chicago, New York and other "no firearms" areas would be a safe place for everyone...it's not. Every location of rampages like these have some kind of gun restriction effectively disarming everyone while the law ignoring psycho picks them off.
I say arm everyone so the cowards that premeditate these horrendous acts could never stand a chance. It sounds scary to most I know but facts prove that the method of arm everyone works. Lose the fear, be an important part of society and don't ever allow the fat, bureaucratic pile of dung that claim to represent us get rich while strapping us down to heir ideals of rule!
...Ahhh, I feel better already. : ^ )
This type of behavior CANNOT be predicted no matter how many expensive get rich studies they may have to try and convince people. This is not the Minority Report. People snap, wether that be ordinary people or those with Pds. Add to that a weapon of choice and a suicidal thought, and voila, you ave a mass murderer. Trust, they are thousands of people that have those same thoughts, wether it be to kill themselves or take others with them, but as quick as they snap into it is as quick as they snap out of it. Some don't have guns laying around to fulfill they thought, THANK GOD FOR THAT. This is something that we must be prepared for. As society is being more exposed to realistic scenarios played out on our tv, games, and movie theaters, we are being numbed to violence and don't even know it.
We live in a new day where , schools, hospitals, churches ,any where that something like this could happen, should train a small percentage of they staff in tactical and firearm usage. Maybe hire 3-5 qualified army reserve as personel to be able limit the casualties. What if 3-5 staff members were registered army reserve that had proper training and firearm on hand....things would of definately been different.
All of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. End the gun-free zones, and let the faculty carry. That would provide a deterrent, and also any crazed gunman can be taken out.
Here in the Netherlands only one school shooting (no fatalities) ever occured. Guess two differences between the Netherlands and the states.
If you guessed firearms are illegal and every mental patient receives proper medication, you are right!!
Observation; Whether by police or suicide these events end in the death of the shooter. The shooter knew from the start it would, so if suicide was the goal why not eliminate the killing in between and go straight to the suicide? Is the killing being used as an insurance policy to prevent the person from backing out of the suicide they might otherwise be unable to perform? Once they have killed they know the only options are a miserable lifetime in prison or a quick death.
There is never any one reason behind these killings. Even the copycat, is doing it for different reasons than the original. And the one after that is different from the copycat.
People talk about guns, but for me the main issue here may be how to tackle mental health problems, and turn unhappy folk into happy ones, so these events become impossible to occur. When you feel excluded, and it's very easy to feel excluded at that age, you tend to develop an angry view of the world.
I hear several people proposing the solution: more arms! arm and train a small number of people from the school.
1 Word: crazy.
I am amazed how the weapon industry managed to turn the situation in their favor, amazed by the stupidity of the USA citizens.
You cannot fight violence with more guns, in schools, hospitals, etc. Sooner or later those guns will end up too in the wrong hands.
Its time to adress the matter: what on earth is the reason for having civilians free access to any fire weapon let alone free access to assault weapons, are you crazy?
Its time for USA to join the civilized developed world and pose Zero tolerance for civilian weapon use.
Gun-free zones should only happen when there is heavy armed security. It is appropriate in the courtroom to protect all from a rage outburst when the verdict is read. Any school that wants to have a gun-free zone must provide security--if not by hiring police or private security, then by letting parents and faculty carry--either open or concealed.
to New and all that see a solution in "more guns"
"Gun-free zones should only happen when there is heavy armed security"
"by letting parents and faculty carry--either open or concealed"
what happens when one of those armed parents/teachers in school, snaps or has a "bad day"...?
what happens if the weapons of the armed parents get in the hands of their children?
You cannot fight the problem with the same thing that created it - more guns. More guns makes just more problems. The solution is ZERO guns, not more guns, not armed civilians, not private justice.
I don't see why more people consider the best solution as the primary solution. Better gun restriction.
This is a terrible tragedy. Politics shouldn't even be brought up yet, but hell since we've started. Better gun restriction is not the issue. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Criminals by defintion break laws, so why do people think by making it harder to get guns or even take them away from good citizens that criminals will no longer have access to guns. Yeah, every once one in a while a sane person snaps and uses one but this does not happen often; that sane person is just as likely to use any other weapon necessary. Did you know that baseball bats are actually the number one weapon used in our society? I don't hear anyone restricting those. Hell, if hypothetically we did get rid of guns, do you think that'll stop the crazy? Knives, blunt objects, and oh yeah, free recipes online for bomb making will still exist! Hell, even in those other countries that claim "look at us, this doesn't happen here," I only ask how many terrorist attacks do you still hear about going on these places? I approve the heightened security measure. Yeah, it'll suck having schools with metal detectors, police, and even trained teachers but this is really the only feasible way. Why has it not been discussed? Because it costs too much, but I think our children deserve the same protection that any federal building has.
Self righteous, opinioned, egotistical, categorical, verbally aggressive PoP-Sci writers are on the top of the list for rampage violence due to their predisposition for a lot of guesswork and shaky connections. They make their kills in daylight as Pseudocommandos that attempt to analyze everything in light of environmentalism or mass hysteria socialism.
This once fine publication is a victim of such Pseudocommando rampage violence.
I disagree. Guns are far more dangerous than baseball
Bats and knives. That's why firearms make up 2/3 of murders in the US. A person who premeditates a mass murder wearing a ballistics vest and wielding 6 guns (one of which was an assault rifle), is going to do a lot more killing than a person running around with a knife or a baseball bat.
I agree that crazy people will still find ways to do crazy things, but the primary way of successfully dealing with it would be to reduce the harm they can inflict. I think having police officers on duty at schools, and putting more money towards mental health issues are great ideas, but the best one would be to limit the damage these types of people can inflict.
I highly disagree, and I fail to get your point.
Ok, a gun is a tool.. A pretty dangerous tool too, a kind of tool that should not be easily accessable to civilians. You can say that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are tools too, so give free access to them to everyone, that would make this a better place, right?
What is the point of having armed civilians?? In any scenario, a gun in hand makes everything worst. If you have an armed robber in front of you, having a gun in hand, will make a simple robbery a life-or-death situation. Apparently having all those guns around has not made things better, the contrary. Time to say no to this madness.
Greetings from Czech Republic. I am trying to remember, whether we ever had a shooting comparable to the one that happened in Newtown. [or Columbine and other locations] I guess not.
Frits from Netherlands said it. We don' t allow people to have guns and crazy people are being monitored.
People need permits to get a gun. They need to apply for it at the police. Needed as perwikipedia: written and oral exam, mainly concentrated on the legislation about guns and first aid, as well as passing the shooting test. You need to get an approval from a doctor - total psychopaths should be filtered out.
Teachers carrying M16 rifles sound great. It could also help with overall bad performance of pupils. You did not write the essay? Let' s have some target practise!
How about not treating mental illness as a taboo? Imagine walking around with a broken arm because it was taboo to let people know it was broken.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
- Stephen Roberts
I understand the sentiment that arming teachers and or guards would be a good and effective way to prevent and deter school shootings. A shooter rushes into a school, and before he starts to shoot, he is taken down by some armed guard or teacher. In theory, this appears so simple.
Think again, because it is anything but.
First of all, the shooters have mostly been suicidal. They don't really care if they perish themselves. This means two things. One; they are not deterred by deadly force. Two; they are prepared to take risks that can result in instant death for them.
Second, unless the teachers and/or guards are constantly drilled as an armed unit (think SWAT), all that you will get is more chaos added to the pandemonium that breaks out when people panic.
Third, when the police eventually arrives, they will have to locate and isolate the actual shooter, if he is still alive. This is not going to be any easier if the site is milling with agitated armed teachers and guards, who are more often than not wearing ordinary civilian clothes rather than a distinguishable uniform.
Shooting on a range in controlled circumstances is quite different from shooting amid confusion and chaos.
Please, be sensible and think about this seriously. This problem is not going to go away by adding still more guns to this messy equation, quite the contrary.
Using the same logic,the world will be safer if we allow any country possess
Conflict and crazy people will appear from time to time for any reason.A crazy or angry people with gun is a hell lot more dangerouse than the one with a baseball bat
I agree. Also, there is the likelihood of a school shooter using a student as a hostage to get teachers to lower their weapons...
It's just too messy trying to limit mass killings by throwing more guns into the equation.
Obama couldn't have said it better last night. It is unacceptable as a nation to deem these occurrences as a natural happenstance. We can't let ourselves get used to these horrific events as if they are inevitable. We need to take action now, and I am sure he will be using his power to make some significant changes in mental health, threat awareness, and hopefully gun control.
Something interesting for you to read...
chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons are....wait for it....weapoms not tools. Firearms are tools. Many millions of people use them each day with out killing someone....
there are many cases of where and armed citizen not trained in SWAT tactics was able to stop crimes, and mass shooting before they got bad. You just don't here the good stuff on the news.....
Hell a 12 year old stopped a robber, think she was trained in close quarter combat?
@lanredneck: Was the robber armed with an assault weapon, and two semiautomatics? No? Did the robber have a death-wish? No, again?
There are reasons why professional tactical units drill, drill and drill. And drill again. And even so, collateral damage cannot be completely ruled out. It's hard to imagine, that ordinary schoolteachers, janitors or plain ordinary guards could fare very much better. Do you disagree?
The smartest thing to do, is probably to enforce the doors leading to the classrooms, and keep them locked during classes. In addition to this, hallways should be compartmentalized in order to avoid long lines of sight within the buildings. This just to start with. Deny the ground, and delay the action.
"there are many cases of where and armed citizen not trained in SWAT tactics was able to stop crimes, and mass shooting before they got bad. You just don't here the good stuff on the news....."
References, please. Once a situation goes really bad, there is very little an ordinary, armed citizen can do that wouldn't make the overall situation even worse.
how about the guy in oregon who had a handgun and had a death wish but only killed two people because someone witha gun stopped him, mind you the guy who stopped him never fired a shot because there were other people behind the shooter.
I Do disagree mearly brandishing a weapon in defense can stop criminal acts.
Also i agree to beefing up school, i have no problem with armed cops in schools either, and i have no problem with designated teachers/administrators that are trained, tested yearly psychologically to carry guns in school. Best option would be an admin. With gun locked in the office. I have no problem with that.
Trying not to weigh in to heavily between the two of you (ianredneck)... I do want to point out that this most recent shooting did not involve an assault rifle... the shooter left it in his car. This was done entirely with two pistols.
It's curious... You seem to be of the opinion that having a death wish provides an assailant with a measure invincibility or masterful tactical skill - that an armed civilian would somehow be less prepared to respond to and subdue a man who does not make an effort to protect himself than a person who would more cautiously attack.
Regardless of whether a man is suicidal, or willing to take a deadly risk more so than a rational human being, they can still be subdued with lethal (emphasis on lethal) force as easily as anyone else, and they do not gain any grand tactical insight that would requiring extensive tactical training in order to confront them, as you have suggested.
Another good example is a shooting in colorado springs in 2007 at the New Life Church.
After shooting and killing two at one location, the gunman attacked the church with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, killing two outside the church. As he entered the church, a civilian shot and mortally wounded the gunman before anyone else was shot.
Do you fear the Law Enforcement officer with a gun? He likely practices once a month or so. He has a background check and about 6wks of training. He likely has a highschool degree. This is particularly true of the officers assigned to school campuses (usually those a little on the rotund side).
A teacher has a college degree. They have the same background checks. Many of those who would want to carry are gun enthusiest who shoot much more often and better than the standard officer.
(I am not out to denegrate our officers, as they will be the first to admit that someone meeting the minimium qualifications is in poor condition indeed to provide safety to an entire school campus).
I am also rather tired of the compairison to Europe. We fought two wars so that we would not have to be disarmed and enslaved as the UK's population is.
Disarmed population centers are the most likely place to die from gun violence. Out in the country where every toothless hillbilly has a gun or 10, there is very little gun violence.
Columbine happened during the middle of the assault weapon ban. So did Oklahoma City (fertilizer) and 9/11 (boxcutters). 8 years later, and there still have not been any tragedies to equal those.
Gun violence has been on a steady decline as more and more states pass concealed carry laws. Now, we just need to abolish gun free zones, so that our citizens are able to protect themselves in the spirit of independence.
Normally I am against using google as a means for finding credible statistics, but I'm using my phone here...
I don't know why people keep saying more lax gun policies mean less gun violence. That's so incredibly wrong, and not backed by statistics. I encourage everyone to view the link above.
You are forgetting that this attack was premeditated. It was planned. The killer knew who he wanted to kill, and came prepared to deal with opposition, as well as a way out (suicide). So I would argue that in any scenario (though his impact would be less severe with armed teachers or school police officers) that he would have a tactical advantage. If someone were to do it again with police at the school, they would plan for even greater opposition and come even more prepared.
Zero guns is a fantasy and any mention of it only proves that the commenter is just as insane as the shooters in these cases only insane in a different way.
Only a fool believes that self defense can be done for him by someone else or that an unarmed population can be free.
Taxes in the Netherlands are 33.5%, 42%, 42%, and 52%... you only think you are free in a society that charges usurious rates of taxation for the "privilege" of existing.
No steps have been taken to protect our children, none will be proposed and gun control will not make such steps any less necessary.