Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common

[Dr. Who]

It is not the species. Just those with high tech available.
When I "explored" the Balkans, everyone was quite genuine and what you ate in the restaurants was all fresh and healthy.
The human species will get by just fine.

However, here in the USA....we are following an old truth.
ie...increased isolation = increased polarization = increased hate and distrust = blood.

Blood is our future.
Sectarian, regional, and political bloodletting by the thousands.

We are a hard headed people and only this will bring us to our senses about how to treat each other better.

We would rather loose the fight than admit to the mistake....(Gen Longstreet...Reb general)

The pimples on our nations ass are coming to a head and will pop very soon.
No one wants to stop it.
Conversely, they are doing all they can to ensure it happens.

Why?

RATINGS !!!!

Then when it does, they will blame the other side like they are doing now.

PS...it has already started with the baseball ambush and the killings in El Paso and Ohio being politically motivated.
Ohio and the baseball game from the left and El Paso from the right.

...but wait, there's more....wait til the 2020 campaigns kick off.
The left is gonna freak out because they know they got nothing to oppose Trump left.

It's madness and it can't persist much longer. People will have to decide what they are willing to sacrifice.

[Crepitus]

Another brilliant post. I don't agree with them other than the three are backed by statistical data, unlike the fourth.

Please in all your stupendous wisdom explain how access to firearms is at all causative in mass shootings. It's not.

The fourth isn't backed by statistical.data?

Correct me if I'm.wrong, but I'm thinking 100% of mass shooters used a firearm.

I'd say that's a bit more than statistically significant.

[Private Pickle]

I wonder how many of them were on some kind of pharmaceutical drug before or during the shooting. Probably a lot. But that is something we're not allowed to talk about. It's radioactive.

It’s radioactive for the same reason pushing gun laws is when these shootings take place. The vast majority of gun owners don’t commit mass shootings just as the vast majority of individuals who take pharmaceutical drugs also don’t commit mass shootings.

[Chris]

The fourth isn't backed by statistical.data?

Correct me if I'm.wrong, but I'm thinking 100% of mass shooters used a firearm.

I'd say that's a bit more than statistically significant.

Do you really fail to understand that the cohort studied were all shooters? Do you fail to understand it is therefore meaningless to say all the shooters were shooters? What is it with liberals and logic?

When Archimedes studied circles and discovered the area of a circle is πr[super]2[/super] he was making a brilliant observation about all circles. Had he instead declare oh wow they're all circles people would have thought him stupid.

[Chris]

Just because you deem only three commonalities legitimate doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you. Yes, you created a straw man to attack out of nothing. You presumed an anti-gun stance where one wasn't presented. That rampage killers might prefer the option to kill selected individuals, rather than blow everyone in the building to smithereens or kill them all with gas belies your inability to understand the psychology behind the killers and who they choose to target and not target.

Then please tell us oh wise one what is the significance of studying shooters as a cohort and declaring they are all shooters?

I posted the article because I believe the three legitimate commonalities provide important insight into the causes behind mass shooting.

Yes, you created a straw man to attack out of nothing.

You lie.

[Chris]

Think about this, folks.

Let's say someone did a study of this forum. Say they found 60% are conservative, 40% liberal. Or that 90% are male and 10% female. Or a distribution of ages 20% 20-30, 20% 30-40, 30% 40-50 and so on. All those findings would be significant toward understanding the nature of the forum.

Now for someone to later look at the study and declare OMG look at this 100% are people!! You'd think them batty for making such an obvious insignificant observation.

Yet here it happens with mass shooters and it's defended as significant by supposedly intelligent people.

[Cletus]

Think about this, folks.

Let's say someone did a study of this forum. Say they found 60% are conservative, 40% liberal. Or that 90% are male and 10% female. Or a distribution of ages 20% 20-30, 20% 30-40, 30% 40-50 and so on. All those findings would be significant toward understanding the nature of the forum.

Now for someone to later look at the study and declare OMG look at this 100% are people!! You'd think them batty for making such an obvious insignificant observation.

Yet here it happens with mass shooters and it's defended as significant by supposedly intelligent people.

I am not certain 100% are people.

[Dr. Who]

Then please tell us oh wise one what is the significance of studying shooters as a cohort and declaring they are all shooters?



You lie.

"Between 1966 and 2000, there were 75 mass shootings. Of those, 9% were motivated by racism, 1% by religious hatred, and 7% by misogyny. Of the 32 mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. just since 2015, 18% were motivated by racism, 15% by religious hatred, and 21% by misogyny."

Others may have a fame motivation and others still may be experiencing a psychotic break, where there is no planning but simply suddenly decide to kill their coworkers for example.

It is safe to say that the preponderance of non-political mass murderers have very specific targets for their hate and rage, so that even if bomb making or gas were within their skill set, these methods kill indiscriminately, taking out people for whom they would hold no animus. They are also highly dangerous to the prospective killer, increase the risk of discovery and would necessarily deprive the killer of watching their victims die. It's also fair to say that it's rather hard to accomplish a mass knifing, since you have to get so close to your victims. Using a gun or guns is simply far more conducive to these mass murderer's goals and from a psychological perspective, they have the personal satisfaction of seeing each of their victims being shot.

Relative ease of access to weapons cannot help but be a factor in the decision by these individuals to undertake the planning and execution of these heinous acts.

[Chris]

Then please tell us oh wise one what is the significance of studying shooters as a cohort and declaring they are all shooters?...

...Relative ease of access to weapons cannot help but be a factor in the decision by these individuals to undertake the planning and execution of these heinous acts.

Removed irrelevant smokescreen. Leaving that gem, for which I assume you have supporting data?

[Rationalist]

I think it doesn't take a study to conclude that these shooters are all psychologically damaged (and perhaps also pharmaceutically damaged). Access to the means of mass murder is a fair point. Guns are an easier tool than bomb manufacturing and may be more satisfactory from a psychological perspective. Bombing is rather anonymous and imprecise. It's also more dangerous for the perpetrator and requires some knowledge of chemistry, since you can't just buy ready made explosives off the shelf. People have found out the hard way that mistakes are generally fatal.

What anti-gun activists forget, however, is that bombs are also far deadlier than guns in terms of body count. As the Sri Lanka bombings showed us, if someone wants to kill a whole lot of people at once, bombs are far more effective. Since a lot of shooters kill themselves at the end of the shooting, bombing is a method that they could use to kill even more people if they don't mind killing themselves in the process, but thankfully, this doesn't appear to be something most mass murderers think about.

As far as making bombs go, they're not as hard as you think. Tim McVeigh showed you just need a lot of fertilizer. Also, there are much simpler bombs that aren't reliant on explosives, like chlorine gas bombs. Those can also kill a lot of people. You can make a chlorine gas bomb with household cleaners.