Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't see the flaw in your logic there, do you?
The exact same thing can be said for extroverts: It's not so simple, most social butterflies are harmless but some have deviant minds should be monitored.
Like osama bin laden. He made lots of public speeches and had thousands of friends and a whole bunch of wives.
It is true that many mass murderers are often loners and/or people with mental issues. However, most people with such conditions don't commit violent crimes. I wonder what it is about some that sets them off to the point of committing such violent acts.
This. Most people with mental health conditions do not shoot up churches/Walmarts/nightclubs. So while mental health is a huge problem in the United States (in the sense that there's a stigma about accessing care... assuming you can afford to do so in the first place), I don't know that improving the mental health treatment/system is going to prevent any mass murders.
After many of these events, neighbors/acquaintances say, "yeah, he was a weird guy, there was something "off" about him," but I could say that about a lot of people who would never even consider shooting anyone else.
I don't know what the common element is or if there even is one.
Like osama bin laden. He made lots of public speeches and had thousands of friends and a whole bunch of wives.
That's a good point that I had not thought of. Name the WORST of the mass murderers in recent history: Stalin, Hitler, Pot, etc. How many "loners" can you come up with? Zero.
Project funded through National Institute of Justice has found four common elements.
1) "First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age."
2) "Practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance."
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. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting."
The people who commit these crime are usually loners and have mental issues that caused them to be alienated by others.
One thing for sure , looking the pictures of some of them, you just know. Look at the Sandy Hook kid, one look at him and one thinks it's just a matter of time before this kid loses it. And he did.
I wouldn't call them loners though, they are alone but they are more social outcasts, misfits etc. They just don't fit in. I don't mind being alone, would rather be that than in a large crowd , and am socially awkward but am not an outcast. There are differences.
One of my daughters boyfriends from years ago fit this model. To this day I feel we will read about him in the paper one day. He was highly intelligent, had mental issues and was a social misfit. He only had a very small circle of friends and they were just the follower type. Had I been in school with this kid, I'd be afraid every time he came into school.
We see these types of people everyday , most of us ignore them (which makes the problem worse) and we don't realize they are ticking time bombs until it's too late.
You don't see the flaw in your logic there, do you?
The exact same thing can be said for extroverts: It's not so simple, most social butterflies are harmless but some have deviant minds should be monitored.
Nothing is absolute but I am on the mark with the current trend. Criminologists who studies mass murders conclude most of them are loners. Doesn't mean that extroverts can't be, statistics doesn't support it.
I never said lock them up, there should be intervention. It's not so simple, most loners are harmless but some have deviant minds should be monitored. They should be scored based on their psychic eval. If you want to prevent future mass murders there needs to be a task force that deals with people who are ticking bombs. Take away the weapons, they will find another way.
And some people who are highly socialized have deviant minds.
How do you identify a ticking human time bomb before it goes off?
Should every person who has demonstrated violent behavior towards another be monitored 24/7.
Some countries include a psych exam as one of many hurdles to gun ownership and the exam is repeated every 3-5 years. Then again, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right in most countries. Most people don’t pursue it.
Seems a super majority of US people want government to “ do something” about gun violence. . Doing anything will infringe on someone’s rights. And around we go.
It is true that many mass murderers are often loners and/or people with mental issues. However, most people with such conditions don't commit violent crimes. I wonder what it is about some that sets them off to the point of committing such violent acts.
Self radicalization, often with a little help from an online community. It’s a fulfillment of their narcissism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
