Mass shooters aren't crazies

[Tom Sawyer]

And there's an actual reason why things like that are called being driven crazy. It's because the succession of events takes a person into a state where he's crazy. That's why people in a situation like that can plead temporary insanity - because all that shit made them insane.

I honestly can't see how you can read your post and see you describing someone who's having a normal reaction as opposed to an abnormal reaction.

But what is a norm? As I said 30% of (white) people are genetically predisposed to go to your definition "insane". Are you prepared to call 30% of population abnormal? and among blacks it's 60% by the way.
The point of links in the original post is that these people are pretty normal statistically speaking and it would be mistake to just call them "insane" and be done with it.

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

 

[ronburgundy]

But what is a norm? As I said 30% of (white) people are genetically predisposed to go to your definition "insane". Are you prepared to call 30% of population abnormal? and among blacks it's 60% by the way.
The point of links in the original post is that these people are pretty normal statistically speaking and it would be mistake to just call them "insane" and be done with it.

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

With a name like "The Warrior Gene", I will bet dollars to donuts that 99% of what is said about it is pseudoscience bullshit, as is most of what is said about any gene given that types of label. Such labels are rooted in gross misrepresentations of how genes work, implying 1:1 relationships between the gene and the phenotype trait denoted by the label. I haven't read up on this particular "Warrior gene", but I bet it's some gene that plays a partial role in some kind of neuro-chemical response partly involved in aggression, and that in combination with many other factors (sever environmental stressors) merely makes the person more likely (but still nowhere near certain) to engage in physical violence.
IOW, even if X % of the population has this gene variant, it only means a small increase in the odds of violence and only a tiny % of those with it would ever engage in the kind of "mass killing" violence this thread is discussing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-illness-often-fuel-mass-shooters/?tid=ss_fb

Rather, it's the result of extremist views + a feeling of being wronged.


And despite media perception to the contrary, they aren't becoming more common:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

And a solution:

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

(Note: This is an older article, it's not behind their paywall.)

Well, I suppose it depends on the definition of "crazies". Of course, the term "crazies" isn't actually a diagnosis and is generally used to represent people who are willing to slaughter 10+, 20+, etc... for whatever purpose.

Mass murder isn't a common act of people. In fact, it is quite rare. It is extreme and typically by people who are indeed, not well, mentally.

 

[Playball40]

Yes, but we're not talking about any of those scenarios. We're talking about the scenario where somebody rear ends you and you pull out a gun and shoot him for it. Walk me through the rationale for that which isn't insane.

Easy. His fat wife was pissing him off constantly for years, his former boss was a stupid asshole and screwed him with money and promotions and he was driving from the last job interview which went badly (and yes it was fault of the interviewer) when some asshole on Tesla rear ended him.

Because a skinny wife wouldn't piss him off? WTF?

 

[Playball40]

Don't know what the article says but anorexia is a biological brain disorder NOT an "overvalued belief".

You could read the article. You could even read the paper the article is based on. It doesn't appear that many have done either. They are just commenting on comments.

Ok, I read your link. And again, anorexia is NOT an 'extreme overvalued belief' - in fact it is closely related to OCD - which has the obsessive/compulsive along with the delusional component - it is simply limited to food/eating.

 

[barbos]

But what is a norm? As I said 30% of (white) people are genetically predisposed to go to your definition "insane". Are you prepared to call 30% of population abnormal? and among blacks it's 60% by the way.
The point of links in the original post is that these people are pretty normal statistically speaking and it would be mistake to just call them "insane" and be done with it.

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

Seeing that we are still living in the relative dark ages with respect to neurology, citing individual studies to demonstrate anything regarding neurology is silly because there is little settled science in the field.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

 

[barbos]

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

Have not committed yet. there are other contributing factors too and maybe they were not pissed off enough.
I knew a guy I swear had something in his genome, because he would turn scary when drunk. And this Finnish study found that alcohol is unusually bad for these people.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't know anything about the link between your gene and the propensity for shooting people in response to minor incidents. Can you post a link to the study you're referencing or should I just shrug that off as irrelevant nonsense? I'm guessing it's going to be the latter, but am willing to wait for the accompanying data.

One does not just call people insane and be done with it. One recognizes that insanity is a thing and people can move in and out of it due to certain stressors, or have those stressors activate a latent propensity. Given the large number of auto accidents and the trivially small number of people getting shot after auto accidents, I'm thinking that you're using a fairly non-standard definition of "normal" here.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

IOW, my prediction was correct. "Warrior Gene" is pseudoscience crap that grossly misrepresents the small role that a gene occasionally might play in enabling aggression when combined with many other factors. As such, it doesn't speak to Tom's point about the "insanity" of those who shoot people in response to minor incidents. Only some people who commit such acts have that gene, and only a fraction of those with the gene commit such acts.

 

[barbos]

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

IOW, my prediction was correct. "Warrior Gene" is pseudoscience crap that grossly misrepresents the small role that a gene occasionally might play in enabling aggression when combined with many other factors. As such, it doesn't speak to Tom's point about the "insanity" of those who shoot people in response to minor incidents. Only some people who commit such acts have that gene, and only a fraction of those with the gene commit such acts.

No, you are not correct, you are incorrect.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, you are not correct, you are incorrect.

What's not correct? Are you saying that everyone who has this gene is a string of bad incidents away from being a mass shooter or that there are no mass shooters who do not have this gene?

 

[barbos]

No, you are not correct, you are incorrect.

What's not correct? Are you saying that everyone who has this gene is a string of bad incidents away from being a mass shooter or that there are no mass shooters who do not have this gene?

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

Have not committed yet. there are other contributing factors too and maybe they were not pissed off enough.
I knew a guy I swear had something in his genome, because he would turn scary when drunk. And this Finnish study found that alcohol is unusually bad for these people.

Well, we all know that gut derived science is the best.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're talking about two different levels of violence. At one level road rage ends with a shooting. At another level road rage ends up with a guy targeting a busloads or carloads of people and gunning them down, then blowing himself up.

As all mental states are physical brain states it would certainly be nice to be able to go down the chain of mental processes that leads to a person gunning down fifty people. It would be just as illuminating to go down the chain of mental events that leads to a person drinking to the point of impairment, then getting behind the wheel of a car and committing "unintentional" vehicular homicide. But our science isn't there yet, if it will ever be.

What does it take to do these things? Justification? Is a bomber pilot justified in killing tens of thousands of enemy non-combatants? What about twelve? What about one? Who is insane when those things are done intentionally? Seems someone should be by some of the arguments put forth here.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What's not correct? Are you saying that everyone who has this gene is a string of bad incidents away from being a mass shooter or that there are no mass shooters who do not have this gene?

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

Recognizing this "fact" is not rational or helpful until we understand WHY this gene is linked to violent behavior. It's just as possible that this gene in conjunction with several others controls for short attention span and irritability in quiet environments which predisposes for poor academic performance and therefore a pessimistic long-term outlook that includes social and economic disenfranchisement and a general unwillingness to work within the system.

Also of relevance is that there is a difference between "violent crime" and "mass murder." The former is often a means to an end by an amoral person; in the latter case, death and mayhem are ends in themselves and the perpetrator's intent is purely to cause as much suffering as possible. It's just as likely the CDH13 gene controls for a vulnerability to hyper-emotional states, in which case those same potential mass shooters might also be some of the best dramatists, musicians and public speakers you'd ever encounter, if only their predisposition were properly matched to their occupation and skill set.

What does it take to do these things? Justification? Is a bomber pilot justified in killing tens of thousands of enemy non-combatants? What about twelve? What about one? Who is insane when those things are done intentionally? Seems someone should be by some of the arguments put forth here.

"I was only following orders."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's not correct? Are you saying that everyone who has this gene is a string of bad incidents away from being a mass shooter or that there are no mass shooters who do not have this gene?

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

Given the miniscule scarcity of mass shootings, your first sentence appears to be at complete odds with reality. This gene may or may not be related and there's not anything to show it has any kind of causative factor.

 

[ronburgundy]

What's not correct? Are you saying that everyone who has this gene is a string of bad incidents away from being a mass shooter or that there are no mass shooters who do not have this gene?

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

And you are completely wrong about that claim, and your own cited data show that you are wrong. Meanwhile, everything I said is supported by the research you linked to.

 

[barbos]

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

Given the miniscule scarcity of mass shootings, your first sentence appears to be at complete odds with reality.

No it is not at odds with reality.

This gene may or may not be related and there's not anything to show it has any kind of causative factor.

Large group of scientists in Finland disagree

 

[barbos]

I am saying large percentage of the people are potential mass shooters, and having this gene does not help the matter. And recognizing this fact is a rational thing to do

Recognizing this "fact" is not rational or helpful until we understand WHY this gene is linked to violent behavior.

We already do more less.