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

[ZiprHead]

The largest study of mass shooters ever funded by the U.S. government reveals stunning information about perpetrators.

The stereotype of a mass shooter is a white male with a history of mental illness or domestic violence. While that may be anecdotally true, the largest single study of mass shooters ever funded by the U.S. government has found that nearly all mass shooters have four specific things in common.

A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a “script” or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.

Link to the study in the article.

 

[J842P]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

 

[bilby]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

And the other three are Barnum statements - descriptions that give the impression of being very specific and personal, but which actually apply to almost everyone. (This is the reason why many people are so certain that their newspaper horoscope is an astonishingly accurate description of their lives - the  Barnum_effect).

 

[fromderinside]

Let us prey. Other traits consistent with findings. Male, living, meat eaters, history of dental problems, loner, sexual issues, mother issues, poor for significant period, and unhappy most of the time.

Come on.

We can invent lists to cover most andy population of outliers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

Is that not the point? One would assume that the other three factors have similar levels of occurrence in other countries, but the lack of this fourth factor is a key thing which prevents them from taking it to the next level and killing a lot of people. They would still find ways in certain situations, like the guy up here in Toronto who drove a van through along the sidewalk because hot women wouldn't date him, but the instances of their grievances turning into action are less prevalent.

 

[Gun Nut]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

ya, that's actually kind of funny.. you know what else they all have in common also? They are all "perpetrators". They are also all "subjects of a study". heh.

 

[Gun Nut]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

Is that not the point? One would assume that the other three factors have similar levels of occurrence in other countries, but the lack of this fourth factor is a key thing which prevents them from taking it to the next level and killing a lot of people. They would still find ways in certain situations, like the guy up here in Toronto who drove a van through along the sidewalk because hot women wouldn't date him, but the instances of their grievances turning into action are less prevalent.

Don't know about Toronto, but in the US if you shoot someone by "accident" (oopsie was it really loaded? oh nose), it is still a crime.. it is still a "shooting". If you kill someone with your car (oopsie daisy was that the gas and not the brake!?), then it is still just an accident.
Therefore, there is no reliable data on the "sorry not sorry for running you over with my car" type of murders from those with grievances taking action.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

Is that not the point? One would assume that the other three factors have similar levels of occurrence in other countries, but the lack of this fourth factor is a key thing which prevents them from taking it to the next level and killing a lot of people. They would still find ways in certain situations, like the guy up here in Toronto who drove a van through along the sidewalk because hot women wouldn't date him, but the instances of their grievances turning into action are less prevalent.

Don't know about Toronto, but in the US if you shoot someone by "accident" (oopsie was it really loaded? oh nose), it is still a crime.. it is still a "shooting". If you kill someone with your car (oopsie daisy was that the gas and not the brake!?), then it is still just an accident.
Therefore, there is no reliable data on the "sorry not sorry for running you over with my car" type of murders from those with grievances taking action.

I understand the need to stretch facts to fit a narrative and perform mental gymnastics for the sake of pounding square pegs into round holes, but don't you think you're overdoing it just a little bit here?

 

[Gun Nut]

Don't know about Toronto, but in the US if you shoot someone by "accident" (oopsie was it really loaded? oh nose), it is still a crime.. it is still a "shooting". If you kill someone with your car (oopsie daisy was that the gas and not the brake!?), then it is still just an accident.
Therefore, there is no reliable data on the "sorry not sorry for running you over with my car" type of murders from those with grievances taking action.

I understand the need to stretch facts to fit a narrative and perform mental gymnastics for the sake of pounding square pegs into round holes, but don't you think you're overdoing it just a little bit here?

maybe. But I reject the hand waving away of murder by automobile, just because it is convenient to do so for those that wish to demonize guns in and of themselves. That person in Toronto... you know what he had in common with every other vehicular homicide perpetrator? Access to an automobile.

There were more than 40,000 deaths by car in 2018 in America
There were less than 15,000 deaths by gun in 2018 in America

I think more attention should be given to the thing that is killing way more than double the people.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

maybe. But I reject the hand waving away of murder by automobile, just because it is convenient to do so for those that wish to demonize guns in and of themselves. That person in Toronto... you know what he had in common with every other vehicular homicide perpetrator? Access to an automobile.

There were more than 40,000 deaths by car in 2018 in America
There were less than 15,000 deaths by gun in 2018 in America

I think more attention should be given to the thing that is killing way more than double the people.

Plenty of attention is given to automobiles. The vehicles themselves, their drivers and their operation are heavily regulated. There are plenty of restrictions on where and how they can be used. There are strict penalties for operating them while intoxicated or otherwise impaired. There are testing, licensing, insurance and registration requirements. Police monitor their use actively and routinely.

While it may seem like a dismal case for state intervention given 2.7x as many deaths, far more vehicles are operated daily than firearms. I'm not bothering to scrape up numbers on this one: there is no contest. A lot is done to mitigate the risk from automobiles.

Apart from that, there is also a dramatic difference in utility. While arguments can be made that automobiles should be used less, they have become pretty central to daily existence for many Americans. They wouldn't be able to work or take care of their lives without them. While I won't argue firearms have zero utility, does it really compare?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Don't know about Toronto, but in the US if you shoot someone by "accident" (oopsie was it really loaded? oh nose), it is still a crime.. it is still a "shooting". If you kill someone with your car (oopsie daisy was that the gas and not the brake!?), then it is still just an accident.

Well, in Toronto (as with the rest of Canada), it comes down to your culpability. Whether by firearm or by vehicle, you may not be culpable in an accidental fatality. You may be guilty of manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death.

Therefore, there is no reliable data on the "sorry not sorry for running you over with my car" type of murders from those with grievances taking action.

The police investigate and if it is warranted file charges as appropriate. The investigation would differentiate between what is ofter referred to as 'vehicular manslaughter' and murder. I am certain the same is true in the US.

 

[Jarhyn]

Don't know about Toronto, but in the US if you shoot someone by "accident" (oopsie was it really loaded? oh nose), it is still a crime.. it is still a "shooting". If you kill someone with your car (oopsie daisy was that the gas and not the brake!?), then it is still just an accident.

Well, in Toronto (as with the rest of Canada), it comes down to your culpability. Whether by firearm or by vehicle, you may not be culpable in an accidental fatality. You may be guilty of manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death.

Therefore, there is no reliable data on the "sorry not sorry for running you over with my car" type of murders from those with grievances taking action.

The police investigate and if it is warranted file charges as appropriate. The investigation would differentiate between what is ofter referred to as 'vehicular manslaughter' and murder. I am certain the same is true in the US.

Not to mention that one is negligence surrounding a weapon, and the other is not. I mean seriously it's a fucking weapon. The utility function IS LITERALLY KILLING SOMETHING.

It. Is. A. Fucking. Weapon. If you have a weapon out and someone dies, that's negligence at best. When it comes to a car, there are all sorts of situations where there's no way to avoid it, in the course of doing things that are not "operating it as a weapon, seeking to be armed". With a weapon, literally everything you do with it is "operating a weapon, seeking to be armed".

You can have an accidental manslaughter with a car. You can have a negligent homicide with a gun.

All you had to do to NOT have a negligent homicide with a weapon is not take out a weapon seeking to be armed. You don't have that kind of option with a car, you have a job, need to go to work, buy food, pick up your kids...

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

All you had to do to NOT have a negligent homicide with a weapon is not take out a weapon seeking to be armed.

Or be in Florida, in which case, it will probably be ruled accidental self-defence depending on who shot whom.

 

[J842P]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

Is that not the point? One would assume that the other three factors have similar levels of occurrence in other countries, but the lack of this fourth factor is a key thing which prevents them from taking it to the next level and killing a lot of people. They would still find ways in certain situations, like the guy up here in Toronto who drove a van through along the sidewalk because hot women wouldn't date him, but the instances of their grievances turning into action are less prevalent.

Look, I get it, the article agrees with you. I agree with you. But you don't report your assumption as a finding. This is either shoddy reporting or shoddy science.

If I was conducting a survey on a frog population that was dying of some mysterious disease in the Patagonian rainforest, and reported four factors that I had found that nearly all the dead frogs had in common, and one of those factors was being an amphibian, I would hope that anyone critically reading my report would question my competence as a researcher.

And please note, you could outright ban guns in the United States, and I really wouldn't care. I might be skeptical about how efficacious such legislation could be in reality, given cultural factors and my general distrust of prohibition, but go ahead and ban them. I'm behind you.

That doesn't stop me from being able to recognize bad reasoning when I read something, just because I agree with the political slant of the authors. This is what stops us collectively from being able to have nice things.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If I was conducting a survey on a frog population that was dying of some mysterious disease in the Patagonian rainforest, and reported four factors that I had found that nearly all the dead frogs had in common, and one of those factors was being an amphibian

They are talking about accessibility of firearms, which varies. While all shooters obviously were able to obtain firearms, not every person has equal ease of access or as immediate access. While the Vice article simply says 'access to a firearm' early on in the article, four of the subsequent five profile types list how perpetrators tended to acquire their firearms.

Stolen from a family member was one: Does everyone have family members with firearms?. No.

A firearm they owned legally: Does everyone own a firearm legally? No. Can everyone? No. Of those that can, can they all obtain one as readily? No.

Are there other ways to obtain a firearm? Yes.

I don't know to what depth the study looks into firearm sourcing. For instance, does it differentiate between someone who used a firearm they already owned versus one they purchased shortly before the shooting? But even at minimal depth, it is a variable even if it is not very exciting or sexy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

And the other three are Barnum statements - descriptions that give the impression of being very specific and personal, but which actually apply to almost everyone.

Kinda’ argues for why we shouldn’t give guns to everyone then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The last one is almoat tautological, no? I mean, If the didn't have access to a gun then they couldn't even be mass shooters.

Exactly. This is water-is-wet level research.

The first two amount to shitty childhoods sometimes having shitty outcomes. Duh!

The third is no surprise to those with some understanding of psychology.

The fourth is a tautology.

 

[Elixir]

All you had to do to NOT have a negligent homicide with a weapon is not take out a weapon seeking to be armed.

Or be in Florida, in which case, it will probably be ruled accidental self-defence depending on who shot whom.

Oh no, I think I just realized I'm a mass shooter. I don't own any guns, but I do have access to them. Any suggestions on how to stay out of trouble? Is there a State where that's okay, or do I need to get elected President?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

All you had to do to NOT have a negligent homicide with a weapon is not take out a weapon seeking to be armed.

Or be in Florida, in which case, it will probably be ruled accidental self-defence depending on who shot whom.

Oh no, I think I just realized I'm a mass shooter. I don't own any guns, but I do have access to them. Any suggestions on how to stay out of trouble? Is there a State where that's okay, or do I need to get elected President?

Are you sure that's what you meant to quote?