Blaming all these violent attacks solely on mental health issues is a bit of an oversimplification I think.

Reality is full of chaos and randomly occurring acts and we have massive populations, high population densities, high stress and aggravation levels, people with abrasive and self-serving attitudes and very poor manners etc and an increasingly efficient media at reporting every event.

So there will be an increase of violent behaviour compared to say 100 years ago because of the population issues and people having much worse manners and worse self control. And an increase in reporting the incidents that do occur.

If I'm right things will stabilize fairly soon or have stabilised already? People's manners and upbringing really can't get much worse than they are today, and the media can't get much better at finding incidents to report than what it already does today.

Sane people do not decide to end the lives of others for no reason, then end their own life. Murder rates are at an all time low, as were mass shootings up until last week.

There is a LOT to be said about how we have more unstable people today, such as single mother families becoming the "norm", elementary schools having essentially zero stable male role models, choice of programming and news on networks, and a ton of other issues that makes each generation "closer to the brink" than the last. It's the 60s-90s all over again, but on a whole new magnitude. 40 years ago, the goal of raising children was essentially opposite of what it is today, e.g. "do what you want, others need to understand people are different".

I'm not pushing an Orwellian government,though zero tolerance policies (if I get punished either way, why not go all out?), in addition to acceptable social withdrawal, and other behaviors that were once mental illnesses are now "diversity". I don't blame inanimate objects such as video games, TV, and I most certainly do not blame the tools used in these acts of violence. I do blame the parents for allowing others to expose issues and opinions to children which aren't ready to deal with such complex emotions at too early of an age.

I do blame the role models (term used loosely) the children have these days (often not the same as "parent", or maybe "lack of organic role models"). Role models used to be responsible humans in real life kids could talk to and learn from. With the choice some parents make to "reduce the stress" of being parents, those role models have transformed into movie characters, video game good guys or bad guys, or, in some cases, a local hero or old guy next door that likes to play with electronics (best case).

Nature vs. Nurture. Most future behaviors/emotions are formed in a child's brain in the first 6 years of life. This is the same period where children are hardest to deal with, in part, due to their discovering negative emotions. Some parents, especially single moms, give in and offer the child whatever they want, others let them do anything as long as the parent can "stop being bothered for a bit". Granted, a parent can only take so much, but that is part of the responsibility in bringing new life into the world. That alone is a good reason to have two parents around to share the load, and show more than one response to events in the personality forming stage. This is entirely separate from the Nature part, where severe mental illness (which is not something new) is passed along in genetics. These are typically disabling to the extreme, such as schizophrenia and other psychosis.

As to the conspiracy theories, the data fits, but there are more reasonable explanations for much of what you hear. I remember 9/11/01 clearly, and the number of totally conflicting stories in the initial tragedy was very confusing. Reports were over a dozen planes hijacked, etc. Ask any police officer, and you'll find that an "eye-witness" is about the worse evidence you will find, unless there is video to match. Evidence speaks far more than what a human eye catches/remembers in a traumatic situation. That's not to say that certain groups aren't "excited" this event happened. As the maxim goes: "Never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste." e.g. If one wants a convention changed, twist every tragedy to fit your agenda. That type of thinking is in plain sight in the media today.

 

Sane people do not decide to end the lives of others for no reason, then end their own life. Murder rates are at an all time low, as were mass shootings up until last week.
~
As the maxim goes: "Never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste." e.g. If one wants a convention changed, twist every tragedy to fit your agenda. That type of thinking is in plain sight in the media today.

The kid who did this didn't do it for no reason...'HE' had his reasons...whatever they were we may never know, and they surely were not rational in any case. I would really say obviously were not, but I hate to just assume.
I totally agree with you on it is not a inanimate object that is to blame at all. People look at the few weapons involved and say "Look how these few were used."...but they never seem to take the millions upon millions of other weapons around, and say "Look at how these millions upon millions were not used bad in any way at all." when doing so.....yet that is the real truth of it. as well as the real truth of statistically more people die in bathroom and household 'accidents' a year, then the misuse of guns.
Michigan and many other states in fact have open carry laws...anyone can openly carry a firearm without a concealed weapons permit at all, or license. yet, this type of violence isn't really happening all that much in retrospect, and you never hear any stories or news about the many many instances of peoples lives being saved because of it, hardly. and it happens quite a lot, actually. why? because the bottom line is, even though there are in fact people who make mistakes and do bad things out there, and the stories are blown up larger than life, there are still way more good people, and guns are not evil or bad, it is the people that are responsible.

 

Why cant the bird be HAPPY instead...? I often wonder?

Happiness is boring and doesn't sell.

Some video games ARE disgusting, others not, even if you have to slash some zombies... They are not for kids though that's true.

Still, they don't make you a killer.

 

there are still way more good people, and guns are not evil or bad, it is the people that are responsible.

I guess I know why you guys don't want to give up your guns. Because now it's too late since everybody has one.

It was a bad invention in the first place, like nuclear bombs. Now that they exist we'll have to learn how not to use them but it would have been better if they never existed.

The damage a single person can do is too extensive.

 

I just learned today that one of our own is the brother of one of the victims. If he wishes to make himself known, he will. Otherwise, just remember that this isn't something that happened many miles away. It affects us all in one way or another.

Please take a moment to remember the victims and their families. Here is a list of them, along with their stories:

Remember

 

I guess I know why you guys don't want to give up your guns. Because now it's too late since everybody has one.

It was a bad invention in the first place, like nuclear bombs. Now that they exist we'll have to learn how not to use them but it would have been better if they never existed.

The damage a single person can do is too extensive.

There are plenty of examples around the world where a disaffected person or group is swayed to strap on a explosive vest and go into a cafe, release poison gas on subways, park an ANFO loaded truck in front of a day care, or lock doors in a nightclub and set off incendiaries. High double digit to triple digit casualties result.

Shootings, as tragic as they are, tend to be relatively "low body count" compared to other methods people decide to use when they go over the edge. In a morbid way, we are lucky so many commit suicide without thinking others need to involuntarily join them.

There is no way to stop somebody determined if one ignores the symptoms/signs of illness for fear of "profiling". Serious and professional psych profiling works, but it falls under the same stigma as racial profiling, and is thus discouraged.

The Oregon news (the mall shooting that started these dominoes falling) reported the other day that as soon as the shooter saw a concealed carry weapon drawn by a man, the shooter killed himself. The guy who drew his weapon, without firing, saved lives.

Psychological studies have shown that the more coverage of an event shown, the higher the odds of a copycat. The more the killers face and name are shown, the sooner the copycats act. The media KNOWS this, they've been told. Yet, they ignore the advice. Why?

 

Yet, they ignore the advice. Why?

That is an excellent question.

 

Perhaps, in a perverse way, the media looks forward to the next spree killing or terror attack, on account of the ratings boost that will result from all that breathless, blow-by-blow coverage.

Also, by laboriously delving into the minds and loser backgrounds of known spree killers, the media may in effect actively encourage unstable individuals to become shooters who are egged on by the prospects of qualifying for their own 15 minutes of fleeting fame.

 

When I look at a tv show like "Alaska state troopers", As none USA'er, I can't help but feel that those troopers seem extremely paranoid. It take just about nothing for them to draw there gun's. But than again if you live in a country where guns are available like candy, it makes of course perfect sense. (I hate to think there might be a other reason for it.)

Sure, guns are not evil or bad. If you look at them as completely independent objects with no other relation/influence towards humans. But in that case I figure you could also say the same about nuclear bombs (given the right angle). But in both those cases I think the speakers are deliberately ignoring/hiding the fact that guns, as long distant weapons, have a significant effect on the psyche of the carrier. (based on the heightening of the general feeling of securely (for one). Its to me no wonder that people that have them don't like to get rid of them. Guns kinda act like a security drug. And as far as I know it takes a real educated* and mature* individual to freely give up some perceive security.)
*) Social and objective, not just intelligent and gifted in spinning stuff.

The fact that underdeveloped countries that are flooded with weapons generally seems to end up in some civil war seems only natural in relation to this. Sure ... guns are not the only thing that will put people in a "fight first, talk later(after we have won or are in a better position of power)" mode.
Hell, I think even developed/western countries are in danger of this if there not careful.



To those that seem to argue some point of view or case based on the result of some facts/research or statistics. Unless you actually put up some reverence to them, your argument might as well be completely fabricated or a (potentially deliberate) misinterpretation. Only those that are at the same side of a argument will take them as fact/truth, due to lack of critical thinking, which in turn is based on blind trust and deliberate argument harvesting behavior. (quantity versus quality.)



Last but not least. A other tv documentary I saw some time ago was about some parents that lost there son in some other country (lost, as in missing). Losing someone you care about is difficult enuff. It being your child is a additional level up. And not knowing for sure (just about anything in this case) makes things even more indigestible. But these parent where eventually so locked up in there case they completely lost the ability to let go of it, or to move on. So 20+ years after there son went missing (and clearly met with some deadly fate) there where still going to that country on holidays in the hope of finding information about it.
To me this is a perfect example of where we also tenth to go wrong. And granted the case might be/look extreme. But if you take away the part that this is about parent losing there son, you might see that this is not such a uncommon behavior as you might think.
(Hell, I can even see this in myself ... can you?)



... Think I'm going to watch "The secret live of Chaos"(BBC) again. ...

 

by laboriously delving into the minds and loser backgrounds of known spree killers, the media may in effect actively encourage unstable individuals to become shooters

I totally agree. I think this might be part of the picture I was missing in the "why" question. Maybe it's not so much that they want to revel in infamy once they're gone, it's that they see it is one way for people to finally care who they are. They are probably the type that, in school, are (or feel) nearly invisible to their parents, peers and leaders. Maybe they feel like they could go missing one day and never be missed. They see that within 15 minutes of committing a mass murder, suddenly there are whole teams of people scrambling to find out just who you are/were. Suddenly your favorite book in 3rd grade is a national headline. And people want to know this stuff about you. It's not like the news is solely responsible. They sell what people want. So you go from being an outcast that nobody cares about to be being the talk of the world in just the time it takes to off a few kids. I can see where, in some twisted logic, that might make sense. After all, I'd like to be remembered after I die. When I'm gone, I'd like people to care who I was. I have family and friends that will remember me, and will always care. For someone who doesn't, or doesn't think that they do, maybe this method seems like a good way to go out when combined with a little instability.

 

Guns kinda act like a security drug. And as far as I know it takes a real educated* and mature* individual to freely give up some perceive security.)

Let's examine some more of these 'security drugs':
Fire extinguishers
Life insurance
Health insurance
AEDs
Police
Pepper spray
Home burglar alarms
401K/"rainy day savings"
...

When I think of a person giving up one or all of these 'drugs' voluntarily, the first words that come to mind are not *educated* or *mature*

 

(re WHY the media keeps publicising voilent killers) That is an excellent question.

Because the media are a BUSINESS. News, especially really bad news is their product. It's ugly but it is true. They only show the nice Fireman saving the kitty in the tree when there was "unfortunately" no mass murdering that day.

Like I said, ugly. Quite likely also immoral, since a moral news media would be both balanced in content and more socially responsible in their actions.

The whole thing is a horrible tragic mess. And will keep happening from time to time.

 

Because the media are a BUSINESS. News, especially really bad news is their product. It's ugly but it is true. They only show the nice Fireman saving the kitty in the tree when there was "unfortunately" no mass murdering that day.

Like I said, ugly. Quite likely also immoral, since a moral news media would be both balanced in content and more socially responsible in their actions.

The whole thing is a horrible tragic mess. And will keep happening from time to time.

They wouldn't sell it if we didn't buy it. The fact that they put on this (debatable) immoral show and we gobble it up, is a reflection on us too, not only them.

 

Yep, that's why most people in the UK are wanting an independant press regulator.

We are fed up with people's lives being ruined/ended by the press and its ways.

 

Yep, that's why most people in the UK are wanting an independant press regulator.

We are fed up with people's lives being ruined/ended by the press and its ways.

Yeah, but now you're demanding state censorship. You have to be very careful what you wish for.

 

A common thread in most of these mass shootings is the shooters are, by and large, people who feel disenfranchised by society. Most was socially awkward or otherwise shunned by their community. They feel rejected, powerless, and are desperate enough to take their lives and the lives of others. The weapon of choice is overwhelming guns because they are pleantyful and effecient at killing. Shooters have described the feelings of power they feel when they handle their guns. They are also a stand off weapon, enabling killing at a distance. This allows the attacker to kill indiscriminently and with detachment. Many have untreated mental health issues which intisfies the feelings of disenfranchisement. Add to that our culture which glorifies killing in popular media and games, the shooters may be enacting events that produce the glory missing in thier lives. Some of the killings are 'copycat' acts. John Hinkley shot pres. Regan after watching a movie about the shooting of a president. As total handgun murders have gone down over the last couple decades, these mass killings are increasing in frequency. 2012 is by far the worst year for mass shootings.

 

The fact that underdeveloped countries that are flooded with weapons generally seems to end up in some civil war seems only natural in relation to this. Sure ... guns are not the only thing that will put people in a "fight first, talk later(after we have won or are in a better position of power)" mode.
Hell, I think even developed/western countries are in danger of this if there not careful.

The civil wars that break out were always there, just not reported. Somalia, or practically most of Africa right now still has the ruling class staying in power through mass murder. You don't hear about it because there are no bullets. More sinister means are and have been used, such as starvation, denial of health care to all but the ruling class, slavery, etc. Once those at the bottom find a channel to weapons, bullets start moving, and it's in the news. The news will often neglect the backstory on the war, and concentrate on the "it bleeds, it leads" alone. There are many examples of this if one researches on their own rather than blindly believing ANY form of mass media. It amazes me how the most rational/unbiased and factual news about some happenings in the US come from UK news, Russian Times or once in a while, even Al Jazeera English!

I am unaware of an entirely unbiased news source, other than those that have reporters in a country that stating facts will not have a backlash on them. The source of good information changes with the type and location of the event. It's almost humorous, like the "Hot Sheets" in the Men In Black movie, getting their news from Tabloid headlines.

 

I believe the most unbiased program last year was actually The Daily Show with John Stewart;

 

I believe the most unbiased program last year was actually The Daily Show with John Stewart;

He spins news as comedy, but if you stand back and look rationally, he also has an agenda.

Any news outlet employs humans. Humans all have opinions. When they speak, those opinons show through. Though by using humor to make a statement, and chooses topics based on his opinions, the opinions show through.

Human emotions will always unwittingly twist the truth in the back of their mind with feelings, which they may or may not realize.

This does not point at John Stewart, Night show hosts, or any spokesperson in particular. When people start reasoning with feelings, it reflects in their "accurate reporting", no matter the source.

 

Just read an article on Wall Street Journal.

Some highlights:

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.
Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.
...
Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when "active shooters" were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors.

And the most important tidibt:

In the mid-1960s, many of the killings would have been prevented because the severely mentally ill would have been confined and cared for in a state institution. ... According to a study released in July by the Treatment Advocacy Center, the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has plummeted to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people.

WSJ Full Article