'There's This Really Consistent Pathway': How Society Can Stop Mass Shooters Before They Act

[brooklynite]

Politico

Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.

Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.

Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions. POLITICO talked to Peterson and Densely from their offices in St. Paul, Minn., about how our national understanding about mass shooters has to evolve, why using terms like “monster” is counterproductive, and why political talking points about mental health need to be followed up with concrete action.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. That explains a lot. /nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. We know what causes crime. If we gave a shit about it, we'd throw money at those causes instead

of the cops, over and over and over again.

[Backseat Driver]

8. Would there ever be ENOUGH money thrown at stomping out the causes of crime?

Who would throw it there and how much should each adult at what age, adjusted for some activities variously by both federal and state levels, at 14, at 16, at 18, some at 21, some at 25/26, several at older levels of maturity (a subjective word) and/or being too old (also subjective), too fat or petite, for other activities, including sentenced being in jail for life? How much should POC pay versus single/married/pregnant women; the disabled by injury, illness, or mental capacity; the smokers, the ones who refuse vaccines or public masking? Heck, any organized group that took a notion NOT TO PAY! The obedient People would soon all be broke and the oligarchs, rulemaking to their own benefit, as always, would, as always, be competitive to those others' death, eventually their own I'd suppose.

Irresponsible access and opportunity (less so) is the solution to most of the assault weapon violence problem!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Staggering that this isn't getting more attention. Actual answers.

And yet, somehow not surprising at all.

[Backseat Driver]

9. Broken families, bullying, unemployment, obedient duty w/o love, ignorance, access, and opportunity

Seems it's related to our brain's limbic system - the mysteries of the self-adjusting, sentient, perceiving brain moment to moment...hmmmm - SMH at our species "discriminations."

[usonian]

4. K&R I read the article. It really explains a lot, and gives real suggestions for prevention.

There are usually "warnings" issued before these events.

If you treat them as a cry for help (which they are) rather than a "pre-crime" ... subject to the rules and regulations and failures of law enforcement, then there really is a pathway.

In the former case, the kid gets help.
In the latter case, you can argue that Facebook had information tantamount to "crime in progress" and bears responsibility, though it seems that information is of no use (9/11) if it just sits there.

Prefer the kids getting help, whether or not our "Libertarian" Ayn Rand society likes it or not.
One person's failure or success really affects the failure or success of others.

Heresy --- my specialty.
You need the band-aid AND the medicine.

[Solly Mack]

5. K&R

[dpibel]

6. There's this really consistent weapon...

No school shooter used a six-shot revolver.

Weird how that works.

So, sure. We can screen for the killer characteristics.

Fact remains: If they don't have the horrendous weapons, they can't do the horrendous crimes.

[myccrider]

7. My thought exactly.

People in other developed countries have mental health problems, too (and many probably have better mental health resources than we do, but not all of them). The huge elephant in the room is WHY mass murders are so rare in these other countries! The glaring difference between them and us is easy access to nearly unregulated mass murdering firearms.

I agree that those who are suicidal need help, seriously, whether or not they’re thinking of taking others with them. IMO, though, control and regulation of access to all guns will do more to prevent the next school shooting and the next gun suicide and the next family fight that ends in murder and, and, and.