The New Rampage Mentality

[SecularMotion]

The usual explanations of a rampage such as the recent Aurora, Colorado, massacre focus on the killer's baffling motives and access to weapons. The murderer may have been enraged, depressed, mad for attention, paranoid, or otherwise mentally ill. We now know that the Columbine killer Eric Harris was in the grip of rage, while Dylan Klebold was seriously depressed. Workers who "go postal" often act out revenge. Almost half of the rampage killers in one study had shown symptoms of mental illness.(1) More than a few are suicidal.

While such explanations are often reasonable, they overlook a basic question. Whatever the motive, why does it take the predictable form of an indiscriminate assault with guns blazing? Why this model and not another?

Yes, American life is saturated with guns and heroic stories about guns. Assault rifles, the personal equivalent of weapons of mass destruction, are readily available. And in the most extravagantly militarized country in history, about half of rampage killers have had military training - far more than ordinary murderers. Headline news and movies provide lavish models to follow.

But why pull the trigger?

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11148-the-new-rampage-mentality

[PDJane]

1. Too many movies where the guy with the guns gets too much attention.

[BlueToTheBone]

2. Why? most people can't use that small space

between the act and the reaction...it's as though it is one motion. But there is that small space that with practice grows larger. But it takes practice. There is very little training as small children to learn to halt between the act and the reaction to it. As one grows older, it's as though there isn't a space because it's been ignored for so long.

[glacierbay]

3. Assault Rifles that are readily available?

Do you even read what you post? That's as far as I got before I realized it's just another bullshit opinion.

[gejohnston]

4. nothing new about it

and none of it unique to the US. They do fit a profile. I have a question, what is with oped by people who don't know what they are talking about?

http://criminology.blog.co.uk/2010/06/03/spree-killers-an-enigmatic-breed-8726165/


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/04/20114911380802422.html
The article is incorrect about one thing, it was a semi automatic, not a machine gun. Early reports, including this one, did say that he had an automatic weapon.

[Starboard Tack]

5. The technical correctness about the weapon(s) is irrelevant

It is not unique to the US, just way, way more prevalent.

[gejohnston]

6. largely because of our larger population

and the media's habit of hyping them to the point of encouraging copy cats. Do you have any evidence that the rate per captia is higher in the US?

[Trunk Monkey]

10. It's not irrelevant

Especially when there are restrictionistas out there like Josh Sugarmann who have stated they want the general public confused on the difference between an actual full auto Assault Rifle and a semi automatic look alike, for the express purpose of getting people to go along with laws banning the latter.

[Remmah2]

12. There's no excuse for the ignorance of the author.

The author has an ax to grind but doesn't know which side of the ax to sharpen. A complete lack of professionalism.

[ileus]

7. Assault rifles = Weapons of Minimal Destruction

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Why do people get into high speed pursuits?

Can't fucking outrun Motorola. Doomed the moment you start, except in VERY rare cases.

[Union Scribe]

9. I give credit to that author for trying

to think outside the box, though I'm not convinced by all the arguments. Like that bungee jumpers are a symptom of a society in "berserk" mode. I really can't see the link between thrill-seeking and thrill-KILLING, even if both are chasing a vaguely similar feeling of invincibility. One is cheating death, one becoming it. But I am interested in the observation of how generally belligerent and aggressive our ideas of success and power have become.

Not a bad read this time, Mr. Motion.

[Remmah2]

11. Godwin's law in five paragraphs.

"Even in lunatic failure, Hitler has achieved a sort of immortality."

[Missycim]

13. He should have named the article

"Terms Of Rampagnement" (tm)

[Atypical Liberal]

14. That was an awful long arc that arrived at a completely unrelated point.

The article is a long-winded stab at our violent, apathetic culture, which I largely agree with, and then ends on this paragraph:

"More than just macho, such thinking is icily callous toward others. It shows up as gun sales surge "in the US in the wake of the Colorado massacre as buyers express fears that politicians may use the shootings to seek new restrictions on owning weapons" (AP, 25 July 12). The purchasers want to be able to kill in a pinch. Never mind that data shows that guns bought for self-defense are likely to kill the wrong people. The fantasy is that in the midst of mayhem, on the edge of control, the righteous gun owner will magically triumph over death."

Which is completely unrelated. It's like the author felt the need to somehow tie their monologue into gun control at the last second.

The idea that people buy guns because they "want to be able to kill in a pinch" is ridiculous. This is like saying people buy spare tires because they want to have flats, or they wear seat belts because they want to have car accidents. People buy such contingency tools in case of such crises happening, not because they look forward to them.

The fantasy is that in the midst of mayhem, on the edge of control, the righteous gun owner will magically triumph over death.

This implies that self-defense is a fantasy, and of course that isn't true - many people have successfully defended themselves with a firearm.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that most people failed at successfully defending themselves with a firearm, or that more people were hurt by keeping firearms than by successfully defending themselves with them.

So what?

If I told you that you were going to be the victim of a violent crime, and you could either have the tools that might help you resist that crime, and accept the risks of having that tool, or that you could forgo the tool and not have the risk, which would you choose?

I think most people accept the idea of taking control and responsibility for their own destiny, including the risks that go with making those kinds of decisions.

We do this every day. People decide to have swimming pools put in for the enjoyment, exercise, and ability to learn how to swim and teach their kids to swim, in spite of the risk of people drowning in it. We do this because people never think it will be their child drowning in the pool, and because even though every year some 3500 people drown, millions upon millions enjoy swimming.

The same thing with driving a car, or going sky diving. People take responsibility for their own actions and accept the risks that go with them.

Owning a firearm is no different. Yes, I realize that my firearms might cause accidental death or injury to my family members (which is why I keep them locked up). Yes, I realize that a criminal might use them against me. But when it comes to being able to defend myself and my family, I want a gun for that task should the need ever arise. Even if it means there is a risk associated with having guns. Even if that risk were higher than the odds of my successfully defending myself or my family!

[Common Sense Party]

15. New? What's new? Evil and crazy people have always existed.

Ernst August Wagner in the 1910s.

Howard Unruh in the late '40s.

Charles Starkweather in the 1950s.

Rampages are not new.

[4th law of robotics]

16. So . . . we invented the rampage in 2012?