Debate:Why are there mass murderers?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by TheoryOfPractice.

Anybody else from Montreal here? Come drink with me.

Does this not seem like an eerily-familiar headline? Fuck. Bad times indeed. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That fellow should have been a monk; that way at least he would not have been sore over lack of a wife or company. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed that we would never bring up a killing spree like this for political reasons unless CP brought it up first. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!}

Who mentioned politics in connection with this killing spree? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, who brought CP into it? It's basically something sad and horrible, and unfortunately reminiscent of something else sad and horrible. --Kels (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No politics intended, beyond wondering "what the fuck is wrong with people?" Full disclosure: I knew (not as in super-tight friends with, but well enough to say "Hi, how's it going? What you been up to?") one of the women killed in Montreal, so stories like these always get my attention. Men--and people in general--kind of suck sometimes. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good (well, not goog but you should know what I mean) reminder that there are some people with extreme views and then there are people who act on said views. But so long as there are people, this sort of thing will happen. It's nothing to do with lack of school prayer or lack of socialised healthcare or any particular political issue, it just happens sometimes and that's scary because there isn't anything effective that we can really do about it. ^pathetic 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point Armondikov. I remember talking about this a lot when the Virginia Tech shooting happened. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop some lunatic from killing a bunch of people if they want to. Even if all weapons didn't exist you'd have some guy go apeshit with a lawn chair or some other innocuous item. It simply can't be prevented. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet these things have a history--they happen in particular places, some more than others, and at particular times--arguably with increasing frequency here in the US. These events and the things we talk about as being at the root of them--alienation, profound disappointment, misogyny, racism, what-have-you--have a cause/causes, and by just discounting episodes of mass violence to "some people are crazy, these things happen, and there's nothing we can do," we never get around to asking about the social/political/economic/historical roots of both individual occurrences and a broader trend. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do there have to be roots to it at all? I think I can buy that it's all isolated incidents performed by totally insane individuals. It does happen far too often in the US, but it happens a shit-ton everywhere else too.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because some people do not possess the mindset necessary to conform to the strictures that reality and the law ask of them. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And why does this (biological? psychological? cultural? sociological?) fact manifest itself in different ways at different times? Why does it happen in particular ways given X, but in other ways given Y? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that when garbage appears on one's computer screen, or artifacts in one's digital movie, the garbage or artifacts are never exactly the same. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess we should just cancel all the university programmes in criminology, then? Should sociology departments be disbanded too? We'll just tell all the profs, researchers, grad students and undergrads that the answer they've been looking for is "just because." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, "just because" is an answer that, if accepted more often, would probably lower the suicide rate somewhat. But in the constant search for the why and wherefore here, I smell an (unfalsifiable) attempt to scapegoat the system in the place of the murderer. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The guy obviously needed psychological help. If he had gone to a counsellor it 19 years ago this would not have happened. The problem is for counselling to work you need to be a willing participant, we can't force people to go. Society is the way it is, how you cope with it is up to you. We can provide as many free services as you like, but in the end an individual has to choose to use them. - π 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Section in which numbers are made up

Let's say we found out that 1/4 of these whackos had a thing in common. Would it then make sense to try to alleviate that "thing", in order to perhaps lower the frequency of such events? Oh, and by the way, these events are not "common", they are incredibly rare. See "Stupid Global Village" by some jerk on this site. ħuman 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the thing was. If what drove 1/4 of wackos crazy was electricity, you would be hard push to ban it. If it was water fluoridation you could ban it, but you would have to accept higher dental costs. - π 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Define "incredibly rare." My home city has had two murder sprees in two different universities in 20 years, plus another shooting spree that luckily killed only two people. There's probably been something like a school shooting a year--if not a semester--in the past five years in the US alone. These things happen fairly regularly. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Montreal has 6 universities, lets say that they teach 26 weeks in a year like mine, so in twenty years there has been $1.28\times 10^{-4}$ shootings per university day. Not a lot. - π 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Montreal has four universities--McGill, Concordia, Université de Montréal and Université de Québec a Montréal. But that's not the point. The point is that some people seem to think a phenomenon that results in dead people can be chalked up to "just because." I don't buy that. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Université de Sherbrooke and Université Laval according to wiki. Multiply the above number by 3/2 if you like, it will not make a big difference. - π 04:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherbrooke is an hour or so from Montreal. Universite de Laval is in Quebec City, three hours away. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you have $1.92\times 10^{-4}$ shootings per university day in Montreal, still not much of an epidemic. - π 05:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above guy reason seems to be he couldn't get a date. What is your proposal the government runs a mandatory dating agency? - π 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, smartass--but a study on the effects of male sexual frustration and its links to violence in a time where "traditional" gender roles have undergone a major overhaul combined with a new set of sexual mores might prove interesting. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So you want to conduct research that is going to find what? Male sexual frustration, leads to frustration and low self-esteem, which makes them angry, which makes them commit random acts of violence. Big surprise. The issue is how to deal with the frustration and anger, which only the individual can deal with. - π 05:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if he is in "a group with something in common", do we? ħuman 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC²) If "just because" is unsatisfactory, one hypothesis to consider is that nuts tend to make mountains out of molehills, so it could be chalked up to an occurrence in somebody's life that if they were sane would not be noticed, or be taken in stride. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Listener, it could've been any number of things. Maybe he went to that gym and was constantly turned down by women there and just snapped. Maybe he just hated women and thought that would be an easy place to kill a bunch of them. Some people are wrapped too tight and what could seem like a little thing to a sane person can make them blow a fuse. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Section in which guns are discussed

The issues here seems to be (1) easy access to weapons of mass murder (2) lack of access to sex (3) an expectation that you should always be able to get what you want. Seems to be the stereotype of American mores. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think easy access to weapons has a whole lot to do with it. One could easily build a homemade bomb with household chemicals and toss it into an open bus window. The second two definitely apply though. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, easy access to largely defensive weapons of gun make such stupidity so much easier. No chemistry, just go to Walmart and spend a few bucks on a gun and some ammo. Then pull trigger. If the guy in question was smart enough, and stable enough, to play bathroom chemist, he might have had time to rethink his rampage. ħuman 05:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You could use the same argument to outlaw cars on the grounds that someone could drive one onto a crowded square and leave a trail of corpses in its wake. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, and couldn't. The deaths per mile are incredibly low. Now, if an unstable person used a car to kill a bunch of innocent bystanders, I would ask, "why did they want to kill those people". I also, please note, did not argue for outlawing guns. I just pointed out that ready access to them may be part of the problem. ħuman 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm a little baffled that nobody's ever done that. It would be such an easy and quick way to kill a whole bunch of people. Takes no planning and there's not much anyone can do to stop you. Flooring it down Bourbon Street during Mardis Gras comes to mind.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not that effective. The more people you hit the slower your car goes, each victim lessens the chance of there being more. Guns on the other hand keep firing at the same rate. - π 06:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Perhaps one could create a bomb with "simple household chemicals" but delivering it reliably in a stable small package and with sufficient accuracy and explosive force to kill people before they run away is a completely different matter. Guns pack potent portable refillable killing power at a distance and are also phallic symbols. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Some old guy ran his car off the road onto a sidewalk a couple years ago, killed a few. Unplanned, simply incompetent. Problem with mechanism? Can't have shootout with cops/can't kill oneself in agony when done. ħuman 06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"One could easily build a homemade bomb with household chemicals" Yah right. Show me the recipe. However, Walmart does sell rifles and shotguns and ammo (not to pick on Walmart, for once, they're not the only dealers), and in 'Murka, it's your god-given right to buy them, with almost no checking on your state of mind. "Homemade bombs" are great way to commit accidental suicide. Firearms are pretty clear as to which end does the killing and which end does the pointing. ħuman 06:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never built a bomb or made napalm in my garage, so there's no recipes on hand here. However, unless I'm mistaken both are simple to make, though dangerous. I know high school students have managed to make bombs using household supplies.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All of a sudden I am so convinced how easy it is to make murder machines out of household supplies. Oh, that don't kill the builder. ħuman 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made several homemade weapons including projectile devices, napalm and homemade caltrops. It aint hard. Oh yeah, and a really nasty gas device. As of yet I havent made Anfo yet though I know how but its delicate and really scary. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 07:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you have ;) However, for $300 I could pick up a machine and supplies that is safe to use, has an obvious tube thing to point at the people I hate, and relatively safe individual capsules of death I can load into it. Beats playing fight club in your basement by a long shot. ħuman 07:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, I get nervous cleaning my bathtub, since bleach and ammonia are such great friends. ħuman 07:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

@Human - what do you think I made my gas bomb from? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 08:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is obviously potentially possible to turn many things into murder weapons the fact is that it doesn't happen that often. Guns are designed to make holes in people, they are very good at it, they don't usually require vast technical knowledge, they can be used at a distance, they present little or no danger to the user, they can be put into operation very quickly. That is why armies use them. It's what they are for. It is not surprising that they are the murder weapon of choice in societies which have little control over them.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, guns make holes in targets. Are such targets at least, tasty? ħuman 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Section in which OneForLogic wastes time at work

Reading about this in the news has got me pondering on how this kind of tragedy should best be prevented again. For some reason, I often start this line of pondering by vaguely disapproving of the media coverage of this guy’s life and prominent showcasing of this his online ramblings, since such coverage gives him what he wanted, attention and recognition. This only leads me to avoiding following links to his stuff, though, and hasn’t led to any other brilliant insights about the workings of the MSM.

I agree with the apparent majority of you that believe that Americans can access guns too easily. The lack of standardized state gun control laws is a serious problem, made worse by the related problem that our states and various law enforcement agencies are terrible at communicating with each other. Things are then made even worse by the fact that some stubborn Republican got it written into one of the more recent (meaning 20-ish years ago, I think) gun control laws that the federal government can’t keep a central database on gun owners. These things need major reform to fix. While we’re at it, we should consolidate our federal law enforcement apparatus into a smaller number of agencies with a simpler arrangement of jurisdictions. The only reason we have so many separate agencies is that the egos controlling them can’t let go.

Beyond legal streamlining, though, the rest of the solution is a lot less clear. We obviously need some way to identify the people with anger or other mental issues, the incompetent, or the reckless, and add them to the list of “people not allowed to have guns” (it’s my understanding that gun control laws in a majority of states provide for something like this). How do you identify such people? There’s no obvious way to do it fairly and accurately. We don’t currently possess any reliable method for predicting the behavior of individuals; in my opinion, the quality and reliability of modern psycho-analysis ranges from poor to comically bad. Anyone taken a Rorschach test recently? That would be an example of the latter. We can use statistics and data collection to study the behavior of large groups of people and predict some things with useful accuracy. We can also analyze the actions of neurons, and we’re starting to understand some of the things that happen when they form networks and specialized tissue regions. Understanding an individual person’s behavior lies in the gap between these. Working toward the middle from both sides (population stats and biology) will give us a better understanding of individual behavior as time goes on, but we’re still a very long way from predicting which people will shoot up public places with their legal handguns. Until then, identifying and stopping these people will remain difficult.

OneForLogic 199.46.199.231 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting into "Minority Report" stuff; I put that we will never be able to predict who will "shoot up public places." ListenerX^TalkerX 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So you give up, while admitting the problem? ħuman 04:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whenever talk turns to any topic like this, I think of a line from Mark Twain on the role of the police: "It is not our province to prevent crime, but to punish it. We cannot punish it until it is committed." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, after thinking about it for a while, I think this is the first quote I've heard attributed to Mark Twain that I completely, 100% disagree with. I believe our law enforcement officials should focus a majority of their efforts on deterring and preventing crimes before they are committed. Catching and executing the murderer doesn't being his victim back to life, just to give one example. Do we already have a debate page on this? Or maybe it was something about jails... OneForLogic (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The context of the quote was a situation where it was known that two thieves are about to steal an elephant and the police officer is being asked why he did not arrest the men before they can do the deed.

As to deterrents, there are the arguments that (1) to act in a preemptive fashion there is effectively to treat many non-criminals as potential criminals (over-restrictive gun laws, for example), and (2) the punishment of a detected murderer acts as a deterrent to those who would murder in the future. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The debate I was thinking about was here. It didn't really turn into much. LEOs certainly need to be highly confident of a criminal's intent if they act truly preemptively. However, in most kinds of organized crime and terrorism, for example, having sufficient knowledge of the movements, communications, and financial activities of the suspects will often provide plenty of info on their intent. Even in premeditated crimes carried out by lone individuals, there are usually signs indicating this intent. I'm not advocating 24/7 surveillance of ordinary citizens, but I'm definitely in favor of LEOs promptly investigating tips of potential crimes in planning or in progress, and I'm also strongly in favor of the aforementioned ordinary citizens being alert to and concerned about suspicious behavior.

The effectiveness of the possibility of detection, arrest, and punishment is, in my mind, a very open question. There's a lot of psychology that needs to be done before we can really know now effective this mode of deterrent really is. I tend to be skeptical. People involved in things like organized crime and terrorism tend to do so because they believe they are too smart/talented/lucky/whatever to be caught or that their cause is more important than the risk of getting caught. People that plan out things like revenge or serial/mass killings generally have similar beliefs. A small fraction of criminals commit crimes because they want to get caught or killed by law enforcement. The threat of possible punishment will also never have much effect on spontaneous crimes of opportunity or passion.

More specific open questions here are things like: what proportion of crimes did these and similar examples (where the deterrent just isn't very effective) account for? and: how does the effectiveness of the "threat of punishment" deterrent scale with the effectiveness of your law enforcement force (since there is definitely a correlation)? I don't have the answers to these questions. OneForLogic (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about, no one with mental issues can buy guns? Or better yet, no one without a good reason to buy or own a gun can? Oh, shoot, yah, in 'Merka "everyone" is special and can own firearms. ħuman 04:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am all right with the exception for mental issues, but having to justify oneself to the State in order to purchase a gun would create mounds of red tape and also the opportunity for politically motivated abuse of the relevant laws. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool, we agree. No one who might be an idiot should be able to buy a gun. Actually, if it weren't for the 300 million-odd guns in the US already, I'd be happy with banning them. But, yeah, they's already more guns than people. We're fucked. ħuman 05:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't they already have restrictions like that, where if you've been committed to a mental hospital you can't buy a firearm? What would you consider a good reason to own a gun?--EcheNegraMente ^{Am I asleep or awake?} 04:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Barely so, convicted felons can't buy guns, etc. here in USA. ħuman 05:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's actually better restrictions than I thought, which is encouraging. I especially like the ones with domestic violence and restraining orders.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{My voice just echoes off these walls} 05:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably true. Looking at it that way makes my last statement that much more meaningful. Can anyone think of a good alternative? OneForLogic (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I spoke too soon. Compact, concealable weapons that can reliably incapacitate a person at ranges similar to those of handguns without killing them would be nice. Soft, bullet size tazers? Electrolasers? Something more realistic? OneForLogic (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tranquilizer darts?--EcheNegraMente ^{Am I asleep or awake?} 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about that. A couple problems: 1, they would require a dangerously potent tranquilizer to work as quickly as a good size bullet does, and 2, people could modify them to put all kinds of insidious things in them besides tranquilizers. I think I'd rather just get shot after thinking of that. OneForLogic 199.46.199.231 13:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And then the Boston Police "accidentally" killed a young lady a few years back using "non-lethal" techniques. ħuman 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All that tells us is what we already know: "NON-lethal" is a misnomer. It always was; that's why I didn't use the term here. The more correct term is "LESS-lethal". No such system will ever be 100% effective and 100% safe at the same time. OneForLogic 199.46.199.231 13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)