This is just a casual observation, but whenever the subject of mass shooters comes up, people want to talk about damaged masculinity. And I have no doubt that in some cases young men get frustrated by their social and sexual inadequacies and this results in a simmering violent and often misogynistic rage. Maybe, more broadly, there’s some truth that a certain subset of men feel disempowered by changing gender roles and female autonomy, and this makes an even smaller subset capable of going off and deciding to kill a bunch of strangers.
But I always apply a simple test to these theories. Is there anything unique about American men when it comes to social awkwardness or inability to attract women? Aren’t gender roles in much of Europe just as evolved as they are here?
Any theory that does not account for the fact that mass shootings are much more common in America than they are elsewhere just isn’t convincing to me. The omnipresence of guns seems to me to be what distinguishes us most from other advanced countries. I don’t discount other cultural factors as possible explanations, but they have to be unique, or nearly so. It’s possible that the copycat effect plays some role, so that once you have a few mass shootings, you’re more likely to have more of them. But that can’t explain all of the difference.
I come back to the availability of guns. Guns, and a violent culture.
Tell me why I’m wrong.
You are not.
You are 100% right
“I come back to the availability of guns. Guns, and a violent culture.
Tell me why I’m wrong.”
You are correct. It’s obvious to anyone who cares to have concern about this. Otherwise, we’re just discussing craven narcissistic parasites or clearly brainwashed & deluded gun fetishists.
Yes, there have been a few similar incidents of mass shootings on other countries such as the UK, Australia and Finland. The operative term here is: “few.” Australia changed it’s gun laws and collected guns, and guess what? Gun violence decreased. Face to palm!!! Whut a concept – eh, mate?
Sure, there’s room to assume that a few males could be bullied and such and find a way to turn to guns to solve their problems, but it wouldn’t be as easy to do that, if there weren’t so many d*mn guns that readily available. The end.
I’ve read and heard on the radio investigative reports that indicates that a lot of these young men seek to emulate the Columbine shooters, in particular. It’s my understanding that the Columbine situation is still some kind of “talisman” for certain disaffected youth as a “go to” for how to behave. It’s my understanding that they perceive it as a way to gain fame and notoriety, even they may end up dead in the process.
I cannot claim to comprehend this, but that’s what I’ve heard and read (my words but I believe this is more or less the gist of it). Our society has long glorified violence as means to an end, and especially as a means to “get your way.” It’s all around us all the time, and reports to the contrary that all of this violence has “no impact” is a load of crap IMO.
Combine that with super easy access to a plethora of weapons, and this is the logical outcome.
Everyone’s whining and crying about the killings recently in San Bernardino. I’m sorry about that, too, but I fail to see how it’s ANY DIFFERENT from all the rest of the mass killings that occur in this country on a routine and regular basis… just bc the couple that did that appeared to have a very very loose tie to ISIS. Seriously, everyone bends themselves into a pretzel about that, but what changes? Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
It’s totally nuts. I feel much less safe being around young white gun nuts than I fear being randomly killed by someone from ISIS. But I definitely hear a LOT of citizens freaking out about ISIS. That, too, is, IMO, totally nuts. But it’s just what the NRA and the guns and ammo industry wants. Ba da boom ba da bing.
Consider the phrase: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, replace “guns” with “nuclear bombs” or “anthrax letters”, and the phrase becomes absurd. But that doesn’t stop it from being something of a mnemonic device to affirm one’s belief in the primacy of guns in society. Of course, availability of guns is relevant. To expect rational reasoning from irrational unreasonable beings might be asking too much?
The availability of guns is highest in the US, but still quite high in Canada… The number of mass shootings per capita in Canada is much lower than in the US.
I don’t it’s “damaged masculinity” or “changing Gender roles” that lies behind the fact that the vast majority of mass shooters are men.
I think that there’s something else happening:
White men are inculcated from birth with multiply-reinforced self-identities around power. White men are powerful, white men run things, white men are successful, white men are superheroes, white men own things, white men DO things, white men WIN things.
When none of that turns out to be true for the vast majority of white men… when one is not successful, rich, desired, and automatically “a winner” because of one’s white maleness, there is a serious cognitive disconnect.
There are some basic conclusions that can be reached from that point of disconnection: 1) I was lied to, 2) I was cheated, 3) I am a loser/failure … those are the basic root conclusions that are reached.
The first conclusion often leads to political activism (in the extreme, it becomes nihilism). The second leads to vengeful bitterness. The third leads to self-destructive depression.
In an unstable individual, those conclusions lead to violent ideation and from there to violent reification of those ideas.
Add the availability of guns, and there you go.
The fact that gun violence is so heavily dominated by male perpetrators PLUS the fact that mass shootings are most commonly perpetrated by white males indicates that it’s not JUST gun availability that makes it so. Of course that availability makes it much easier, and therefore more likely… but the availability is a mechanism, not a cause.
Full employment policies with decent wages would probably make the whole “not a winner” thing easier to live through. All white men can not end up in the top of the society if there is going to be equality, but at least you are needed, make a contribution to society, can move out and start a life. There can still be resentment for not being on top of the world, but at least you have the basics and can create a new story of your life based on that.
Add less free time for brooding, more connections with society and other adults and a stronger position in relation with your boss.
I agree on the availability of guns.
Not sure about violent culture, at least not as it’s typically been meant in my experience. That has to be fleshed out a bit. After all, they play Doom and watch The Wire in Yurp, too. And a lot of the violent music has its roots in Northern Europe.
It does seem like the PUA culture and associated victim mentality is a bigger thing here and has greater infrastructure on the web than in other countries, but that might well simply reflect my lack of exposure to those sorts from other countries, and I’ve no data to back it up.
I think if it is the culture, it is the gun culture, not the violent culture.
We have a lots of guns in Sweden mainly rifles and we at least have had a lot of assault rifles stored at private homes as part of the defense. Though a lot in Swedish context is probably still much less then in the US. And we have Doom, violent movies and death metal. But we rarely have school attacks and the only one I can think of right now was made with swords.
What we don’t have is small rifles made for kids, we rarely pose with guns on facebook and we don’t hand out guns for opening a bank account. The whole gun fetisch thing seems rather unique for the US, so if it is a culture component, that is where I would look.
How many days go by without a report of an individual (usually a man) murdering (usually with a gun) his/her spouse or SO, and often including the children and themselves? How many mass shooters had a spouse or SO before they went on their rampage? The San Bernardino killers were unusual in that regard but not unique and likely forged their bond over a shared desire to kill many people that in their minds were their enemies. (Same with the couple in Las Vegas.)
Guns make shootings and killing so much easier and more prevalent than they would otherwise be when the culture is violent, sexist, and/or racist. How to get rid of them in the US is the conundrum when guns are embedded in the culture as a “god given right own.”
interesting talk on the radio recently about this; the guy pointed out that we’ve had lots of guns for a long time, but school/ movie theater shootings are a recent phenomenon. he pointed out that previously, with the draft, such impulses were channeled into wartime activity. nowadays, shredding of social fabric means no one catches these potential shooters until too late. so, actually, I’d have to disagree with you.
McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had been in the military and Nidal Hassan was in the military (to name just three) and there’s a very high incidence of spousal abuse and murders among active and retired military people.
My comment wasn’t about spousal abuse, I consider that a separate problem. critical problem, of course, but different. Sorry I don’t know the name of the guy who was talking, it was fascinating and very constructive.
my comment really was about the lone mass killers; domestic terrorism I would consider a distinct category though social fabric a factor in both but motivations and types of persons and how to address different; of course McVeigh was out of the military at the time to which you refer. spousal abuse not a social fabric issue in my book, it’s about social conventions re: women
My point is that mass killers have been in the military; so I’m not seeing where military service would reduce the relatively low incidence of mass killers. Plus, some of those mass shooters wouldn’t even be accepted for service.
Added the point about those that have/are in the military and have killed their spouses because the military service doesn’t seem to be an antidote for killing those close to one or strangers.
well my points were 1 – domestic violence is a separate category so leave that out of discussion since it’s irrelevant, ppl in and not in military service are involved in domestic violence 2- the guy’s point was that I- ppl have had lots of guns for a long time; what is happening now that is different? II- etc
You’re boiling everything down to individual motivation, assuming social context is uniform. you need to see the variability in the social context. for that reason I recommended you read Mary Douglas, try Purity and Danger, for example.
“Aren’t gender roles in much of Europe just as evolved as they are here?”
No … even amongst European nations there is no common gender culture. There is a world of difference between “enlightened” western Europe and the former Soviet states. NATO exploits the “masculinity” of New Europe for their agressive stance to renew a Cold War stand-off with Russia.
The common denominator of mass shootings is a developmental disorder during upbringing. A second order effect is the “masculinity” to offset the neglect – inferiority complex – blaming society for personal woes. The gun is a handy piece to enforce one’s “masculinity” due to inherent culture of America and its history of expansion to the West and living by the gun.
Switzerland due to its national defence has a broad possession of arms in every household.
The mass shootings in Germany, The Netherlands, or Norway are committed by loners with a personality disorder. The lack of care for mentally ill citizens is a aggravating factor in the number of shootings.
○ 8 killed ‘execution-style’ in Pike Co.; shooter ‘extremely dangerous’ AG says
WaPo: Saudi government has vast network of PR, lobby firms in U.S.
Have to wonder how much of the content produced by Qorvis made its way down to budding jihadists.
Lee Fang reported on this two years ago.
Fang is such a great reporter. Always thought so.
Bowling for Columbine, a documentary film written and directed by Michael Moore, explores this topic in some depth. It also compares the cultural attitudes of Canadians and Americans on guns and other issues.
Since you ask about what’s different from Western Europe, Josh Marshall had this interesting point about how high murder rates are a characteristic of both North and South America. It is also very regional — i.e., cultural — within the USA. He suggests that New England is not that much different than Western Europe (or Canada?) while the South is much higher than the rest of the US:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-history-of-violence-the-international-terrain-of-murder
Why? “these were all in critical ways engineered societies based on various kinds of forced labor and violence.”
Here is an article I found that shows the regional US dependence:
http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151223/NEWS/151229660
I realize the homicide rate is not the same thing as mass gun shootings, but they are likely related.