It's barely a year since Orange County suffered its deadliest mass murder when eight people were killed by a lone gunman at a Seal Beach salon. Since that tragedy, dozens more have been killed in similar massacres, victims of a disturbing increase in mass murders.
July brought the Aurora movie theater massacre, in which 12 people were killed and 58 wounded. A UC Irvine professor was arrested in late July before carrying out what authorities say was a plot to shoot, in his own words, 200 students at an Irvine high school. In August, there was the shooting at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin that left seven dead. In October, a gunman killed three women in a beauty salon in Casselberry, Fla. A few days later, another gunman killed three women and wounded four at a Brookfield, Wis., beauty salon.
Last month, two people were killed and another critically injured when a gunman strolled into an Oregon Mall and opened fire in the food court. Today, a gunman rained fire on an elementary school in
How could this happen? Why do there seem to be so many mass murders lately?
Mass murders, in fact, are occurring more frequently in the United States, said Dr. Alan J. Lipman, a clinical psychologist at the George Washington University Medical Center and the founder of the Center for the Study of Violence.
Lipman, who has been studying mass murders for three decades, said he's noticed a snowball effect over the last decade as more mass murders are committed.
Friday’s tragedy appears to have similarities to other recent attacks, Lipman said.
As with the shooters at the Oregon mall, the Aurora movie theater and the Tucson massacre in which 18 people were shot along with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Connecticut shooter was reportedly a man in his early 20s.
“This is happening more and more with a certain kind of person,” Lipman said.
The early 20s are a key age for people vulnerable to developing psychosis. Mental illness combined with some sort of acute stress can trigger a psychotic break from reality, said Lipman. A U.S. Secret Service study of mass murders found that 90 percent of the killers had an underlying mental illness compounded by some kind of stressful event in their lives, added Lipman.
In the case of the alleged Connecticut shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, his parents were divorced, and police said he killed his mother first before heading to the school where she worked to open fire on students and administrators, Lipman said.
“Why did he shoot the kids? At that point, his life is over, and the kids become targets of his vengeance,” Lipman said. “He’s so angry, he wants to make the whole world disappear around him.”
Lipman links technology, globalization and the fast pace of life with an increase in mass murders. It’s similar to the Arab Spring, when technology and globalization sped up the pace of the revolution by enabling people to connect and act.
For potential killers, the Internet can increase the stress they are exposed to, he said. They can go online, read paranoid fantasies, learn about military regalia and read about other mass murders, said Lipman.
“These environmental stresses have a pipeline into the souls of individuals at any given moment,” Lipman said. Added to that, “you have a person who is on the edge. He is a ticking time bomb. He has a genetic disposition to be more violent, and he suddenly experiences a stressful event that triggers the break. It’s called the diathesis stress model."
It’s rarely the case that there are no signs of mental illness prior to such violence, said Lipman. These people fall through the cracks, in part, because there is a diffusion of responsibility, society’s collective unwillingness to risk the embarrassment of wrongfully butting-in when someone seems off, said Lipman.
He encourages people to get over the fear of interfering. If someone seems unusually stressed or agitated, ask them how they are doing, said Lipman. If it is a family member or friend, offer to go with them to get help. The best way to prevent such tragedies is to be attuned to signs of illness, to overcome the stigma of mental illness and intervene to get help, added Lipman.
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IN THE COMMENTS
What do you think is behind the rise in mass murders, and what can we do to prevent such tragedies?
"Nukes do not kill people, people kill people. So we prevent people from getting nukes. Same with guns." You seem to be missing something. We already do background checks and forbid the sales of guns to certain criminals and those who have been shown to be mentally imbalanced. So those laws are already in place. There is really nothing more we can do there....unless you want to start banning guns from people of various socio-economic, religious or political classes. Is that what you want to do? Your reply would be appreciated.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had at least read the article (was not a study). I guess that ends this discussion
Obama and the anti-gun advocates will try to make hay while the sun shines to 'save the children'. And the media will do everything it can to help them. But the American public would never allow them to implement strict 'gun control' like you see in Mexico or some of the Euro nations. That barn door was opened back in 1776 and the horses all got out. They can't turn back the clock now with 310 non-military firearms in the hands of American citizens. And they know that they can't. So that frog won't get cooked, Mike. And that's what makes them angry. We must remember the origin of lenient gun laws in American. Please read your history. And Pang, yes I agree that the crooked banksters should get prosecuted and jailed. But the banksters literally own the politicians and our justice system. So that won't happen anytime soon. HSBC (one of the largest world banks) just got caught willfully laundering billions in illicit narcotic proceeds for the Mexican and S.A. international drug cartels and fined $1.9B (which is nothing since they have trillions in assets). Besides, they'll just raise their banking fees to make it back in 6 months. Not one banking official was indicted, prosecuted or jailed. That is because they own the politicians (yes, they own the democrats too!). There is your answer.
Er.....well, no. It shouldn't in a legitimate discussion. I pointed some of the recent well publicized shootings/murders in my original comment. None of those cases involved 'assault weapons'. And you have failed to give us an example or two of recent mass killings that involved an 'assault weapon'. But the recent ones (Congresswomen GIffords, Colorado theater, Oregon mall and now this one) did not involve an 'assault weapon', per sey. Only handguns or a single shot rifle. Should we control the sale of gasoline too? Gasoline can be used as a flammable by a firebug arson. Should we forbid people from buying gasoline? Well, should be, Shripathi?
Ah, graduated to another one with the adjective 'legitimate': (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) OK, we can start another discussion. This one where you graduate to using red herrings. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) "Should we control the sale of gasoline too?" We already do. You are required to fill gasoline in a car tank/machinery, and if you are out of gas, and have a can, the amount you can fill is controlled as well. Heck the can has specifications. In emergencies like Sandy, we even ration it. "Gasoline can be used as a flammable by a firebug arson. Should we forbid people from buying gasoline?" Yes, in bulk quantities, and we already do that. Like we regulate sale of certain fertilizers. Oh wait, I see the problem. You are confusing an article demonstrating a statistical basis for renewing the elapsed ban on assault weapons to be the same as a call for forbidding people from buying or owning guns altogether. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) "Well, should be, Shripathi?" As demonstrated above, it is moot, since we already do. That ends this discussion, and the next one. So have at it, you know last word an all...
Baloney. If a crazy pyromaniac had a 5 gallon gas container (available at any large retail store with automotive supplies) he could legally fill it up and no one would stop him. In fact, he could empty it and then go back and fill it up repeatedly. So again, I disagree with you based on the FACTS. Even 5 gallons of gasoline could cause a tremendous amount of damage. So should everyone who purchases gasoline have a background check conducted by the 7-eleven or Shell clerk before the sale is approved, Shripathi? Please continue the discussion. This is fun. And your "nizkor" links fall upon deaf ears. Let me ask you this. Are they neutral on the NRA??? Be honest. If you answer that they are neutral I will research it in an effort to prove you wrong. All we really have on these boards is our credibility. Why not in your own words cite one recent mass shooting or attempted assassination where an 'assault weapon' (by classis defintion) was used. I cited several where 'assault weapons' were not used. Now it's YOUR turn to cite them - and not by linking them. Ready....set.....GO!
Do you have any idea what prompted our beloved Founding Fathers to include the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights, Tyrone? There are citizen soldiers in Red China, Tyrone. How's that working out to stop tyranny and a totalitarian government? I prefer to support our Founding Fathers and refuse to be ruled by emotion. Our Founding Fathers knew best!
And what is the government going to do with all the millions of people who refused to turn their guns over? Throw them all in jail? Do you want prisons on every street corner? Very interesting discussion. Please continue.
Meanwhile, we still struggle to get any safer from ourselves: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/07/img/aurora_chart3.jpg
I'm a gun owner myself and not anti-2nd amendment. But even I recognize that the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned a US federal government dedicating 40+% of it's budget to national defense, 4 massive armies (army, navy, AF and marines) and armaments. Nor could they envision flight, automatic weapons, radar, laser guided missiles, etc. The idea of a militia is largely symbolic and patriotic, so okay. But even if the fateful day came for revolution and overthrow, seeing what happened to those insurgents in Fallujah....not a glorious end.
Secondly, you did not address part 2 of my question. You wanted a citizen army and said that it would protect us from a tyrannical government. Yet, I pointed out that Red China has a citizen army and look at their government. One of the most draconan and tyrannical governments on the face of the planet where people have virtually no rights. And again, how exactly do you get rid of 310,000,000 civililan firearms, Tyrone? And when asked to give them up - who will comply??? The criminals? Of course not. Criminals don't obey the laws. Only the obedient ones would comply putting them at a HUGE INCREASED RISK OF LIFE AND PROPERTY. Like declawing a cat and throwing it in the alleyway to play with alley cats. Do I need to spell it out to you letter by letter, Tyrone?? Your proposal will not work. It will fail. And I just told you why!
You are not a bait swallower! You are a THINKING ADULT and a rare breed these days! God bless you and your family over the holiday season and beyond!
Regrading the Second Amendment, turning it back as it has been interpreted since the late 19th century would be difficult. However, reading the second amendment and using the conservative judicial theory of original intent I believe could outlaw all privately held hand guns, semi automatic rifles, and large caliber weapons. Those weapons would be locked up in community arsenals accessed only by local militias and only in times of national emergencies. That is what the second amendment says. And according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution Congress is allowed to do the following: 1) Provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; 2) Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
You're comments frighten me. You are decribing Red China. But you probably don't even realize it.
Poor Tyrone. He has probably never read the gist of the 2nd Amendment. Here, I will post it for his convenience: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Tyrone, note that it says: "SHALL not be infringed." not "MAY not be infringed." SHALL means cannot be rescinded under any circumstances since they are INALIENABLE right - not man made. There, I hope you learned something. If you need another lesson let me know.
FIRST: As we have seen repeatedly the police are useless and ill trained. Look at Columbine and the shooting afterwards you will see the police hiding behind trees and doing nothing. They do nothing until everything is over. Second: Although they are not entirely at fault the media presents these tragedies mostly as a celebration and blatantly advertise it and promote it a al special anniversary shows. This not only gives the potential crazy advice on how to get world attention but show him what to do. THIRD: Much much more attention needs to be brought upon the drug industry and seriously look at the side effects of anti-depressants. We have already seen these drugs in action for our military and we had our own soldiers killing each other because of the drug. YET the drug has NOT been pulled is still used and not one law suit was allowed to happen. Keep in mind that if the shooter only had a revolver it still would have been a tragedy granted with less dead....... maybe so gun control is not really the answer. I don't pretend to have answers I just think we are being prevented again from asking the right questions.
Thanks for your comment. Let me respond item by item: (1) Yes, the cops have shown to be pretty much worthless at these shootings. They show up after all the damage has already been done. Columbine, V-Tech and now this one. I heard it took the cops about an hour to actually enter the CT school when their station was only a 30 minute walk away from the school. (2) The media is only there to push the government's agenda and to sell advertising. This was obvious during the presidential elections and it's obvious during these tragedies. Now the media will start promoting the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Watch. (3) Joe, I disagree with you here. Anti-depressants help millions of people function. And they help to reduce the anger factor in many people. So SSRI's have deleterious side effects? All drugs do. But for a very low percent of those who take them. How many of these shootings would there be without psychotropic medications, Joe. That is the question you should ask. (4) And the shooter did not have an automatic 'assault weapon' type rifle. As much damage could be caused with a 9mm handgun as the rifle. Rifles are only more effective at long, long distances. All these shootings were said to be at close range. Clips for a 9mm can hold a lot of rounds, Joe.