I'll try to make this not be "TLDR".
With the recent news of school shootings, vegas shootings, Austin bomber, etc... There has been a lot of discussion about mass murder and the causes and ideas to prevent it.
Not having any training in psychology, I (and I am sure many others) still try to make some sort of sense of it and try to understand what would cause someone to perform such heinous acts against their fellow humans.
I had some thoughts come to me while driving yesterday which I have attempted to put into writing. It makes sense to me, but as I said, my only education in the subject is life.
Very simplified, it requires 3 things for someone to commit mass murder: Capacity, Capability, Opportunity
Capacity: They must have the mental capacity to kill without remorse, or with no regard for remorse. Some may consider this the "mental illness" part of the equation. The Sociopath who has no conscience; or the person who just got angry enough that he doesn't care; or perhaps is so upset that he or she wants to be noticed and sees this as a way to do it. This is probably a spectrum. Some people may not be able to kill even in self-defense and others perhaps only in self-defense, or if in a sudden rage.
Capability: This is with regards to either physical ability, and/or access to the "tools" that would allow for murder or mass murder. A paraplegic may have no regard for human life and could wish death on many, but has no capability to make it happen. This would also be where access to the weapons that make murder on a large scale possible would fit into the equation. If you don't have the capacity to kill, you could have access to the button for a nuclear weapon, and still be considered "safe" with it. If, however, you were a sociopath, society wouldn't want you around any weapons if it could be avoided.
Opportunity: This is the part of the equation which may be controlled via walls, protection, access, etc... Metal detectors etc... make an attempt to keep the "capability" (weapons) away from the "opportunity" (large crowds). A person with the capacity to kill, and a large cache of weapons could be considered "safe" if he could just be kept away from anyone else. This is probably the hardest to control because "opportunity" is everywhere.
Just some thoughts. I think that in any serious discussion of "why does this happen", and "how can we prevent it", all three of these parts of the equation need to be considered. I believe there are too many "one trick pony" responses which attempt to address only 1 of these and the response from their detractors invariably focus on one of the others as the blame or as a better method of prevention.
In my opinion, a huge issue is that our society has developed more people with the "capacity" to kill than existed in the relatively recent past. Much of our culture has lost a sense of the sacredness of human life. If we aren't made in the image of God, then we're really no different than (or more important than) any other animal. If the larger society believes that one subset of humanity is not worthy of protection, (unborn, infirm, criminal, etc...) then is it any stretch to just add another segment of humanity to that list? Most people wouldn't make that leap, but some will; and the more people the larger society treats as not worthy of protection, the more additional "exceptions" are likely to be made by those on the edge.
With the recent news of school shootings, vegas shootings, Austin bomber, etc... There has been a lot of discussion about mass murder and the causes and ideas to prevent it.
Not having any training in psychology, I (and I am sure many others) still try to make some sort of sense of it and try to understand what would cause someone to perform such heinous acts against their fellow humans.
I had some thoughts come to me while driving yesterday which I have attempted to put into writing. It makes sense to me, but as I said, my only education in the subject is life.
Very simplified, it requires 3 things for someone to commit mass murder: Capacity, Capability, Opportunity
Capacity: They must have the mental capacity to kill without remorse, or with no regard for remorse. Some may consider this the "mental illness" part of the equation. The Sociopath who has no conscience; or the person who just got angry enough that he doesn't care; or perhaps is so upset that he or she wants to be noticed and sees this as a way to do it. This is probably a spectrum. Some people may not be able to kill even in self-defense and others perhaps only in self-defense, or if in a sudden rage.
Capability: This is with regards to either physical ability, and/or access to the "tools" that would allow for murder or mass murder. A paraplegic may have no regard for human life and could wish death on many, but has no capability to make it happen. This would also be where access to the weapons that make murder on a large scale possible would fit into the equation. If you don't have the capacity to kill, you could have access to the button for a nuclear weapon, and still be considered "safe" with it. If, however, you were a sociopath, society wouldn't want you around any weapons if it could be avoided.
Opportunity: This is the part of the equation which may be controlled via walls, protection, access, etc... Metal detectors etc... make an attempt to keep the "capability" (weapons) away from the "opportunity" (large crowds). A person with the capacity to kill, and a large cache of weapons could be considered "safe" if he could just be kept away from anyone else. This is probably the hardest to control because "opportunity" is everywhere.
Just some thoughts. I think that in any serious discussion of "why does this happen", and "how can we prevent it", all three of these parts of the equation need to be considered. I believe there are too many "one trick pony" responses which attempt to address only 1 of these and the response from their detractors invariably focus on one of the others as the blame or as a better method of prevention.
In my opinion, a huge issue is that our society has developed more people with the "capacity" to kill than existed in the relatively recent past. Much of our culture has lost a sense of the sacredness of human life. If we aren't made in the image of God, then we're really no different than (or more important than) any other animal. If the larger society believes that one subset of humanity is not worthy of protection, (unborn, infirm, criminal, etc...) then is it any stretch to just add another segment of humanity to that list? Most people wouldn't make that leap, but some will; and the more people the larger society treats as not worthy of protection, the more additional "exceptions" are likely to be made by those on the edge.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
