Why do mass shooters kill? It's about more than having a grievance

It’s all about the narratives. Change the narrative about the narratives and the narrative will change. Is that the narrative?

I believe these motives are too specific. Each shooter’s life story is unique, yet the growing number of mass shootings suggests a general trend that transcends personal details.

Very insightful, if the problem was stable or better yet in decline it makes sense to focus on the individual, because the solution would be about dealing with the exceptions and not the rule, but when the problem becomes generalized as it is now in the US focusing in the individual can make people lose sight of the general situation, which can make finding effective solutions difficult.

Thus, planning and executing a mass shooting is a road to notoriety open to anyone.

If the explanation from Dr Kruglanski is correct the proliferation of mass shootings would be an inevitable consequence, violence is seen as a way to solve an existential problem for some people and guns are an easy option to excert that violence, so more and more people have both the motive and the means.

Third world US gunny culture..

Glorifying violence is a very important feature of US culture, for example in movies and video games, but also with the posture of its military. Even the US Government organizes mass shootings, for example in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Serbia... The violence in the US is a direct consequence of that.

As Christen says, the US glorifies murder. It seems that there is hardly an American program on the TV that does not feature people running around with guns and shooting people.

If people there were not allowed to have guns, there would probably be less shootings.

there is hardly an American program on the TV that does not feature people running around with guns and shooting people

That would've made "Friends" a lot more interesting

No comments from gun supporters.

Quest for significance

Perhaps surprisingly, the general motive that drives mass shootings is a fundamental human need. It is everyone’s quest for significance and a feeling that their life matters.

That need gets activated when someone feels the loss of significance, the sense of being slighted, humiliated or excluded, but also when there is an opportunity for a gain in one’s sense of significance, being the object of admiration, a hero or a martyr in other people’s eyes.

…

And a 2020 review of mass shooting incidents between the years 2010 and 2019 found that 78% of mass shooters in that period were motivated by fame-seeking or attention-seeking – that is, by the quest for significance.

If the need for significance is so fundamental and universal, how is it that mass shooting is an isolated phenomenon perpetrated by a handful of desperate individuals – and not by everyone?

Two factors can push this common human striving into mayhem and destruction.

First, it takes extreme heights of significance craving to pay this high a price for potential notoriety. Shooting is an extreme act that demands self-sacrifice, not only giving up on acceptance in the mainstream society, but also producing a high likelihood of dying in shootouts with law enforcement.

Research shows that about 25% to 31% of mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness, which is likely to induce in them a deep sense of disempowerment and insignificance. But even the remaining 70%-75% with no known pathologies are likely to have suffered extreme significance issues, as attested by their ample statements about humiliation, rejection and exclusion they believe they or their group suffered at the hands of some real or imagined culprits. These feelings can create a one-track significance focus that can ultimately precipitate a mass shooting.

…

Shortcut to stardom

In fact, most highly motivated people satisfy their egos quite differently; they focus their extremism on various socially approved areas: business, sports, the arts, the sciences or politics. Why would some then choose the repugnant road to infamy paved by the massacre of innocents?

There is a method to this madness: The shocked public attention a shooting attracts delivers instantaneous “significance.” Climbing the steep hill of a respectable career, however, is fraught with obstacles and uncertainties. Success is elusive, takes ages to attain, and is inequitably afforded to those with unusual ability, grit or privilege, or some combination of those.

Committing a mass shooting represents a widely available shortcut to “stardom.”

…

Killings celebrated

A final puzzle is this: If significance and respect are what the shooters are after, how come they do things that most people despise?

In today’s fractured public sphere dominated by social media, it is easy to find networks of supporters and admirers for nearly anything under the sun, including the most repugnant and unconscionable acts of cruelty and callousness. In fact, there is ample evidence that mass shooters are celebrated by appreciative audiences and can serve as role models to other would-be heroes who seek to outscore them in casualty counts.

What my colleagues and I call the “Three Ns:” need, narrative and network, refer to the would-be shooter’s need to become significant or notorious, the narrative that says being a shooter means being important, and the network that exists to support such behavior. They together combine into a toxic mixture, driving a person to carry out a mass shooting.

But this framework also suggests how the tide of this horrific epidemic may be stemmed: Negating the narrative that depicts violence as an easy path to significance and dismantling the networks that support that narrative.

The two go together. Disproving the narrative that gun violence is an easy route to fame by making it hard to obtain guns, for instance, and reducing media attention to shooters would reduce the appeal of gun violence to people seeking to feel more significant.

…

Interesting…

but

what about the connection between the number of guns in the country and America ‘s culture of violence?

Yet even someone who really really wants to feel significant is not necessarily going to carry out a mass shooting.

Headline is written in a way to suggest that mass killings only happen in shootouts.

If someone has grievances and wants to make a point he can very well get into a truck and drive over a few folks.

Address the mental health issues by offering support instead of taking the easier way out by talking about gun control.

Why should law abiding folks with self control and a sense of responsibility suffer because of the actions of a few?

No comments from gun supporters.

At a deeper level those who commit crimes and harm others do so because of a lack of belief in the law of cause and effect - they think that by taking the life of others and themseTherefore suggesting gun control without

No comments from gun supporters.

At a deeper level those who commit crimes and harm others do so because of a lack of belief in the law of cause and effect - they think that by taking the life of others and themselves they can escape the consequences of their actions. Therefore suggesting gun control without addressing the deeper issue is taking half measures.

Sorry hit post button earlier without finishing my comment.

You cannot do mass shootings if there are no guns.....Simple.....Unless of course you are an american !

In 1,000 years you'll never teach Buddhism to the majority of Americans and have no care about karma and go with the old testament of "an eye for an eye".

Meanwhile, while we wait for citizens to understand karma a stop-gap measure would be sensible gun laws and restrictions on the types of weapons by banning assault rifles and host guns.

Citizens from countries with strict gun laws, like Japan for instance, do not suffer from the lack of gun ownership and enjoy and are likely not to be killed in a mass gun homicide. 44,000 were killed by guns last year in the US.

Why wouldn't they get licenses, take safety courses, register their firearms, keep them stored safely, report them lost or stolen, and undergo background checks and mental health evaluations if they are so law-abiding and responsible? None of those would prevent the folks you describe from owning firearms.

It’s just only the mindset and education. To value own life and that of other citizens, or to see guns only as shooting sports tool, collector items or a toy. Yes, Japan has very strict gun laws, but on the other side they are of course somehow very present. You can buy one for 110yen and it spits only those funny plastic balls one or two meters at low speed. Also there are sophisticated guns copying original ones, but also only shooting little plastic balls. Those are used for sports shooting or taking part in costume playing ‘survival’ matches etc. So there are plenty of guns to enjoy, but only for not too dangerous purposes. Anyway, only the strict rules that’s also not 100% perfect, obviously, as the case of the Nara murder case against former PM Abe showed. If there’s someone with the lacking education or wrong mindset, then the rules just don’t work at all and self-produced handgun-like murder tools are still a deadly danger.

Citizens from countries with strict gun laws, like Japan for instance, do not suffer from the lack of gun ownership and enjoy and are likely not to be killed in a mass gun homicide.

These are sweeping statements. My country has strict gun laws but yet it sees the third highest number of gun deaths annually. Moreover, the focus on mass shootings hides the other crimes (like rapes, robbery and usurping of property) committed at gunpoint.

https://www.theprint.in/india/india-sees-the-third-highest-firearm-related-deaths-in-the-world/274576/%3famp

Giving the example of Japan is a deflection. Japanese society and culture is pacifist, and I bet that even if Japan had easy access to guns the gun deaths and crime rates would still be low. Ultimately it comes back to what philosophy is the religious and cultural backbone of society. We both can agree that Japan largely follows the right religious beliefs so Japan's example is not applicable to other nations.

EvilBuddha, according to your link, India does have the third highest number of gun deaths; but it also has a huge population. In terms of gun deaths per 100,000 of population, your link doesn't even include it in the top ten counties. According to the World Population Review, India is way down the list of firearm-related death rate.

Venezuela is top with number of deaths 10,599, a rate of 36.75 deaths per 100,000 of population; the US is 22nd (37,040 deaths, a rate of 10.89), while India is way down below the 100th mark, at 14,712 deaths, a rate of 1.03. Japan is just above the bottom of the list, with 101 deaths and a rate of 0.08, the same rate as China which has 1,126 deaths.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

The numbers in your link and mine are different - stats for different years - but the overall picture is the same.

Therefore suggesting gun control without addressing the deeper issue is taking half measures.

But are half measures not better than no measures? There are crazies in all countries. We've seen large scale mass shootings outside of the USA (thinking of Norway in 2011 and Scotland in 1996). But those smaller mass shootings, for example of four or five kids at parties and the like, seem to be an American thing. I suspect we'd see them in other places too if people had easy access to guns, but instead it tends to be fists and knives. Not nice, but with somewhat better consequences.

There are so many mass shootings in the US that the Evening Standard has produced a league table:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-us-sandy-130913412.html

The ready access to firearms is at the core of the mass shooting problem in the U.S.

guns+decline in mental health shouldn't be underestimated.

Third world US gunny culture..

In the cities where it is prevalent, it is.

Headline is written in a way to suggest that mass killings only happen in shootouts.

If someone has grievances and wants to make a point he can very well get into a truck and drive over a few folks.

Address the mental health issues by offering support instead of taking the easier way out by talking about gun control. 

Why should law abiding folks with self control and a sense of responsibility suffer because of the actions of a few?

No comments from gun supporters.

At a deeper level those who commit crimes and harm others do so because of a lack of belief in the law of cause and effect - they think that by taking the life of others and themseTherefore suggesting gun control without.

I agree.

In the cities where it is prevalent, it is.

Deadliest mass shootings in the US since 1982

   Las Vegas, Nevada, 2017

   Orlando, Florida, 2016

   Virginia Tech, Virginia, 2007

   Sandy Hook, Connecticut, 2012

   Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017

   San Ysidro, California, 1984

   Killeen, Texas, 1999

   El Paso, Texas, 2019

   Uvalde, Texas, 2022

   Parkland, Florida, 2018

   Edmond, Oklahoma, 1986

   San Bernardino, California, 2015

   Binghamton, New York, 2009

   Fort Hood, Texas, 2009

   Columbine, Colorado, 1999

Five of those are in Texas

This is a matter for American voters to deal with.

Five of those are in Texas

That's all you need to know. It strains credulity that Austin or Houston are more liberal than Los Angeles or San Francisco. The fact is the gun nut states have the highest homicide rates.