I would very much value a cite for all this.
My research (a flimsy rod at best) shows that more men than women are mass killers of all sorts. Arson, vehicular homicides, even poisonings all seem to have mostly-male killers.
Yeah, from what I’ve read/heard that’s a frequent experience. I understand heightened libido is another one, although I wonder how much of this second one is due to purely-chemical effects and how much to the whole “I’m finally ‘me’” aspect.
I would be wary ascribing ordinary male traits as underpinning mass shooters. We are talking about an extraordinarily small fraction of the populace. Moreover, there are clearly some deep seated emotions and drive at play. Not only is any form of murder abhorrent to most people, most mass shooters begin their actions with the pretty clear knowledge that it is very unlikely they will be alive much longer, and if like a few, who didn’t intend dying, they will get caught, and they will spend the rest of their lives locked away.
Suicide by mass shooting, often taking those they blame with them, is one of the more common scenarios we seem to have. That harks back to the strange dual split in suicide rates.
Not all mass shooters expect to die. Martin Bryant didn’t, although he was considered to have been suicidal in the lead up to the massacre. I’m not convinced he could be considered exactly sane, but just what underlaid his mental state is hard to fathom. Revenge, but also a total lack of care for any human life. He knew he was never getting away with it, and probably had some expectation of being killed, but when it came down to it, he didn’t push thing to the point where he might have been.
Anders Breivik could not have expected to not be caught. But he wasn’t expecting to die either. Driven by a vicious fascist ideology he planned his killing meticulously. None the less, he can hardly be considered fully sane.
There was no chance either Bryant or Breivik were not going to end up spending the rest of their lives in maximum security. Yet they went ahead.
There is a common thread of men, but whatever the underlying factors are, it is going to be a lot more complex than testosterone, toxic masculinity, or social conditioning. These are extraordinarily inhuman actions.
Perhaps the dominance of males in mass shootings is a function of the frustration of the sexual drive and the resulting stress. Mass shooters tend to be loners, isolated and unsocial. There are notable exceptions, but the majority of mass shooters are not in relationships, nor have been for a long time, if ever.
Also, difficulty in communicating may be part of the problem. Women are able to express emotions more easily, in part because they are not inhibited about crying in front of others. Self esteem is important, and when a person lacks self esteem, they can accept hurting others more easily. A lot of males lack self esteem, for a variety of reasons.
Boys are often given BB guns and air rifles, and generally are more likely than girls to have experience with a fire arm. A weapon which allows one to harm another at a great distance is very attractive to someone who wants to hurt a lot of people.
Bun I think that ultimately it comes down to emotional isolation and sexual frustration.
I think that there’s a major social cause that is more important than any sort of genetic related matter.
There’s often a major gulf between society’s ideals for males and the situation that some men finds themselves in. Men are supposed to be successful professionally and personally. Have a good job, make good money, have an adoring wife, be well known and liked by many around them, etc. Of course that doesn’t happen to a lot of people. And, due to sexism, this ideal isn’t expected of most women.
Throw in some personality issues (which of course make meeting the ideal even more magical) and resentment builds. Bad enough brain + poor life outcome can in a few cases result in a major blowback against society.
While Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t that much of a mass shooter, he fits this dysfunctional model very well. Had trouble keeping a job, crappy marriage that was going south (they weren’t living together at the time of the shooting), etc. Plus Oswald had an extreme aspiration for greatness. Something that he was not mentally capable of achieving in the least.
While there have been rich men who went off the deep end and started shooting people, the victims are family members or people well known by the shooter. Have there been any millionaires that have gone ballistic and started shooting strangers?
Absolutely. Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter. Astronomical death toll.
Another factor may also be a desire for fame, even if it’s the bad kind. Not that women don’t want fame, but this desire seems to be more intense among men. Many male shooters were no doubt inspired by a desire to go out in a blaze of media glory and societal notoriety.
I didn’t know that guy was a millionaire. In fact, I know almost nothing about him. It was like all information about him was voluntarily censored by the media. I chalked it up to the current notion that we should not publicize anything about mass shooters because it gives them the fame they may be searching for, and therefore it encourages other would be shooters.
I don’t know how accurate that theory is. I think it makes mass shootings all the more terrifyingly inexplicable to the average person.
Ease of access.
Where do I get a bomb?
I have to go on the internet, download plans, buy all the parts and substances necessary to put it together, have the skill to put it together without blowing myself up, then plant it surreptitiously in a crowded spot and set it off remotely.
Where do I get a gun and ammo? Gun show. Then I load it with easily obtained ammo, walk to the public place, point it and pull the trigger.
Certainly it is straightforward to get a gun, but it’s also surprisingly easy to make a simple bomb. It won’t be sophisticated or be able to be remotely detonated, but it’s relatively simple to make something that has a fuse and explodes. So given the choice between having to stand in the room pressing the trigger of a gun or throwing a simple bomb into a room and running away, why chose the gun? Using a gun seems like it shows a desire to be directly in control of what is happening.
Using alternate means might not be applicable in all cases. It would probably only be relevant to the ones where it was planned out. If a guy gets fired and shoots up the workplace, a big contributing factor is probably that he already has access to guns an ammo. He may even have it in his car and can easily return immediately after being fired. But for the cases where the mass shooter takes time and makes a plan for what they are going to do, I would think there would be alternate ways which would increase the effectiveness.
The easiest access of all is a vehicle. And vehicles have been used for mass murder, and still are.
In fact, in countries with strong gun control vehicle ramming attacks are quite common. For example, there have been 10 car ramming attacks in Europe in the past three years. One in Spain killed 16 people and injured 152. Another in London in 2017 killed 8 people, and a second in the same year killed another 5… A ramming/shooting attack in France in 2016 killed 86 people. A ramming attack in Berlin in 2016 killed 12 people.
In New York, a ramming attack by truck killed 8 people in 2017.
We hear more about the school shootings because A) They are schools, and B) we hype every gun attack, and downplay others. I’ll bet most of you either didn’t know about all the ramming attacks, or forgot about them.
Also, ‘mass shooting’ statistics include things like gang shootouts in which more than two people are killed.
Maybe that particular ideal is not expected for women (generally, and in the past), but are you saying there are no social expectations for women that frustrate them? Because, lemme tell ya, there are.
Interesting. Checking around I see some estimates as high as $5-6 million net worth at the time of the shooting.
Reading a little he seems to have avoided many of the common problems I pointed out. Apparently just a random set of mental issues. E.g., conjectured to have alexithymia. None of his real or conjectured conditions are overwhelming male conditions.
All of which gets me wondering a bit if his differences from other shooters might explain why he was able to kill and injure so many people. I.e., the poor, unsuccessful in most things, lone nutjobs are generally not capable of doing so much harm. (But note that Paddock didn’t follow thru with finishing his bomb.)
Simple answer to the OP: Because men are killer pigs. But that’s more opinion than science. Still, I’ve read of folks raising their kids with opposites of gender stereotypes, so little boys are given tea sets - which they use as weapons - and little girls are given tool sets - which they arrange in tea parties. So I dunno whether nurture trumps nature.
One anecdote I read of was: Teachers took everything in the school away from boys that could be used as toy weapons. The boys then resorted to “biting their lunch sandwiches into the shape of guns and pointing them at each other, bang-bang!”
The alexithymia thing is interesting, I know there can be a correlation there with Autism disorders.
I had read about Martin Bryant years ago but I kinda scanned over the wiki article again and saw he had been diagnosed with Asperger’s even though that now just falls under the diagnosis of Autism. I also thought it as interesting watching videos of him apparently he writes with his right hand but shoots with his left, the guy clearly also has absolutely no empathy for others.
Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter also was believed to have Asperger’s and was a social outcast.
Now I don’t want to paint autistic people as dangerous because generally they are more likely to be the victim of a crime rather than perpetrate one. But I could see how maybe a higher functioning could feel the emotional pain of being a social outcast and loser that they might want revenge against “them” while also lacking any empathy for their victims. Just an interesting aside I think they are exceptions not the rules when it comes to mass shooters.
I have to say, Elmer J. Fudd, it’s funny that it was you who made that connection. I guess all those years of hunting rabbits with a shotgun gave you time to ponder this kind of stuff.
But with regards to guns, I wonder if one reason mass murders use guns is because they already have guns and they are familiar and comfortable with them. If the person has been building up an arsenal and dreaming up fantasies of using them to survive various onslaughts, committing mass murder may be just an extension of that. That aspect might be one thing that’s different between men and women. While women may also own guns, their motivations for owning them might be different. If men are more likely to be fantasizing about using them in civil war and post-apocalyptic situations and women consider them more for self defense and hobby scenarios, then men may be more in the mindset of using guns to offensively kill people.
One discussion of mass shooters I recall reading was the discussion why so many were white guys. The suggestion went like this - the typical shooter has mental and consequently social problems; they can’t make friends or drive them away. The typical white suburban male with these problems gets to live in his parents basement and stew alone and ignore the outside world, getting more and more isolated and angry at the world. He watches TV or plays video games, which eliminates and face-to-face social interactions. For many modern families there are only one or two children, and family interactions like eating meals together happen more rarely. As one psychologist said about this - adolescence is a lesson in how to be a social human, and by bypassing these lessons, these people never learn to be a functioning member of society. If they do try to start a relationship with the opposite sex, they will come across as creepy or socially inept and fail.
So why white? The typical black young male does not live in a well-off household. There is no basement to retreat to in isolation. They will have to go out in the world and work to help support their family and to pay for their own upkeep. They are forced to socialize to survive. I would suggest this also explains why mass killings by crazies (all-at-once blaze of glory killing, as opposed to serial stealth killings) is more of a recent phenomenon, even 60 or 70 years ago and certainly upto and during the depression and WWII it wasn’t financially or socially possible to “stew in your parents’ basement” for most young men, whatever ethnic origin.
How does this relate for females? A girl is less likely to be asocial; even if they don’t seek out social interaction, they are more likely to be socially interacted with (accosted, propositioned, chased, however you want to characterize it). If the problem is inability to start a relationship, men have this harder than women. Women have the opposite problem, often it’s hard to get the men to leave them alone.
You can’t really compare European rammings with American shootings; as someone once pointed out about assassinations, Americans suffer from crazies, the rest of the world from politically motivated attacks. Many of the rammings in Europe were socially politically motivated (disguised as religious). Here in Toronto, we had one which is more attributable to the socially inept white male crazy, appropriately because guns are not easily obtained here.
I wonder if the men versus women crime stats are reversed in matriarchal cultures.
We’re not? News to me. Women tend to cry under emotional stress, including rage, more than men, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t fucking hate it. If you’re a rage-crier you find yourself in the situation of being seen as weak and needy when you’re actually having to remind yourself that hitting someone will hurt your hand a lot.
Define matriarchal culture. Often that label has been applied to matrilineal cultures or to those where women are allowed to own property.