Are We as a Society creating Mass Murderers?

With all these events that have happened this year, the Lindt Cafe shootings, the Kenya University Massacre and the German Airlines Plane crash, you have to wonder, are we doing this? Are we making these people become mass murderers? Is society to blame for these events?

Before you say anything, watch this video:



This video uses the German Plane crash perpetrator as an example.

Do you agree with him? Do you not? Why? Discuss below and comment on other's opinions.

 

So, the video seems to focus more on discussing the definitions of various forms of killers or murderers, rather than speaking on society's role in their motivations. Only at the end of the video does he briefly mention medication and suggest the possibility of instilling homicidal ideations into mental health patients. He also, very briefly, mentioned firearm regulation.

I'm not sure that this video really makes any strong points or provides much concrete evidence for what it suggests at the end. I do, however, think that it at least provides a diving off point for a discussion on the matter.

To touch briefly on the primary example studied in the video, the Germanwings crash, the definite reasoning behind Mr. Lubitz's suicide/mass homicide was taken to his grave, and unless someone can find us a level 14 Priest, they'll stay there. We can't present the quotation provided by his girlfriend as concrete evidence, or even as a direct quotation. Even if we could, there are far too many possibilities to draw from those words. Finally, we do know that he was at least in possession of anti-depressants. Whether or not he had been actively taking them, I'm unsure of (there may be an answer to this out there). It would be easy to attribute his actions to side-effects of the medication. And while this is definitely plausible, it could also have been a direct result of his mental state/illness.

Was he actively motivated to commit homicide? Or was it merely suicidal ideation? It's hard to say. It's more likely that it was his mental state/medications that played into his actions than a greater societal role. But society at large may have affected his mental state, leading to his illness. Or it could have simply been an actual chemical imbalance, deficiency, or other health issue. We can't really say. But it might be worth exploring both possibilities, though not in direct relation to this incident.

Are we, as a society, trying too hard to combat mental illness? No. Of course not. If nothing else we're not trying hard enough. And in areas where we are having a go at it, we're often going about it incorrectly. For example, in the military if you display the slightest bout of depression, anxiety, etc., you're labelled as a liability, sent to a psychologist, and given your discharge. Why? Because it's safer to cover your ass than to actually provide aid to your fellows in need. And this is, seemingly, an approach adopted by much of society, or those in charge.

There seems to be a lot of stigma placed on psychological problems. Because of this we have a tendency to write these problems off and ostracize those suffering from these problems. Because of this, we seem less concerned with studying, treating, and "curing" mental health issues. I place quotations around "curing" because our current approach is the "cure" patients. But what that actually entails is give them a cookie-cutter fix for their issue, prescribe some pills, and send them on their way. It's far too expensive to take the time to understand patients and tailor treatments to them. It's not worth researchers time to actually study behavior and the cause of psychological problems. Because of this, psychology is still a developing field, far behind the rest of modern medicine.

So, should we stop prescribing medications for patients? No. But we should take the time to get to know them, to understand their issues, and come up with a treatment plan which may or may not involve medication. Not all patients need medication and we shouldn't assume that just because someone is depressed that they need anti-depressants. And if it is determined that they do, we should be cautious in prescribing medication. Discuss the risks, and closely monitor the effects that they have on the patient.

I've been to a few psychologists for depression and issues resulting from my military service, and within a single visit many of them wanted to put me on meds, before I had even really gone into the problems I was having. Just the other day I saw a general practitioner (it was for a physical health issue, not psychological) who asked if I would like to try anti-anxiety meds, despite it being my first time seeing them. There shouldn't be an eagerness to medicate every psychological issue that comes forth. The thing about psychological problems is that they are as unique as the person experiencing them, and so we need to more carefully understand patients and tailor treatments to them.

Next up, society's role in the mental state of individuals. Let's be honest for a moment. We have perpetuated a society (at least in the U.S.) in which the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. We work over half of our lives away, lose time with our family, friends, and selves, forgoing our own well being just to put food on the table only to get to the end of our lives and regret it. Most of us find ourselves without a trade, but rather working for someone else 9-5 every day of every week in some dead-end job. If we can get into college and manage to gain a chance at working our way into the middle class with a decent salary and decent hours, we're often loaded down with debt from just trying to get an education. We deny basic civil rights to our fellow human beings, we demand that healthcare be a paid-for service rather than a basic human right, and our education system is laughable at best. How can you not feel the weight and pressure of this?

Many of us struggle from day to day, just to get by. It only stands to reason that some, if not most of us will crack under the weight at some point. So, sure, societal roles and pressure would, reasonably, create depression and anxiety in some individuals, which may grow into long-term problems.

Finally, firearm control. This could be a discussion unto itself. But, briefly, in the United States, of course we need better regulation of firearm ownership. The ownership of a deadly weapon should never be a "right", but rather a privilege. One that you have to earn and one that you can easily lose. Of course there should be background checks and psychological screenings before you can own a firearm. Of course you should have to undergo training and safety courses before you can purchase a weapon. If you suffer from mental illness or if you have been convicted of violent crime, you should not be permitted to own a firearm. Right now anyone and their grandmother can go down to Walmart, pick up a rifle, and do whatever the hell they please with it. That's just not okay and it does contribute to school shootings, suicides, and accidental homicides (or manslaughter) or deaths at the hands of minors. Because how many gun owners wouldn't say that they're "responsible"? And yet they have guns strewn about, ammunition that is easily accessible, they lack gun locks, and many fail to practice basic gun safety when handling a firearm. It's important to remember that there's a difference between pro-gun safety and just "pro-gun".

Well, that was a lot of typing. But that scratches the surface of my thoughts on this.

 

I think it's all based on how fucked the lives of these people are.

Going out in a blaze of glory(even if it's twisted), is a way to make people remember you for far longer than any shutout who commits suicide.

It's a last resort for people who want to leave a mark on the world, but have failed to do so(at least constructively).

 

@BaconMan8910
I agree with a lot of your points. Especially the bit about medications, it seems that has become the "quick fix" of today's world. The working mentality is definitely skewed in some aspects too.

Also about gun control in US, not "anyone" can buy a firearm. There are background checks that prevent anyone with a mental or criminal history from purchasing legally. Although, there are other ways of acquiring them, and it is relatively easy compared to other countries.

 

I believe that a person's upbringing has a lot to do with it as well. Beliefs instilled in us as children tend to stay with us. Example: I live & was raised in a rural area where practically everyone owns a firearm. Most people here have gone through some type of gun safety program as children & I can count on one hand (with fingers left over) how many people have been shot here by someone with murderous intent. It definitely boils down to a person's mental state imo.

 

I feel like there's a lot of misconception about what kind of background checks are performed and about their effectiveness. Honestly, the fact that there are background checks at all serve mostly as a scapegoat for preventing further restrictions or regulation of firearm ownership.

Background checks that are performed when purchasing a firearm are very, very limited. They don't prevent people with a criminal background or mental illnesses from purchases firearms, even if they're supposed to. The number of people who are flagged by these checks is pretty low. Even people with a history of suicidal ideations or a criminal background can go out and purchase a firearm through legal channels. In order to be flagged you need to have committed a pretty serious crime (not just displayed violent tendencies) or have to have been diagnosed and treated for mental illness, and even that sometimes slips by.

The reason that background checks are so ineffective is because they're very expensive. Even when you join the military you're given a background check, one that is more thorough than that used for firearm purchases, but even it just skims the surface. It's not unless you need a security clearance that you get a full background check. As far as the government is concerned, having proper background checks just isn't worth the cost. Not to mention the bad publicity due to the amount of people who live and die by the second amendment in the U.S. Any amount of effective firearm regulation is not popular, here.

Even if you could argue that background checks (the current background checks) are effective at preventing firearms from reaching the wrong hands when selling from a licensed vendor, there is still the issue of guns shows and the fact that people can just trade firearms with no regulation. They're not like cars or houses where you have to transfer a title or deed, you can just give your gun to a friend or sell it to a stranger, no questions asked. No accountability.

There is also the fact that, even if you don't have a criminal background or any psychological problems, we have nothing in place to ensure that firearm owners or potential firearm owners are responsible, store their weapons safely, practice range safety, or even know how to properly operate a firearm. Nor do we care about their reason for purchasing/owning a firearm. Will it be for pest-control? Self-defense? Target shooting? Hunting? And what are their definitions of those purposes?

Honestly, we need to require a license to purchase firearms. Potential owners should have to undergo training and prove that they can safely operate and store a firearm before they are permitted to purchase one and said license should have to be renewed every few years. It's simply irresponsible and unacceptable to allow and expect people to self-regulate. Your uncle who keeps his weapon pointed toward the sky and flags you every few minutes at the range is not qualified to teach firearm safety. There's a reason we have instructors and teachers for every other field of study and there's a reason that the military doesn't allow recruits to forgo safety training even if they've "learned it at home". Unregulated transfer of firearm ownership should also not be allowed. We should know how many weapons a person owns and be able to trace said weapons back to their owners.

As it is, these are deadly weapons that we allow to go, practically, unregulated. And that's a problem. And it does lead to increased accidental deaths, homicides, and suicides. Yet we're unwilling to take any real steps to deal with the issue.

 

It seems you have a lot more experience than I do in the matter (especially being in the military), so I'm going to believe you regarding the background checks. I assumed that the background checks performed were good enough, that was ignorant of me to believe that without really knowing the underlying processes of what actually entails those checks.

 

I wouldn't take my word for it. =P The thing about educating yourself when it comes to national, political, economic, and social issues is that you need to do a lot of your own research and learn to spot reliable sources. There are so many people spewing so many opinions that aren't even remotely grounded in empirical evidence on both sides of the argument. It's important to learn to sort through all of that and find the objective truth of the matter. So, in that sense, you shouldn't take anyone's word for anything.

I do appreciate the boost in my credibility due to my military service, but I'm not sure that it's justified. My opinions and knowledge on the matter weren't formed by the military, they come from statistics, research, and a concern with the issues facing myself and my fellow citizens.

But this is definitely a conversation that we need to have. It's full of difficult questions and things that we may prefer not to think about, but it's for our own good. So I would encourage you identify credible sources, research the matter, and form your own opinion. :3

 

What you are talking about is one of the main reasons I don't like mainstream media/news. It's a good outlet for emerging issues, but that is really it. I realize they are solely in it for ratings, and will report basically what gives them that. I almost always try to research online from different sources.
From there I try to form my own conclusion, by mixing in my own personal values and beliefs.

Back to the OP's original issue, I think this ties directly to that by increasing people who are intelligent enough to make these decisions.

 

@BaconMan8910 "Honestly, we need to require a license to purchase firearms. Potential owners should have to undergo training and prove that they can safely operate and store a firearm before they are permitted to purchase one and said license should have to be renewed every few years."

That is something that I could totally get behind. We could definitely use some legislaton along those very same lines. Kudos!

 

Baconman, I too have experience. My uncle was an FFL he told me all the restrictions and stuff he has to go through. It's cheap to do a background check. Most of the dealers at gun shows will do a check before they sell you a firearm as most are FFL's. They make you as you should know fill out a BATF form 4473 and e-file it to the FBI's NICS usually getting info back in 10 minutes. If a person is prohibited (violent misdemeanors, involuntary mental checks and all felony's will get you on the no-go list) you are required to report them to the police but action is never taken by the courts. Failure to report a attempted buy to can result in your FFL or licence to sell weapons to be revoked and your inventory to be confiscated not to mention huge fines and prison time. The biggest reason we don't want federal guidelines for minimum training requirement is the training would become too expensive and inflexible making it effectively impossible for anyone but the rich and politically connected to get a permit.(NYC anyone?) The big reason we try to avoid mental health checks is due to how it could be abused (VA/FBI Scandal nobody hear about that?) not to mention that lies in the realm of presumed guilty before found innocent, mind crimes or a violation of the 5th amendment. Also Baconman may or may not know that for the past 20 years firearms ownership has risen at least 40% while the violent crime rate has decreased overall. Areas that passed legislation legalizing conceal carry had crime rates drop with no corresponding increase in ND's or negligent discharges (there's no such thing as a AD or accidental discharge). In the U.S. you are more likely to be killed in a fall, by a baseball bat, hammer, or car then a gun. (All of that according to the CDC and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report) So yes background checks do nothing and will do nothing to prevent a person from killing others or getting guns illegally but, not for the reasons Baconman posted but, because humans are by nature violent and unpredictable and if they set their mind to it no matter what the useless pieces paper called laws say they WILL find a way to do it! We; the law abiding citizens, will have to pick up the pieces and hold the individual to his or her actions. Gun control failed in curbing violent crime in Australia and the U.K. did crimes involving guns go down alot ,yes but people found new and creative ways to kill one another and crimianls that didn't fallow the laws found out that the entire country was ripe for the picking 'cause now they don't worry as much about being shot.

 

Paragraphs man.

 

I feel like this is the typical conservative argument for not passing any further regulation on firearms. I'm afraid you're incorrect about and placing way too much faith in the current system. But we'll ignore that and instead address your "firearm regulation doesn't work" argument.

Let's start with the notion that anything can be used as a weapon. Well, yes. That's incredibly obvious. But do you know what the difference is? A baseball bat is intended for playing baseball. A firearm is intended to kill living creatures. It has, literally, no other purpose. And, on top of that, firearms are the easiest and most effective means by which to take someone's life. There's a reason we don't use clubs and swords anymore, in military actions. If someone is equipped with a golf club, baseball bat, or even a stapler (because anything can be used as a weapon) a person has a much greater chance at defending themselves than they would against someone with a firearm.

Next up, everyone's favorite, "criminals will not abide by the law". You're right. So let's stop passing laws and abolish all of our current ones. Because what's the point? Criminals are just going to break them anyway, right? Since when has any law ever shown any degree of effectiveness in regulating that which it was created to regulate?

Next point, the ineffectiveness of regulation in other countries. Time for some statistics. We'll start with Australia. Prior to the enactment of Australia's firearm regulations they averaged nearly 1 mass shooting per year (a mass shooting is defined by the deaths of at least 4 people). Since the enactment of their regulations there have 0 mass shootings, firearm related homicides and suicides are down by up to 60%. But it didn't work? Why? Because it's not 100%? Guess those 60% of people just aren't worth saving, not if it means gun owners have to prove themselves responsible enough to own an operate a deadly weapon. Or were they all just beaten to death with staplers, instead?

Now, the UK. In England and Wales 6.6% of homicides are committed with a firearm. That's, on average, 41 gun-related homicides. The number of civilians who own a firearm per 100 people is 6.2. Compare this to the U.S. where 60% of homicides are committed with a firearm. That's, on average, 9,146 gun-related homicides. The number of civilians who own a firearm per 100 people is 88.8. That's 270,000,000 people who own a firearm. Putting the U.S. at the greatest number of civilian owned firearms in world. That's roughly 35-50% of the worlds civilian owned firearms. Although, granted, despite this we do not have the world's highest firearm-related homicide rate. Honduras, El Salvador, and Jamaica have the highest firearm-related homicide rates in the world. But, that aside, how can you say that we don't have a problem or that regulation doesn't work? It's obviously not working for the UK, right?

There's also the fact that when people cite "violent crime" in the U.S vs the UK, that they tend not to understand that the UK has a different definition of violent crime than the U.S. In the UK, violent crime is defined by the following: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, domestic violence, and all sexual offenses (not just forcible rape). The U.S., however, defines violent crime as the following: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. So yes, the UK has a higher "violent crime" rate. But only due to it's broader definition of violent crime. The U.S., however, has a much higher murder rate (not just firearm-related homicide) and a higher burglary rate, even though the UK classifies burglary as violent crime and the U.S. classifies it as a property crime.

Let's address your issue with a training course/firearm license system. Your biggest complaint seems to be the cost. So, here's the solution: just as we have firearm owners pay for concealed carry courses, so too would they pay for these. They would also need to pay to have to license renewed every few years, just as with a drivers license. And every (for the sake of argument) 5 years to a decade or so, they would need to re-certify. And they would pay for that as well. And, if pro-gun groups like the NRA are really "pro-gun safety and pro-responsible ownership", as they claim, maybe they'll even chip in and subsidize these courses. What other downsides are there? Everyone who wants to own a firearm, who isn't mentally ill or a criminal, can still do so. Now they will have the training they need to be responsible and they'll be held to account. If firearm ownership is so important to them and if they're as responsible as they claim, they won't mind proving it, will they?

And, you're right, violent crime in the U.S. has dropped. But it's still crazy high, especially when compared to other countries. (Again, this is comparing violent crime using the U.S.'s definition of violent crime.)

You know what the funny thing is about criminals? Not only do they not abide by the law, any law (go figure), they're also not afraid of you. Because our current number of gun-toting civilians certainly doesn't seem to be deterring them.

 

Would you care to quote you sources on your stats? The form of the Baseball bat was adapted from piece of tech that was used for killing for millions of years so there you have killing tech being used for entertainment. Why do troops carry rifles to battle hmm??? To protect themselves and save others on their side. Why do cops carry pistols? Cop are reqired to train less then the average gun owner does voluntarily. So why do you insist on more gun control including registration when even most beat cops in the U.S. say it isn't necessary http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/ Better enforcement of current laws seems to be the consensus. Your idea of mandatory training requirements among officer the opinion is split. Beat officers are the guys and gals that ultimately see the effects feel good laws the like some of which you proposed. Take a gander some time at this facebook page some time Bacon https://www.facebook.com/MattTheBangSwitch?fref=ts it may give you a better idea of how respondent like those to the survey think and why. To the person that talked over-medication I was used as a proverbial geniapig for autism meds as even now I'm still fighting the effects of risperdal. (screwed up my thyroid function) Treatment alternatives need to be found. Anything is preferable to being a slave to drugs. Rights need to be restored to those rehabilitated and our system for handling both people that are criminals and those with mental illness fixed to the point that they actually rehab people and repeat offenders and people untrustworthy to be capable of owning firearm maybe not be in society. And final thought why would you trust a system that you believe is incapable to maintain a database with simple parameters to maintain the same database with more stringent parameters?

 

I'll gladly cite my sources. Although, I'll add them as an edit to this post (I'm currently busy and don't have time to grab links, etc.).

The notion that a baseball bat is inherently a weapon or that it is just as much a weapon as a firearm is absolutely silly. But I'll tell you why I carried a rifle, and my fellow soldiers carry rifles. It is to kill whomever the government wants us to kill. Otherwise, it's not much of a battle, is it?

I don't believe for an instant that the police train less with firearms than average civilians. I live in the south and everyone and their mother owns a firearm. Almost no one that I know has had voluntary training. I've never been to a gun range where someone hasn't flagged me or improperly handled their firearm.

Furthermore, arguing that "cops say it isn't necessary" isn't much of an argument. Just because you have a badge and enforce the law doesn't make you an expert on criminal psychology, legislation, or even public safety.

I will read over the links that you've provided (I've already looked at them briefly), and I'm assuming that you're citing them as opinion pieces as they are just that. Just because someone argues something in an article or on a Facebook page doesn't make it objective or empirical in any way, regardless of their background.

Finally, I'll say that you're right in that the system is broken. But why trust a broken system? I'll tell you. Because we can fix it. So much in this nation is broken and so many of us throw up our hands and say, "well, it can't be fixed. Why bother?" But it can be fixed. We just have to put in the effort. We can make this the greatest nation on Earth, as we so often claim that it is, but not unless we're willing to stare down our problems, ask difficult question, and take real, effective measures to improve it.

 

Your experience is one range isn't it? Indeed civilians according to numerous range training officers do train more voluntarily i.e. spend their own money and time and monthly are out there on the range I've talked to numerous LEOs and they know that civilians(in most cases) are a better shot and admitted that the training programs even those held by federal agency's are inadequate as they only require 2 hours 2 times a year (in alot of jurisdictions) and most barely re-qualify. Those that care go out on their own time and practice. The range you described must be hosting training for new shooters otherwise their initial instructor may not have been NRA qualified instructor or they never bothered to take a safety coarse, something rare where I'm from as it's required part of getting a hunting licence (part of hunter safety something my uncle taught) and hunters are very young here in the Upper Midwest. Eventually the inexperienced learn. The reason I brought up the survey is the they very reasons you dismissed it. The most common degree among LEOs is Psychology ironically so yes they likely know more about psychology then you. The fact is we have laws that we choose to not use like did you know that it's a federal felony for a convicted felon to be possession of a firearm? Yet DAs next to never use this charge or the many other charges that could be used keep violent offenders in prison. So we have plenty of laws in play that we could use and creating more only serves to muddy the waters and would likely see the same treatment as the ones we have. Guns don't save live you say? There are study's out there that say that the mere presence act as deterrent and stop crimes as many as 3 million times a year a more conservative estimate said almost 2 million times a year did you not use them on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan to protect yourself and your battle buddy? How many troops would be dead if they did not have that rifle? So your narrow minded explanation of firearm utility as solely a life taker falls short as the human has the final choice to maim or kill or not use it at all. BTW what was you MOS?

 

To be fair, I believe that you are the one being "narrow minded" as you call it. It's easy to insult and ignore real issues while claiming our current efforts are good enough, but that doesn't accomplish anything.

Firearms are not designed to save lives. Only to take them. If you use them to save a life, you still take another in the process. And if all of the lives taken by firearms were only those who wished harm to others, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. See the above stats, we have a real problem with fire-arm related violent crime. (No worries, I haven't forgotten about my sources. They're coming. ;D )

Btw, my experience isn't just one range. That's pretty "narrow minded" of you to assume so. =P I've been to many, many ranges throughout my life. I've also been to several NRA, Turkey Federation, and other conservative "pro-gun" group sponsored hunts, ranges, and events. All of which I have bore witness to improper handling and have been flagged multiple times. And not just by people who are learning. People who have handled firearms their whole lives. Because their uncle taught them how to use them. They were never properly trained.

So, it seems to me that you have no solutions. And you refuse to see that there's an issue. I've yet to see a well-reasoned argument or one grounded in empirical evidence. Nothing but logical fallacies. Which only furthers to muddy the discussion.

So, here's the deal. I have two clarifying questions: 1) Do you think we have a problem with gun-related violence in this country? 2) What do you propose we do about it? So far you've doggedly defended the current system with nothing to really back it up. But you've not really said anything about issues or solutions.

Oh, and if you want to know my MOS, we can talk about it in private discussion. It's not relevant to the conversation. This discussion isn't about you or I, or our personal experiences.

 

I gave you a solution that we gun owners have been asking for for years but you chose to ignore it: stricter enforcement of current laws of which there are numerous and according to numerous independent and governmental reviews are woefully under-enforced. I'm sorry to make assumptions based on what little you provided but I did. I've been around numerous gun ranges and gun owners in my admittedly short time on this planet including numerous veterans and cops who were safe when they were not they were corrected. Question: on those outings did anyone take initiative and correct these individuals? Now on to your first question. We humans have a general violence problem that's not going away easily and taking away or even restricting access to a tool will not quell it all that serves to do is make it harder for those that wish to take measures to protect themselves from an urgent threat. Our government like those around the world I believe are incapable of making minute decisions and even screw up large ones they have a nasty tendency to over-think seemingly easy solutions. The answer is in my opinion that we should leave this decision to the states as the federal government is too broad thinking and the municipal government is too narrow minded and give the individual the tools to make up their own mind. If training were to be most effective have instructors run a class in elementary school it worked in the mid 20th century tweak the program for the 21st. Overall it's not the government's job to keep us safe from other citizens there has been 3 Supreme Court rulings stating that. The message is clear we are our own protection. There's the answers that you were looking for.

 

I feel good knowing I'm bringing life back into the Hall of Elders section.