Is Social Media the Cause Active Shooters

[nwslopoke]

I'm in my 50s and raised in America so I do have some point of reference. I think the first active shooting I can recall was San Diego McDonalds in the early 80s. The next was Texas Luby's. Gangs hadn't really started shooting each other in large numbers until late 80s early 90s.

I believe it's true even today that most active shooters are under 30 and have a social media presence. In between the early 90s to early 2000s I don't recall a lot of events outside of workplace rage or relationships. Instead of focusing the narrative of guns, mental health and drugs, I have never seen a deep dive into FB or other media for a connection.

The mainstream media pick and choose who they make into a name, but every 13 yo and older has their own way to reach out and show the world whatever is in their scrambled brains.

Read More

 

[bbbass]

Just ask Dylan Harris and Kliebold...

(Edit: Ok, Ok, Ok, I fixed it. Happy now? )

 

[Xaevian]

Before you go too much deeper, stop and ask yourself how many Americans under 30 have a social media presence. Compare that to how "common" mass shootings actually are.

 

[bkroger86]

Before you go too much deeper, stop and ask yourself how many Americans under 30 have a social media presence. Compare that to how "common" mass shootings actually are.

Exactly. Technically NWFA is social media. It's been around for decades under various forms.

 

[cigars]

Social media as we know it today is very powerful and was created by the CIA. It can provide a sense of belonging as well as a sense of alienation, especially when ones thoughts and ideas are rejected by. That's where manipulation comes into play. It's all about groups and influence. It's also about gathering info and building profiles on people. You think that's just for Zuckerberg's benefit?

 

[kbf64]

I'm in my 50s and raised in America so I do have some point of reference. I think the first active shooting I can recall was San Diego McDonalds in the early 80s. The next was Texas Luby's. Gangs hadn't really started shooting each other in large numbers until late 80s early 90s.

I believe it's true even today that most active shooters are under 30 and have a social media presence. In between the early 90s to early 2000s I don't recall a lot of events outside of workplace rage or relationships. Instead of focusing the narrative of guns, mental health and drugs, I have never seen a deep dive into FB or other media for a connection.

The mainstream media pick and choose who they make into a name, but every 13 yo and older has their own way to reach out and show the world whatever is in their scrambled brains.

def social media contributes to mental illness...

 

[kempoguy70]

Social media as we know it today is very powerful and was created by the CIA. It can provide a sense of belonging as well as a sense of alienation, especially when ones thoughts and ideas are rejected by. That's where manipulation comes into play. It's all about groups and influence. It's also about gathering info and building profiles on people. You think that's just for Zuckerberg's benefit?

Couldn't agree more

 

[Certaindeaf]

Cat gat fever, baby!

 

[Member 34319]

I don't think I can state that it causes shootings.

I would state it perpetuates mental health issues.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Mass shootings are caused by those who commit that act.

Social media may influence / promote or as stated above perpetuate certain mental health issues...but the choice to act is on the shooter.
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In regards to my post ( #10 )

How many millions of kids suffer from :
Abuse
Absentee parents
Low self esteem
Neglect
Low income
Bullying

And do not act out or otherwise become a danger to themselves or others....?

A different approach to the "Why" of mass / active shootings may be taking look at all of those who suffer from the same issues or fit the pattern of a shooter....and yet don't act out or harm others.
Andy

 

[BillyJean]

Social media is definitely a terrible thing that has really made discourse more base and inflammatory and balkanizing, but active shooters predate the rise of social media, and whether or not they are highly engaged in social media seems to have more to do with their generation than anything. This all overlooks the real, hard truth.

Stagnant wages since the late '70s as worker productivity (and with it profits) has skyrocketed, loss of quality jobs to overseas — along with government policy that rewards companies who do all this — corporate consolidation, lack up inferstructure updates (and the jobs with them), the gutting of regulatory agencies and K Street lobbiests revolving between government posts and pushing for the destruction of same. These things planted the seeds for mass shooters. When people don't have the opportunities to work like their parents and grandparents did for a decent wage, and then you tell them the piss they're soaked in is just rain, then gut their communities with policy and then blame it on the very people who lost out because of those policies, what do you expect? We're more committed to the industries of war, oil, and media than our own people.

Blaming social media is such an ignorant and arrogant ahistorical mindset.

 

[nwslopoke]

Before you go too much deeper, stop and ask yourself how many Americans under 30 have a social media presence. Compare that to how "common" mass shootings actually are.

My point is the social media aspect of looking for attention and fame even in death is never a focal point. Some of these people make a video or leave some sort of manuscript like Chris Dorner (can't think of the phrase). I think younger people who believe everything important in life happens by age 20 and being famous ranks very high, gets over looked or never part of the cause.

While as someone stated, NWFA IS social media, but not in the same ilk as Twitter. Prior to these platforms, especially if you were young, you had to excel at something to get notice outside of your high school, church or SOCIAL area. Only athletes, brainiacs or artist got any level of fame. No Talent Joey suffered in silence. While he probably did get drugs to "help" his social anxieties and he did get guns emulating gaming fantasies as much focus as the drugs and guns get, social media get none and could be the bigger factor. Before SM, most people were Joe Nobody. Most violence was personal. Mass events did happen but were usually driven by older men who believed something was taken away. Now it's young men who don't have anything. They can get the tools but the drive is what I am questioning.

 

[crossbow5]

Charles Whitman killed 16 people (including his mother and his wife) and injured 31 on August 1, 1966. He used a Remington 700 in 6mm Remington and an M1 carbine. He was on medication. No social media in 1966.

 

[nwslopoke]

Social media is definitely a terrible thing that has really made discourse more base and inflammatory and balkanizing, but active shooters predate the rise of social media, and whether or not they are highly engaged in social media seems to have more to do with their generation than anything. This all overlooks the real, hard truth.

Stagnant wages since the late '70s as worker productivity (and with it profits) has skyrocketed, loss of quality jobs to overseas — along with government policy that rewards companies who do all this — corporate consolidation, lack up inferstructure updates (and the jobs with them), the gutting of regulatory agencies and K Street lobbiests revolving between government posts and pushing for the destruction of same. These things planted the seeds for mass shooters. When people don't have the opportunities to work like their parents and grandparents did for a decent wage, and then you tell them the piss they're soaked in is just rain, then gut their communities with policy and then blame it on the very people who lost out because of those policies, what do you expect? We're more committed to the industries of war, oil, and media than our own people.

Blaming social media is such an ignorant and arrogant ahistorical mindset.

We obviously disagree. The current trend seems to be with a younger generation than what you are talking about. The examples you mention aren't shooting up schools and malls and probably have no social media foot print at all. Again, the point isn't saying social media is all to blame I am saying they get no blame.

 

[BillyJean]

We obviously disagree. The current trend seems to be with a younger generation than what you are talking about. The examples you mention aren't shooting up schools and malls and probably have no social media foot print at all. Again, the point isn't saying social media is all to blame I am saying they get no blame.

Well sure, social meida is a place where lots of folks are getting radicalized — but I think that for folks paying close attention, a lot of that is also the result of policy. There is a clearly defined funnel that social media monolopists are exploiting, ultimately to gain market share and revenue. The way you're positioning social media sounds an awful lot like they way some well-meaning liberals who are ignorant to guns will push for gun control: skip over the people making policy and blame the tool. If you're not looking at policy — both from the massive social media companies and the governments in their pocket — then you're gonna sound like an old man yelling at clouds.

 

[edzz]

FWIW, My grandfather left Chicago in the 1920's, he stated his reason for leaving Chicago was the shootings and violence. Didn't feel it was a safe place to raise his family.

Its my impression that especially since the advent of 7 by 24 "news" reporting we learn of many more events that in the past would have not made a ripple outside their region.

 

[aflineman]

Social media and the internet make these things live "forever" today . Before that, you got in the local news paper, on the local radio, and maybe on local TV. Few stories went national, and those that did were short lived. Now, you can look up any news story from the last 20 years easily. Before, the only "easy' way was to look at the microfiche of old newspapers at the library.

 

[SrMachoSolo]

Consider the following two points:

1.) The media (mainstream) has a great role in copy cat crimes. Many people are craving attention, and they see getting on the news as a way to get it.

2.) One step back from that effect, is human nature's curiosity, and morbid fascination with horrific acts. This drives the media to make killers infamous.

Now, we can consider the internet's role:

The internet has made it a lot easier for anyone to get attention. It has transformed the way society communicates, and has created societies within itself. The internet is amazing tool; however, it has also removed the interpersonal connection and boundaries that balance interactions.

A great example is the "debates" on this very forum devolving into personal attacks (and even in this thread). Members here are more likely to have similar mindsets compared to a forum like Twitter; yet, there are still many disagreements and words said that would like not have been said face to face. The barriers to entry, to this part of society and to insulting others, have been lowered or removed.

Many see the internet as a separate entity from the real world, one that does not effect the other; however, it is obvious that the internet is part of the real world, a local neighborhood of it's own. And if that neighborhood is creating or perpetuating negativity, mental distress, fear, and anger... what will the animalistic instinct inside all of us do? It will trigger the flight or fight (or freeze) response.

For some, that response is fight the aggressor or "enemy". And for an even smaller subset, ones who feel unheard, the response is to kill others, a grandiose act to fight their aggressor (society as a whole) in order to be heard. The tools they choose to achieve those objectives are often through the media/internet and guns. The very tools others are trying to use to create a stronger society. Why those tools? The barrier to entry is low.

TLDR; it's easier now for people to get attention than it was before.

-Robert

 

[Vaultman]

I have long said that it is Media to blame. Social media maybe, but I think that is just he topping. The mainstream media takes these stories and runs with them 24-7. That 24 hour news to me seems like the first slip on the slope. The only thing keeping people out of hysteria then was that not everyone could broadcast. Now anyone with a cell phone can start a channel and we are in full slide down the slope.
I feel like the mainstream did not do themselves any favors by claiming they had a 1st amendment right to show everything about the mass shooters background which to some glorified the loser. Then the next one and so on. They should have been more responsible.