Is Social Media the Cause Active Shooters

[AtheT]

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.

Texas Tower shooting of 1966, also called University of Texas clock tower shooting, mass shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, in which Charles Whitman, a student and ex- Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others (one of whom died years later from complications related to his wounds).

 

[nwslopoke]

Texas Tower shooting of 1966, also called University of Texas clock tower shooting, mass shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, in which Charles Whitman, a student and ex- Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others (one of whom died years later from complications related to his wounds).

You are correct. I was speaking from a personal point of view. There surly were others in my early life but I wasn't cognitive of them. I was probably not a teenager when the SLA had a shootout with LAPD where their house was burned down, killing several people live on TV. That was only a few miles from my house. Not the same topic but a tragedy that left a mark.

 

[nwslopoke]

Your premises is incorrect. Gangs have always been shooting at each other. It just isn't reported as much as a sensational Lone Gunman.

Sailer's Law Of Mass Shootings Tested In Kenosha | Blog Posts

Last night in a tavern in Kenosha, WI, three men...

vdare.com

My premise is social media gets left out in the conversation of guns and drugs being the cause of the event. It was never, social media is the only reason these people are acting out and shooting people. Politicians are consistently going after guns and to a small extent pointing a finger at drugs but never the platform these shooter HAVE (not exclusively) used to get their messages across.

 

[slimmer13]

Social media, bad parenting, victim culture, the SJ movement, poor diets, lack of exercise, a broken mental health system etc are all factors in creating an environment where people with borderline mental health issues are likely to be pushed over the edge IMO.

 

[Hueco]

Anyone looking to dive further into this topic should check out this interview with Tristan Harris, Co-Founder and President of the Center for Humane Technology:

In addition, there's a good documentary on Netflix called The Social Dilemma.

Human behavior is incredibly complex and we (as an "educated" species) are wrong about ourselves all of the time. Hell, how many people here took economics courses where you were taught that people make "rational" decisions? (note: we don't).

So, is social media the cause of active shooters? Well, yes...and no...

Forums like this are technically "social media" but they're not what most people mean when they use that phrase. We're talking Facebook, Twitter, group messenger apps, etc...the kind of place that meets these criteria: is an online "digital square" and, more importantly, is not anonymous.

Everyone you like and everyone you don't can follow your every move. Fell asleep in class and drooled all over your notebook? Yea that's online and you have a new nickname for the school year. Got caught crushin' on that one girl? Her friends are brutal. Think about all the stupid crap you did as a pre-teen and teen and now imagine that 1: it's online, 2: everyone at your school/community knew about everything, and 3: any bullying or social isolation you felt was now 10x worse.

So, does social media cause active shooters? Well, it certainly is shown to modify behavior in pre-teens and teens to such a degree that the execs over at Facebook do not allow their children to get Facebook. This is no different than a Columbian kingpin making sure his daughters don't try or come anywhere near cocaine. Think about that long and hard if you have children.

Social Media has the ability to both create mental illness, perpetuate it, and exacerbate it. Additionally, the idea of being "Instagram famous" (or Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and the traditional media's response to active shooters does nothing to discourage a narcissistic person from committing an atrocity.

Social Media is simply a hyper real shadow of reality. People groom their image so as to present some version of themselves that is a snapshot of snapshot...related to their likeness but no longer real or true. Personally, I'd be A-okay if social media, as we know it, burned to the ground.

 

[Tinman357]

These wackadoodles were going to do what they did no matter what. Nothing would have stopped them. Looking back, yes, someone could have intervened and slowed them down. Stop? No.

These cowards choose "gun free" zones for a reason. But even the few who didn't still had the element of suprise. Even if every person in the area had been armed, the shooter would have gotten 1 or 2 before someone put them down.

The number of dead innocents would certainly be lower, and "copy cats" would certainly be less.

Social media is no different than the other tools they used. Means to an end, nothing more. Drugs, or lack of perscribed drugs were more causative than any of the tools.

That being said, anyone with borderline issues can be pushed over the edge. I came from a poor family and was horribly bullied at school when I was growing up. But only at school. I can imagine how bad it would have been if it was 24/7 like it is now.

Most of us, probably all of us has endured bullying and other social pressures at some level. My school years played a large part of who I am today, they shaped me. Mostly in good ways, I try to help people that need it when I can. I have more empathy and understanding of others that is a direct result of bullying.

The bullying I suffered was horrible. But I was able to use those experiance to a good end. How? I don't know. But something in my environment allowed me to grow beyond that and mature the right way.

Maybe it was because I joined the military at 17. In '81 the military wasn't real popular with my peers but I saw it as a way out of being just another uneducated dirt farmer. I saw it as a path to a better life. It was.

Maybe that's what made the differance. I had hope and could see a better life than the one I had. I had a future. A lot of people, young people can't see any good ahead of them. I grew up in a tough environment. But I would hate to be fresh out of high school in the current socio-economic situation we have now.

 

[Legion489]

Drawing random correlations, a favorite pass time of conspiracy theorists. Mass shooters all have brown eyes! Police are singling out honor roll students! Serial killers all have three names! Moon landings are all fake!

That last line about the moon is true. I saw the movie.

It may perpetuate mental health, but I wouldn't say it is a cause of violent crime.

I think violence has always been present in society at a certain percentage. The larger the population, the larger that number. Even if the percentage of violent actors goes down, but the population increases at a greater rate, the number of violent actors still increases.

Of course, violence has always been present. According to the Bible, there were FOUR people on Earth, and one killed one of the other ones! 1/4 of the human race wiped out! Well if they had gun control it wouldn't have happened. Well, that is what the liberals always say, no guns equals no more killing, like humans haven't been killing each other since day what, 9 or 10?

Look at the heyday of the "Wild West" and all the shootings, murders, lynching, etc. Now look at the "tame east" and the rate of murder, rape, violent crime in general, shootings, etc., was MUCH higher! Studies done and papers/books written in, easy enough to find to check.

I would not use the word "cause", but I would use the word "motivation".

I do strongly believe that the motivation of a significant number of "mass" or "active" shooters is the desire to have their actions and their names appear in the media (both "mainstream" and social). A number of these shooters have said as much.

Others have grievances against specific persons and care less (or not at all) about the media. In fact, some of those shooters shoot people on the spur of the moment (e.g., someone who just had an argument with someone).

So, it depends. I do think media coverage (both mainstream and social) of such shootings are contributing factors to at least some of the shootings.

Yes, the use of drugs, all kinds, had added to the problem. Look at France where a moslem threw an elderly woman out a window, killing her. The French courts let him off because he was high on drugs, so he's out and free to kill again. Well, as long as they are French, I have a hard time not supporting that, but that is another discussion.

Anyway, my view is these drugged up sods were set up to do what they did, brainwashed (admittedly, with some idiots I've seen on the left, all that would be needed was a damp rag and mild detergent, like Brain-O- the mild brainwashing soap), fixated, or primed, and pointed in the direction their handlers wanted them to go. They were not homicidal killers because they were on drugs, but because they were conditioned and drugged to BE killers by their handlers to promote a cause. Sort of like the WWI Brit soldiers who WALKED across the no-man's land straight at machinegun nests, the WWII Japanese kamikazes, etc. You think a sane person would do that?! Look at the leftist idiot who shot up the con-gressional baseball game. primed, drugged, and pointed, or the Vegas shooter and all the crater-sized holes in that story.

Yes, the lamestream and socialist media are to blame, not just "contributing factors", both promote an agenda, not the truth. Thugs are promoted as heroes, idiots get their 15 minutes (or 15 seconds, before the next idiot takes their place for whatever reason, like the idiot that set his pants on fire at the riot and was running around) of fame. If they weren't promoted endlessly as "heroes", "helpless victims", "socialist just-us workers", 99.9% of all riots would have never happened.

 

[tkdguy]

Yes, there is casual research on this.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Perhaps not a direct cause.. but it certainly is the cause of many issues. I see young kids now have warped senses of reality, I see folks becoming dependant on the seratonin and dopamine release social media "likes" and "follows" gives them.. feeling as if they are the center of attention.. also the insecurity and depression it causes when they have to go without that attention.. social media is no different than a gambling addition.

Social media and garbage TV go hand in hand. They are terrible for people.. many just don't realize it yet. MSM as well.. the doom and gloom nonsense sells because people are fear addicts and easily manipulated. Its amazing to see how many clients (past and new) that preach the same exact talking points (be it uninvited politics, general news..etc) as if reading from a script.. yet they pride themselves on their intellect and individuality.

A theory my buddy and I had talked about.. Think about how much these smart phones and data centers track behavior and character traits.. is it not too farfetched to imagine social media/governments using "push" tactics and particular information feeds to perhaps push particular unhinged individuals in a certain direction mentally/emotionally? Sort of digital Manchurian candidate but instead using emotional manipulation via social media feeds and preying upon high risk individuals? How many if these shooters just happened to be interviewed by law enforcement, FBI or psychiatrists pre "event"..? Its a sick tinfoil hat theory.. but on paper it seems plausible.

 

[Aero Denezol]

Mass shooters are terrorists, and they want the same thing all terrorists want, which is attention and power.

Feeble minded people are struggling to separate fantasy and reality. So yeah, screen time is not helping.

 

[po18guy]

Charles Whitman indeed. 1966 was it? My point is that each and every suicidal/homicidal manic does not just snap - going from 100% sane to100% insane. They all gave hints as to what was in the offing, and in each and every case, those hints were ignored.

Sandy Hook? The kid tried to force his way into the school the day before, angrily shouting at a custodian, who blocked his entry. Just a single free 911 call might well have prevented it.

 

[baker3gun]

I do not have a theory.
I can tell you why I chose to do something or not...but I can not answer the "why " of others.
Andy

Edit to add :

The idea behind my post which you quoted was to see what common factors are with shooters...then compare that with the numbers of folks who share those factors and did not harm others....
Maybe find the "why" from those who don't harm others , vs. those who do.
Just wanting to try a different approach.
Andy

This is a good thread, lots of interesting points.

Gun violence is statistically rare.
82.4 million Americans own 392 million guns.
More than 99% of gun owners don't commit gun crimes.
99.9% of all guns are not used in crime.
The number of guns and gun owners is increasing faster than the number of gun crimes, so the proportion of non-crime guns and gun owners is constantly growing larger than 99%.

And yet "mass shootings" remain the most damaging political tool used to attack the citizen right to arms.
So it makes sense that gun owners are frustrated.

It makes sense to work out causes and solutions to the rare phenomenon of actual "mass shootings."

I prefer to start by defining "mass shooting."

I exclude from the definition: all shootings that are non-randomly directed at specific victims, regardless of extent of collateral damage.
If a shooter specifically attacks a known or perceived "enemy", the incident is a simple crime regardless of number of incidental victims.
IMO - the simple crime category would include all shootings that occur due to gang or drug or hate culture, and also all crimes of specific passion that occur in any segment of culture that embraces gun violence as a solution to a perceived problem.
So: drive-bys, drug-trade conflicts, anti-semitic attacks on synagogues, gang-turf conflicts, inner-city kids shooting a girlfriend and other boyfriend at school, etc.
If the perp attacks with focus and ascertainable cause, it's simple crime.
The solution to all of these shootings is reduced tolerance for crime. IMO.

What remains is generally what I consider to be "mass shootings."
When a shooter attacks unknown victims without interpersonal focus, the attack is an attempt to strike back at a society for some perceived harm or foul committed against the perp.
These perpetrators are always insane. Randomly killing multiple unknown persons to strike back at society is insanity. The Vegas guy was insane. Apparently, no one knew he was insane before the act, but after the act, we all know he was insane.

Insane mass shootings are very uncommon, but highly sensational, and justifiably so.
Nobody wants this to happen.
People get emotional.
They just want it to stop, and too many citizens are willing to urgently and immediately sacrifice essential freedoms and rights to "stop mass shootings" because of two reasons:

1 - Everyone forgot that freedom is new on earth, and rare on earth, and never preserved by unarmed citizens. Govt has always and will always be an eventual engine of oppression. Freedom and rights have never and will never be preserved by the rule of law alone. An armed citizenry serves as a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants, and in it's absence, tyrants always eventually prevail. People forgot this. Therefore they are willing to abandon the right to arms.

2 - Too many people think that gun bans will end crime and violence, which is an absurd and completely unfounded mentality, fostered by ignorant political bias, and by people who prefer a nanny-state to self-reliance, and by our failed press. If all guns vanish overnight, bad people and crazy people will still do bad things.

Back to actual mass shootings:
America began to abandon effective management of mental health about 60 years ago.
Today, we don't have enough psychiatric beds to accommodate even half of our population of citizens who have serious mental illness (SMI's).
We have pursued policy that focuses on the rights of the mentally ill, while ignoring the impact they have on society.
Hundreds of thousands of SMI's live on our streets.
Tens of thousands are locked up in prisons that provide little or no effective treatment, but always release these people at the end of their sentence.
As a people, we take pride in a MYOB mentality that results in little or no attention to warning signs from SMI's living among us who are about to flip out.
Our drug culture increases the proportion of our society affected by SMI. Drug abuse creates mental illness. Soo many Americans abuse drugs. No one wants to hear about the negative side effects of drug abuse, therefore political traction for anti-drug anti-SMI platforms is difficult or impossible to achieve.

The end result is that there is a very large and rapidly growing segment of insane people living among us.

It is widely recognized that very few SMI's are prone to violence.
But when an SMI pops, holy cow is it bad.

If only one thousandth of one percent of SMI's spiral into extreme violence, in a society that has a million SMI's walking around, then you get ten Lanza's per year.

I don't disagree with Andy's idea of searching for causes of crime by evaluating differences between law-abiding citizens and homicidal criminals or dangerous SMI's, but I personally tend to lean toward other solutions.

The solution to crime is extreme punishment for crime. Societal intolerance of crime. IMO.

The solution to SMI is to do something, rather than nothing.
Presently, the American strategy for effective management of SMI is "do nothing".
For all practical purposes, we ignore SMI, and occasionally, the cost we pay for that is sensationally high.

IMO.

 

[po18guy]

The other side is winning. How?

"Gun violence"

A lie! Inanimate objects are not violent, loving, indifferent or anything else.

People are.

Rather, why is society so flush with murderers? Robbers? Drive-byers? Why is it so easy for a gun, knife, machete, or blunt object to find a murderer?

Now there is the problem.

 

[titsonritz]

Just ask Dylan and Kliebold...

Assume you mean Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

As to the OP, I'm pretty sure it is an elevated pansy level.

 

[titsonritz]

Respectful disagreement. Psychotropics have been common to almost every mass shooter in the last few years. Their use and effects need to be better understood.

Probably because they were obviously f'ed up to begin with, some are just born broken.

 

[titsonritz]

Texas Tower shooting of 1966, also called University of Texas clock tower shooting, mass shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, in which Charles Whitman, a student and ex- Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others (one of whom died years later from complications related to his wounds).

Another example of born broke, no drugs, autopsy showed a brain tumor.

 

[ma96782]

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

I would state it perpetuates mental health issues.

I hear ya.

+++++++++

Rrrrright.....what we need is.....
Millions of dollars thrown at a STUDY.

Probably run by a Govt Agency (say the CDC).

Why the CDC?

Because, they have such a stellar reputation with the science of Covid. And besides.....Politicians have told us that we're dealing with a, "Public Health Crisis".

So then.......
Conclude in the end.....

"Bad people and guns could kill people."

Rrrrright and the Politicians will react with.....
So.....America needs more Gun Controls.

Aloha, Mark

 

[bbbass]

Assume you mean Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Very few people realize that Kleibold had a split personality. He was Dylan AND Kliebold.

But Eric Hairass was just plaint batchit crazy.




BTW, we solved this about 300 posts ago... try to keep up. (and just for the jarheads among us: /sarc... )

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

This is a good thread, lots of interesting points.

Gun violence is statistically rare.
86 million Americans own 400 million guns.
99.9% of gun owners don't commit gun crimes.
99.9% of all guns are not used in crime.
The number of guns and gun owners is increasing faster than the number of gun crimes, so the proportion of non-crime guns and gun owners is constantly growing larger than 99.9%.

And yet "mass shootings" remain the most damaging political tool used to attack the citizen right to arms.
So it makes sense that gun owners are frustrated.

It makes sense to work out causes and solutions to the rare phenomenon of actual "mass shootings."

I prefer to start by defining "mass shooting."

I exclude from the definition: all shootings that are non-randomly directed at specific victims, regardless of extent of collateral damage.
If a shooter specifically attacks a known or perceived "enemy", the incident is a simple crime regardless of number of incidental victims.
IMO - the simple crime category would include all shootings that occur due to gang or drug or hate culture, and also all crimes of specific passion that occur in any segment of culture that embraces gun violence as a solution to a perceived problem.
So: drive-bys, drug-trade conflicts, anti-semitic attacks on synagogues, gang-turf conflicts, inner-city kids shooting a girlfriend and other boyfriend at school, etc.
If the perp attacks with focus and ascertainable cause, it's simple crime.
The solution to all of these shootings is reduced tolerance for crime. IMO.

What remains is generally what I consider to be "mass shootings."
When a shooter attacks unknown victims without interpersonal focus, the attack is an attempt to strike back at a society for some perceived harm or foul committed against the perp.
These perpetrators are always insane. Randomly killing multiple unknown persons to strike back at society is insanity. The Vegas guy was insane. Apparently, no one knew he was insane before the act, but after the act, we all know he was insane.

Insane mass shootings are very uncommon, but highly sensational, and justifiably so.
Nobody wants this to happen.
People get emotional.
They just want it to stop, and too many citizens are willing to urgently and immediately sacrifice essential freedoms and rights to "stop mass shootings" because of two reasons:

1 - Everyone forgot that freedom is new on earth, and rare on earth, and never preserved by unarmed citizens. Govt has always and will always be an eventual engine of oppression. Freedom and rights have never and will never be preserved by the rule of law alone. An armed citizenry serves as a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants, and in it's absence, tyrants always eventually prevail. People forgot this. Therefore they are willing to abandon the right to arms.

2 - Too many people think that gun bans will end crime and violence, which is an absurd and completely unfounded mentality, fostered by ignorant political bias, and by people who prefer a nanny-state to self-reliance, and by our failed press. If all guns vanish overnight, bad people and crazy people will still do bad things.

Back to actual mass shootings:
America began to abandon effective management of mental health about 60 years ago.
Today, we don't have enough psychiatric beds to accommodate even half of our population of citizens who have serious mental illness (SMI's).
We have pursued policy that focuses on the rights of the mentally ill, while ignoring the impact they have on society.
Hundreds of thousands of SMI's live on our streets.
Tens of thousands are locked up in prisons that provide little or no effective treatment, but always release these people at the end of their sentence.
As a people, we take pride in a MYOB mentality that results in little or no attention to warning signs from SMI's living among us who are about to flip out.
Our drug culture increases the proportion of our society affected by SMI. Drug abuse creates mental illness. Soo many Americans abuse drugs. No one wants to hear about the negative side effects of drug abuse, therefore political traction for anti-drug anti-SMI platforms is difficult or impossible to achieve.

The end result is that there is a very large and rapidly growing segment of insane people living among us.

It is widely recognized that very few SMI's are prone to violence.
But when an SMI pops, holy cow is it bad.

If only one thousandth of one percent of SMI's spiral into extreme violence, in a society that has a million SMI's walking around, then you get ten Lanza's per year.

I don't disagree with Andy's idea of searching for causes of crime by evaluating differences between law-abiding citizens and homicidal criminals or dangerous SMI's, but I personally tend to lean toward other solutions.

The solution to crime is extreme punishment for crime. Societal intolerance of crime. IMO.

The solution to SMI is to do something, rather than nothing.
Presently, the American strategy for effective management of SMI is "do nothing".
For all practical purposes, we ignore SMI, and occasionally, the cost we pay for that is sensationally high.

IMO.

Really well-written and rock solid argument. Would you mind citing your statistics? Not questioning the accuracy, but would be useful for future debate. Thank you.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Must have been someone carrying Wild West Pimp Style

The video once again affirms Sailer's Law of Mass Shootings.