Getting to ther Root of Why Mass Murderers Kill

 

What does America need to do to prevent mass murders? How do we prevent a future Columbine? Sandy Hook?

The immediate focus has been on banning assault weapons. But even given the availability of guns, I can't help but wonder if any of these murders would have occurred if that was the only factor present.

Ask yourself what common factors you see in three recent mass murders. See if you see what I think I see.

In discussing contributing factors to the violence at Columbine High School by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, researchers Dr. Craig Anderson and Dr. Karen Dill stated:

"Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' website with a version of Doom that he had customized. In his version there are two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game can't fight back. For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of Doom. In the video, Harris and Klebold dress in trench coats, carry guns and kill school athletes. They acted out their videotaped performance in real life less than a year later. An investigator associated with the Wiesenthal Center said Harris and Klebold were 'playing out their game in God mode.'"

Norway's mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, testified during his trial that he played video games as a way to train for his shooting spree that killed 77 people last summer. In particular, Anders Behring Breivik said at his trial, he played "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" for shooting practice, according to CNN's report. That military action game sold more than 10 million copies upon its 2009 release.

"Breivik ... testified that he spent hours playing Call Of Duty instead of socializing with any friends. He had spent the preceding New Year's Eve on his computer."

"The game is described as a 'first person shooter video game' and Breivik admitted by using it he honed his gun and targeting skills.
"He would use those same 'skills' to kill 69 innocent people on the island of Utoya."

"On the opening day of the trial prosecutors read the names of the dead ... Most of them had died after taking two or three shots -- and sometimes more -- directly to the head.

"Cross examined about the game, Breivik told the court: 'The game teaches about target acquisition and you have to practice within a specific time. It's a war simulator that shows you how to shoot at people. It helps you acquire experience of sights and targeting.

"The game uses a 'holographic sight' similar to the one that Breivik attached to his hunting rifle when he stalked his victims on the island with unerring accuracy." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132002/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norway-killer-wanted-behead-prime-minister-live-online.html#ixzz2FHKiuQpT)

Adam Lanza, 20, forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School at Newtown, Conn., and murdered 20 children and six adults before committing suicide, after murdering his mother, Nancy Lanza, in their home by shooting her in the face. Lanza used a .223 semi-automatic rifle, fired from close range.

Lanza is reputed to have been mentally ill, aggressive with an baleful obsession for violent computer games. His favorite was said to be a violent fantasy war game called "Dynasty Warriors". That game is thought to have given him inspiration to act out the murders. He is said to have suffered from antisocial disorder and was known for being unable to empathize or socialize with others, suffering child-like violent tantrums. His condition was so extreme that his mother would never leave him alone in a room.
Lanza's mother was said to be a "survivalist". She was honing her skills, including her shooting skills.

The killer's aunt, Marsha Lanza, said Nancy "was stockpiling food ... getting ready for the economic collapse. I think she had (legally procured) the guns for self-defense because she lived alone." It was apparently for that reason that she had acquired the weapons and "dum-dum" bullets used by Lanza to kill the teachers and children in Newtown. Lanza appears to have had access to his mother's arsenal. He learned to shoot when his mother took him to a local gun range. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365190/Killer-Adam-Lanza-obsessed-with-violent-video-games)

Unquestionably, guns were present in each of these situations. But would any of these shooting have occurred in the absence of the violent video games that trained the murderers, and inspired them to replicate mass killings they saw in the videos? Without mental illness — insanity? Or if any of the murderers had a strong belief in God? In the commandment that says, "thou shall not kill?" Or a belief that if they took innocent life they might well face an eternity in Hell?

Or is it the gun alone that causes a person to drive to a grade school and take innocent life? If so, why weren't the Columbine and Sandy Hook murders the work of policemen?


Posted Online: Jan. 16, 2013, 3:03 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea
 

Their Leaders Did Not Dare to Undeceive Them

"Their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."

After World War I, the allies imposed "reparations" on Germany. The rationale was that German aggression had caused of the war; Germany should therefore reimburse the allies for damages done by that aggression.

In "The Gathering Storm," criticizing the reparations imposed, Winston Churchill wrote, "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them. The newspapers, after their fashion, reflected and emphasized the prevailing opinions. Few voices were raised to explain that the payment of reparations can only be made by ...."

The same can be said about the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington. President Obama assures the country that all will be well if only taxes are raised on Americans with incomes greater than $250,000. He vows not to cut entitlements. He speaks of cutting spending -- not by cutting spending, but rather by cutting increases in the rate of spending. And most of the American main-stream media uncritically echo the president. Now, Democrats and Republicans in Congress vote to raise taxes on couples with incomes greater than $450,000, while making no meaningful spending cuts, and half the country cheers deliriously.

So if we were to let the Bush-era tax cuts on the "rich" expire -- defined by the president as households making more than $250,000 a year -- how much will the higher income tax rates bring in? $56 billion a year -- 5 percent of this year's deficit!

Our deficit this year will be over $1 trillion. Raising the rates on those earning over $250,000 would still leave a 2012 deficit of $950 billion! And, then, only if the new revenues are used to reduce the deficit. But Mr. Obama wants instead to spend $50 billion for a new stimulus! Cynically, the Senate bill does even less.

Here is the simple fact: This country is running a $5 billion deficit each day. However the $56 billion in new taxes is spent, it will be gone in 11 days! The president is playing the American people for partisan advantage. His plan is a cynical joke. Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans make no serious effort to explain to the public just how serious the deficit is.

On Dec. 17, Bret Baier on the Fox News Channel demonstrated with simple graphs what is really going on in Washington. To keep it understandable, Baier referenced U. S. revenues and expenses for one month -- the month of November 2012.

Each day during November, the government brought in a little more than $5 billion of revenue. Each day during that month, the U.S. government spent more than $11 billion. The difference (deficit) is roughly $6 billion per day, or $180 billion for the month!

Of that $11 billion in expenses, the top items were:

-- Department of Health and Human Services (Medicare) roughly $3 billion a day;
-- Social Security roughly $2.5 billion a day;
-- The Department of Defense $1.8 billion a day;
-- Interest on the debt, $854 million every day.

Baier noted that economists say that the interest is the most concerning of all since the country gets practically nothing in exchange for it. Even worse, interest rates are subject to wild fluctuation.

In the words of former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, "We've got a $16 trillion debt, and servicing the debt (paying interest on it) is hard now. This is with interest rates at record lows. God forbid something should happen to cause interest rates to go up even a little -- back to where they ordinarily would be. he burden of this debt would become immensely greater."

Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton's budget director, attributed the bulk of the spending problem to the promises made under Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security.

"They'll drive federal spending up faster than our economy can grow. Revenues won't keep up, so we have a problem. If you don't have enough revenues to pay for the spending, you have to borrow. And on the track that we are on, if we go on doing what is in the law over the next several decades, our public debt will rise faster than our economy can grow.

"When that happens you got a real problem, because you've got to pay interest on that debt, and your creditors see that your debt's rising faster than your economy is growing, so they charge more and more and it's a very bad situation."

Arthur Brooks, with the American Enterprise Institute, finds current debates about higher taxes misguided, with federal spending on overdrive.

"And the problem is right now you have a situation in which the government (is) overspending (and) tries to rationalize it by saying that actually the problem is we're under-taxing the American public. It's like your irresponsible brother-in-law runs up his credit cards and goes bust and says the real problem is because you've stopped sending me checks," he said. "The truth of the matter is our country spends too much."

In speaking of reparations, Churchill lamented, "No one in great authority had the wit, ascendancy or detachment from public folly to declare these fundamental brutal facts to the electorate; nor would any one have been believed if they had."

On the tax/deficit problems that is not quite true. Baier, Bayh, Rivlin and Brooks are sounding the warnings. But is anybody listening? Does anybody care?


Posted Online: : Posted Online: Jan. 03, 2013, 8:37 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea