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
 

Will Concealed Carry Laws Make Illinois Any Safer?

Illinois state Rep. La Shawn Ford, an African-American, third-term Democrat representing a West Chicago District, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sept, 8 that he would support "concealed carry" legislation if it came up for a vote in the General Assembly. Rep. Ford said he "knows it sounds bad," but that his constituents desire to legally protect themselves with firearms.

"They're saying we're making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. They're saying you're only siding with the criminals because the criminals could care less about the law."

In the years that I served in the state's attorney's office and on the bench I never questioned the wisdom of outlawing the carrying of concealed weapons. I simply accepted the premise that if more people carried guns, it would translate into more gun violence. Mass killings over the past few years have caused me to begin to question my long-held beliefs.

-- On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire with an automatic pistol at the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. The shootings ended only when Hasan was shot and disabled by civilian police officer Sgt. Mark Todd. The soldier-victims were unarmed.

-- On Jan. 8, 2011, 19 people were shot by Jared Loughner, 22, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords met with her constituents. Six, including U. S. District Judge John M. Roll, and Christina Green, 9, were killed, and Rep. Giffords was shot through the head. The victims were unarmed.

-- On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, shot to death 69 people in Norway at a youth retreat. One of the first victims was an unarmed off-duty police officer hired to provide security. Police in Norway generally do not carry firearms. Breivik's victims were unarmed.

-- On Sept. 7, 2011, Edwardo Sencion of Carson City killed four and wounded eight others at an IHOP restaurant. Three of the dead were members of the Nevada National Guard. The victims were unarmed.

Our Second Amendment provides, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I have previously written why I think we have a Second Amendment. "At the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, no city in the United States had an organized police force. ...

"The counties had their sheriffs, but in an era before telephones, a sheriff at the county seat miles away afforded the frontiersman scant protection against marauding Indians, burglars and robbers. In the backwoods, a family's personal security rested on their ownership of guns. That was the patent reality in 1791."

In 1850, a French economist and philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise "The Law," succinctly explained that the law's first purpose is "self defense."

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

"Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the ... collective right -- is based on the individual right."

With that in mind, I am now asking myself:

First, assuming all four incidents might have occurred even if the carrying of concealed weapons had been permitted, had there been people carrying concealed, would one or more of gunmen have been shot before they killed and wounded as many as they did?

Second, if a person intent on committing mass murder knows that a number of his intended victims or bystanders -- especially those standing behind him -- may be armed, might he be deterred?

Third, if citizens competently trained in firearm safety and without criminal records or mental health problems are allowed to carry concealed, is their any real likelihood that unlawful shootings will increase due to misuse of that privilege?

Fourth, are there reliable statistic in states which permit concealed carry to answer my third query?

The Chicago Redeye has written that there were 34 gun homicides in Chicago during July 2011. Would gang members be as inclined to use guns if they knew their intended victims or bystanders might also be carrying concealed?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that unarmed citizens have little or no chance against heavily armed criminals bent on committing mass murder. When somebody like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan uses a semi-automatic pistol that can fire 20 rounds from a clip as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, the police are probably not going to arrive in time to prevent the slaughter. And as long as smaller clips can be exchanged almost instantaneously, banning 20-round clips won't solve the problems.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, pistols and long guns generally fired a single shot. Reloading gave others time to counterattack or run. Modern automatic and semiautomatic weapons deprive victims of those options. And every one of the incidents cited demonstrates that having armed police just minutes away is not enough.

I can't think of any meaningful alternative except concealed carry to stop mass murders. Can you? Washington D.C. and Chicago have a strict handgun bans. Law-abiding citizens comply, but the criminals don't. Would concealed carry cut down on murders and mass murder, or just lead to more shootings? I don't know. Do you?

I have no desire to carry a weapon, but do I have any right to tell one of Rep. Ford's constituents, living in a crime ridden part of Chicago, that they are wrong to want protection?

Posted Online: Oct. 11, 2011, 3:47 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea