Well, it is a relative term, and not an all-encompassing one.
Joel Send a noteboard - 26/12/2012 07:04:25 PM
The best analysis may be from this article: "None of these things is caused by a single factor. Obviously, these are always very complicated events. The impulse is to find a simple explanation for complicated situations. It is important to resist it.” http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12858757-mass-murderers-often-not-mentally-ill-but-seeking-revenge-experts-say?lite
The article in question is focused on mass shooters seeking vengeance, which you may recall I previously referenced; the line between those seeking fame and outcasts seeking to "get back" at society can be a fine one. It is all but given someone who feels victimized by society cannot return the favor unless society as a whole is aware of it, which requires their atrocities are well publicized—it just does not require their survival, and people in that state of mind are inclined to feel their lives worthless and better ended anyway.
zodiac: killed and stayed alive to tell people about it
chapman: killed and stayed alive to tell people about it
hinckley: attempted assassination of reagan in order to impress jodie foster (btw, i can't believe you got this one wrong....
)
manson: killed and relished the media attention he got from it
i would distinguish between mass murderers and mass shooters. yes, a mass shooting is technically a mass murder, but far and away most mass shooters are NOT looking for celebrity.
We are still parsing the fact some mass shooters have and others have not sought celebrity, whether or not they intended to survive. For my money it is just one of many factors, because shooting rampages have unfortunately become so common they do not all share the same major contributing factors. We cannot say "it is all because of notoriety/mental illness/resentment" because, while each has been a major factor in many shootings, each has been absent in many others. However, I maintain that the notoriety mass murderers receive remains a prime motivator for many of them, whether or not they intend to survive. If infamy is the sole desire, survival is not required, and, as with so much else, spectacular destruction is easier than spectacular creation (making it, of course, an admission of inadequacy.)
a handful of mass murderers, and two of those only shot at one person so could hardly be given the title of "mass murderer", who did it for the attention and notoriety does not equate to "many". of all the 61 mass shootings identified by mother jones magazine, very very few of them involve people doing it for the celebrity involved with being a mass shooter. this is the distinction which you are not getting, apparently. very very few are doing the shootings specifically because they will become famous for it.
*shrug* Try the fame-seeking Aurora shooter then: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/psychologists-suggest-accused-killer-james-holmes-was-seeking-fame
Alienation, celebrity, vengeance and mental illness can all prompt mass shooters, and there overlapping motives are common. That does not mean mass shootings would be fewer if we did not make celebrities of murderers, but does make that would REDUCE mass shootings. Just as better gun control would reduce without eliminating them. The same logic applies to both, or not, so let us not invoke it selectively.
The article in question is focused on mass shooters seeking vengeance, which you may recall I previously referenced; the line between those seeking fame and outcasts seeking to "get back" at society can be a fine one. It is all but given someone who feels victimized by society cannot return the favor unless society as a whole is aware of it, which requires their atrocities are well publicized—it just does not require their survival, and people in that state of mind are inclined to feel their lives worthless and better ended anyway.
Look at people like the Zodiac and other serial killers who send letters to newspapers bragging of their crimes and taunting law enforcement as inferiors. Why did Mark David Chapman kill John Lennon? Because he thought it would impress Jody Foster, but how did he know she would even find out about it? Because it would put his name alongside Lennons in every headline.
zodiac: killed and stayed alive to tell people about it
chapman: killed and stayed alive to tell people about it
hinckley: attempted assassination of reagan in order to impress jodie foster (btw, i can't believe you got this one wrong....
)manson: killed and relished the media attention he got from it
i would distinguish between mass murderers and mass shooters. yes, a mass shooting is technically a mass murder, but far and away most mass shooters are NOT looking for celebrity.
We are still parsing the fact some mass shooters have and others have not sought celebrity, whether or not they intended to survive. For my money it is just one of many factors, because shooting rampages have unfortunately become so common they do not all share the same major contributing factors. We cannot say "it is all because of notoriety/mental illness/resentment" because, while each has been a major factor in many shootings, each has been absent in many others. However, I maintain that the notoriety mass murderers receive remains a prime motivator for many of them, whether or not they intend to survive. If infamy is the sole desire, survival is not required, and, as with so much else, spectacular destruction is easier than spectacular creation (making it, of course, an admission of inadequacy.)
a handful of mass murderers, and two of those only shot at one person so could hardly be given the title of "mass murderer", who did it for the attention and notoriety does not equate to "many". of all the 61 mass shootings identified by mother jones magazine, very very few of them involve people doing it for the celebrity involved with being a mass shooter. this is the distinction which you are not getting, apparently. very very few are doing the shootings specifically because they will become famous for it.
*shrug* Try the fame-seeking Aurora shooter then: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/psychologists-suggest-accused-killer-james-holmes-was-seeking-fame
Alienation, celebrity, vengeance and mental illness can all prompt mass shooters, and there overlapping motives are common. That does not mean mass shootings would be fewer if we did not make celebrities of murderers, but does make that would REDUCE mass shootings. Just as better gun control would reduce without eliminating them. The same logic applies to both, or not, so let us not invoke it selectively.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
20 children killed in latest US school shooting 
- 15/12/2012 12:35:42 AM
892 Views
- 15/12/2012 12:35:42 AM
892 Views
i know 2 people with kids there, one of them has lost their 5 year old. this is too close to home
- 15/12/2012 12:39:26 AM
510 Views
I lived 20 mins from there. I'm shocked. I'm even heading back there in 4 days....
- 15/12/2012 02:08:28 PM
460 Views
Maybe when we stop making media celebrities out of these murderers..
- 16/12/2012 05:36:19 PM
452 Views
Nope, won't happen.
- 16/12/2012 06:37:11 PM
557 Views
For each of those 30 years sociologists have warned of the growing danger of growing alienation.
- 16/12/2012 10:05:28 PM
533 Views
I don't know what you mean, though.
- 17/12/2012 05:53:44 PM
476 Views
I dunno, your response suggests you figured it out pretty quickly.
- 18/12/2012 05:08:12 PM
548 Views
Short form: The common phrases "suicide by cop" and "going postal" did not exist a generation ago.
- 18/12/2012 09:14:51 PM
497 Views
if they were after fame, they would probably all have tried to stay alive after killing everyone
- 16/12/2012 10:01:50 PM
440 Views
One need not be living to be famous.
- 16/12/2012 10:08:12 PM
483 Views
actually, i'm pretty sure you're wrong on this
- 17/12/2012 05:38:07 PM
455 Views
"Live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse," "it's better to burn out than fade away" etc
- 18/12/2012 03:25:23 PM
580 Views
what do your examples all have in common?
- 18/12/2012 08:42:59 PM
491 Views
I frequently confuse that detail of Hinckleys shooting with Chapmans, sorry.
- 18/12/2012 08:59:25 PM
556 Views
you are going to have to define "many"
- 18/12/2012 10:13:33 PM
492 Views
Well, it is a relative term, and not an all-encompassing one.
- 26/12/2012 07:04:25 PM
537 Views
Chapman wasn't a mass murderer, though. Neither was Hinckley.
- 20/12/2012 05:15:23 AM
445 Views
True, but it does demonstrate how easily and frequently notoriety motivates shootings.
- 26/12/2012 07:22:37 PM
486 Views