Seven factors that compose the anatomy of a mass killing, including ideas to prevent and counteract the horrible plans and actions of mass killers and mass shooters.
This is an opinion and analysis article by the editor. As a crowdsourced platform, we value respectful debate and the free market of ideas and will consider all article submissions.
Factor 1 – Initial Mindset
Most perpetrators who conceive or actually initiate a mass killing begin with a similar initial mindset. This mindset is one of ostracism, a sense that they stand apart from the rest of society, whether from actual social outcasting or from self-banishment.
It’s important to understand that this is a mindset, and very difficult to determine from outward presentation. For every perpetrator who “everyone saw it coming” because of their solitary lifestyle and odd behavior, there are just as many who proved to be excellent at hiding their inner turmoil and appearing normal, even to the point where they seem to be thriving on life. This initial mindset is a dangerous foundation, not only because it plants the seed of resentment necessary to kill, but because it begins the process of dehumanizing society.
Prevention of Factor 1
The initial mindset of a mass killing perpetrator is not unlike that of someone who will eventually contemplate suicide. The main difference is that their emotional instability is projected outwards instead of inward, and, if left unchecked, can lead them to a desire to hurt others instead of only hurting themselves.
Extending suicide watch programs and suicide prevention education to include prevention techniques for outward-projecting emotional instability may help prevent some individuals from continuing down the path towards contemplating a mass killing.
Factor 2 – The Justifying Catalyst
The majority of those who perpetrate mass killings are passive-aggressive and uncomfortable with (and sometimes afraid of) authority. They tend to hate themselves for their cowardice, and therefore hate others even more as they project outward with their resentment.
While they may contemplate suicide, they will not go through with it, because it would be conceding defeat to the society they hate. But this outward projecting hatred can fester for years without action until the introduction of a justifying catalyst.
Whether it is contact with a similarly minded individual, such as the Columbine Shooters, or a radicalized religion that gives justification to the outward-projected hate, there will almost always be a justifying catalyst which pushes the perpetrator over the edge of passive-aggressive resentment and into the realm of seriously considering causing others physical harm.
Prevention of Factor 2
Before, and a little after, the arrival of the justifying catalyst is when a possible perpetrator will lash out in a passive-aggressive manner the most. In the modern age of social media and the internet, it has grown far easier to spot passive-aggressive behavior. Inflammatory and derogatory communication in public cyberspace can easily be monitored to spot those who may soon begin planning mass killings, especially in connection with other factors.
Factor 3 – Target Selection
While a perpetrator may consider other factors of a possible mass killing at any point in the process, it is usually the target that is considered with great seriousness first. Remember that the impetus of a mass killing is outward-projecting self-resentment. The society the perpetrator has come to hate must remain his key mental focus for him to go through with the attack. Because of this, they naturally gravitate towards obsessing the most about the target before all other considerations.
Prevention of Factor 3
This is the best possible chance to stop a mass killing before it is enacted. Barring training by outside sources taking advantage of the perpetrator’s mental instability, the surveillance conducted by the perpetrator will be sloppy and awkward. Proper security of high-value targets and central areas of mass gatherings should be able to spot unusual behavior.
Factor 4 – A Casualty Causing Device
Mass killings have been perpetrated by numerous different casualty causing devices, including knives, semi-automatic weapons, bolt-action weapons, swords, hand-guns, fertilizer, pressure cookers, PVC pipe bombs, pump-action shotguns, vehicles, tools for arson, and so on and so forth. The highest consideration of most perpetrators is access.
This is a key point to understand: rarely will a perpetrator choose the most dangerous option, but rather opts for the most accessible option. At this point, they feel they are close to actually committing the mass killing and they do not want to be caught on the cusp of the attack.
Preventing Factor 4
Interestingly enough, while this is the factor most focused on by society at large, it is the hardest factor to control and the most difficult to discern. The purchase of almost any item that can be utilized or manufactured into a casualty causing device without the recognition of any previous factor is rarely enough to justify a thorough investigation.
Any attempt to simply remove items, objects, or weapons that could be utilized as casualty causing devices from society would have a doubtful impact. There are just too many ways for a determined individual to kill people.
Consider that the removal of semi-automatic weapons from society would do little to stop a perpetrator from rigging the front of a vehicle with sharp-blades and pointed objects and driving through a densely crowded area like Times Square or a college campus. The only way to understand Factor 4 and use it to prevent a mass killing is in conjunction with other factors.
Factor 5 – A Soft Target
Whether the perpetrator of a mass killing victimizes a handful of people or fifty people is not so much up to himself as it is to the factors present at the target when he begins his attack. Lack of security, gun-free zones, a sweeping field of fire that can only be escaped through confined exits, the integrity of the building, the reaction time of first responders; all of these factors come into play when considering the lethal result of a mass killing.
Preventing Factor 5
Unfortunately, due to misguided fears, reactionary policies, and failure to plan for the worse, our society has been allowing for the creation of soft targets at an alarming rate.
Night clubs that are more worried about keeping non-paying customers out of the club than having accessible and frequent exits for patrons. Schools where the child-to-teacher ratio is often 30-1 with no armed security or police presence. Movie theaters that seat hundreds of people, but only have two narrow exits. Restaurants, offices, warehouses, and recreation centers with huge plastered signs declaring “Gun Free” so easily translated by the perpetrators as “shooting gallery”.
And few of these types of locations have emergency plans that take into consideration police response time. We design buildings in specific ways for earthquakes and fire, draw up detailed plans for every natural disaster contingency, and yet, because we refuse to face the possibility of mass killings, we don’t plan or prepare for them.
If the majority of mass killings are to ever be stopped, we must stop over-focusing on Factor 4 and make Factor 5 our priority.
Factor 6 – Panic and Flight
When a wolf enters a flock of sheep, he is not expecting a fight. Remembering that the majority of these perpetrators are passive-aggressive, a mass shooting is essentially their debutante. For the first time, they are physically acting on the hatred that has smoldered quietly for so long. They are cowards and are expecting a free-for-all and a shooting gallery.
They have convinced themselves of their superiority over those they despise and they expect to be able to kill and maim with impunity. Because of lack of training, fear sets in on the victims and they usually do exactly what the perpetrator wants them to: run in a panicked hysteria, making themselves the easiest targets possible.
How to prevent Factor 6
This is the most tragic factor of a mass killing, and the most preventable. Consider for a moment that a single man armed with a rifle can only threaten the life of one individual at a time. Consider that, in the case of the Orlando shooting, it was one man against hundreds, and each time he aimed his weapon and killed somebody, there were hundreds of people the shooter was not focused on. Now, consider how fewer the number of dead would have been if those hundreds had fought back instead of fleeing in panic.
A careful study of mass killings shows that time and time again, whenever the perpetrator is faced with resistance he does not expect, the loss of life almost immediately ends.
Factor 7 – Time
Time is the most dangerous factor in a mass killing. Time is what kills people, and is far more deadly than whatever the perpetrator brings as his casualty causing device.
As was demonstrated with the Virginia Tech shooting, two low powered pistols were enough to kill 32 people because the perpetrator was given the time to kill them. If there is anything that can guarantee a lower loss of life in a mass killing scenario, it is finding ways to lower the time available to the perpetrator.
Preventing Factor 7
Before Columbine, it was the typical tactic of police to set up a parameter and wait for the arrival of a specialized unit, such as SWAT, to enter the building. Due to the loss of life that occurred inside Columbine High School while police sat outside the school watching and waiting, most police departments across the country have ended this practice.
It is now typical for police officers to ideally wait until a four-man team can be assembled and then move forward to engage the perpetrator. But most officers are instructed that if they feel they can intercede and end the loss of life to engage the threat immediately. However, there are still police departments using outdated tactics and techniques, and there is a culture of over-dependence on specialized units in many first responder agencies.
The money that has gone to training for mass killing scenarios has predominantly gone to specialized units in Police Departments. It needs to be re-directed towards training patrol officers more heavily so they do not hesitate or “wait for the cavalry” before engaging the threat, as happened in the Florida high school shooting.
Many mass killings can easily be thwarted without massive losses of life when the perpetrator is immediately engaged, and his operating space is saturated rapidly by first responders and other forms of resistance.
In Conclusion
A mass killing is an intricate and complicated devastating event. The factors and information I have presented only scratch the surface of the analysis needed to determine how to identify and prevent threats before they happen and the most effective means to end the situations rapidly with as little loss of life as possible. Our society needs to engage in a complete and honest study into the full range of causes for mass casualty events.
But, before we can properly wage war against mass killings there are a few hard truths we must understand. First, we must recognize that we will never be able to prevent all mass killings and therefore cannot simply use their occurrence as a justification to “try anything until it stops”. Second, we have to educate ourselves so as not to be pawns of politicians on the left and right who use these tragic events to push forward their agendas. We must find real solutions. And third, we must find a way to complete the grieving process before we begin lashing out at each other and trying to place blame.
These kinds of occurrences take time to investigate and to understand, and too often society begins searching for scapegoats as soon as the gun smoke clears. We are not doing the victims of these crimes any favors by turning them into political pawns before they are even buried. We need to remember how to come together as a society and mourn for our dead, raise a candle in their memory, and save the bickering for when our tears have dried and the facts are known.
When we refuse to shelve our politics in the midst of the crisis, it’s hard to hear the validity of others’ perspectives over the pain of our broken hearts.
Do you agree with this article? Do you disagree? Give us your perspective on this topic, or any other topic, by submitting your own article or offering a comment below.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020