Mass Violence...

[Blackstock]

...and the reasoning behind it, along with warning signs and the media's play.

As someone who dealt heavily with homicidal thoughts at some point (thankfully, I don't have those desires or whims anymore; no need to be worried), I want to know what others think.

Mass violence has become more common ever since the 1960s. Adolescent violence reached an all-time high in the media with the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre, in which 17-year-old Dylan Klebold and 18-year-old Eric Harris wounded 28 and killed 12 students and 1 teacher before killing themselves. Domestic terrorism was on the minds of the American public after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, perpetrated by ex-soldier Timothy McVeigh; international terrorism was on our minds when the September 11th attacks occurred in New York City, supposedly by nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists.

From a deranged vendetta against the government (as seen in 9/11 and OKCB), to a combination of mental illness, a desire for infamy, and a yearning for revenge (such shootings like Columbine, the Virginia Tech Massacre, etc.), many explanations are sought out for these sorts of acts of violence. Besides explanations (and grieving/mourning, of course), many tend to focus on warning signs from the shooters/bombers and how the media has had a role in "glorifying" mass violence, in a twisted way.

An infamous case of warning signs, again, comes with the Columbine Massacre. Eric and Dylan had been arrested prior for theft; Eric was informed of having a website with death threats in 1997. Due to mislaid paperwork, the police never obtained a search warrant for the Harris home. His military father, Wayne Harris, also caught his son making pipebombs on several occasions. But yet, the Harrises never searched their teenaged son's room, despite him being in therapy for homicidal and suicidal thoughts.

When it comes to glorifying mass violence, I again have to use the Columbine Massacre as an example. How many school shootings occurred after this shooting? To put it bluntly: a lot. It's gotten so many are desensitized to shootings like this. Oftentimes, when the media focuses on a shooting, they won't focus on motives like depression and homicidal thoughts due to underlying mental illnesses and bullying; rather, they use it as yet another excuse to take guns away from the masses (I'm not saying that is either a good or bad thing; this is not a debate on the merits of weaponry). It seems to say, "Hey, if you wanna get famous, and you wanna have a flashy suicide and leave an infamous legacy, do what Klebold and Harris did!"

Largely publicized mass murder can generally expect a copycat act within the next fortnight. However, what can we even do to prevent this? Generally, we can't just tell the press to stop all coverage of mass violence; that's not exactly feasible. Is media even the problem, do you think? Or are we just trying to shift the blame away from our own society and instead point fingers at the most easy scapegoat we can find? It happens often. Violent video games; Industrial and Heavy Metal music; firearms. They're blamed for mass violence (primarily in schools, but I've seen public acts of violence outside of an educational place have music and video games and guns blamed) often. But is it society to blame, rather than what we saturate our media with? Or is it the killer, with mental illnesses that were never properly treated?

I'm intrigued to hear what possible responses may come from this thread.

 

[WHO]

People who murder and kill have a mental illness no matter which way you put it. It doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. But it's a mental illness anyway you put it.

 

[Monorail]

I'm not sure if you've seen the short Alfred Hitchcock film "The Rope," but I think it plays into this a bit.

A man (Brandon) kills a friend of his on the basis that murder is an "art," that superior beings of intellect are given the right to crush those that are inferior. He then invites over an old teacher of his. The teacher, being intrigued with philosophy, had derived these ideas, and taught them to Brandon. Taking them to heart, Brandon wanted to know what it felt like to take part in an act of dominant killing.

Basically, Arthur learns what Brandon has done. Brandon explains why he's done it, and this is Arthur's response;

"Brandon, until this very moment, the world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me, and I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect, and you've thrown by own words right back in my face; you've given my words a meaning that I never dreamed of, and you tried to twist them into a cold logical excuse for your ugly murder!"

As you said in the beginning of the thread, you've dealt heavily with homicidal thoughts. Frankly, I believe a lot of human beings have had some sort of homicidal thought before; maybe not saying "I want to kill someone," but just what it'd be like in the situation. It's something you'll most likely never really experience, but how would you react? Knowing that we have the lives of those around us in our hands ready for the taking is a very interesting concept to play with, and many people understand this. News media can manipulate this idea and put out sensationalist news stories about murders and killings that grasp the attention of the viewer. Music artists may include gruesome images and actions in their music for shock value. It happens all the time.

Homicide is interesting. Think about it, everything we know is based on the fact that we are alive. But really consider the fact that you can take that away from almost anyone. Seriously, you have that power. But it is most likely something we will never take part in.

But then there is a line. Across that line is action to back up words. A complete disconnection from the realities of society. A disregard for the real consequences of real action, both for themselves and the other party. To cross this line, one must be willing to accept the consequences, by some ulterior motive or lack of knowledge, or be out of touch with the fact that this line exists.

I think for most, it's solely reliant on the fact that they lose sight of that line. Either they shun the idea that such a line exists, or they become out of touch with such boundaries. Sure, you could say for some, this is due to mental illness, but I think for many, it is more of a mental mindset.

 

[karkat]

I'm not sure if you've seen the short Alfred Hitchcock film "The Rope," but I think it plays into this a bit.

A man (Brandon) kills a friend of his on the basis that murder is an "art," that superior beings of intellect are given the right to crush those that are inferior. He then invites over an old teacher of his. The teacher, being intrigued with philosophy, had derived these ideas, and taught them to Brandon. Taking them to heart, Brandon wanted to know what it felt like to take part in an act of dominant killing.

Basically, Arthur learns what Brandon has done. Brandon explains why he's done it, and this is Arthur's response;

"Brandon, until this very moment, the world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me, and I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect, and you've thrown by own words right back in my face; you've given my words a meaning that I never dreamed of, and you tried to twist them into a cold logical excuse for your ugly murder!"

As you said in the beginning of the thread, you've dealt heavily with homicidal thoughts. Frankly, I believe a lot of human beings have had some sort of homicidal thought before; maybe not saying "I want to kill someone," but just what it'd be like in the situation. It's something you'll most likely never really experience, but how would you react? Knowing that we have the lives of those around us in our hands ready for the taking is a very interesting concept to play with, and many people understand this. News media can manipulate this idea and put out sensationalist news stories about murders and killings that grasp the attention of the viewer. Music artists may include gruesome images and actions in their music for shock value. It happens all the time.

Homicide is interesting. Think about it, everything we know is based on the fact that we are alive. But really consider the fact that you can take that away from almost anyone. Seriously, you have that power. But it is most likely something we will never take part in.

But then there is a line. Across that line is action to back up words. A complete disconnection from the realities of society. A disregard for the real consequences of real action, both for themselves and the other party. To cross this line, one must be willing to accept the consequences, by some ulterior motive or lack of knowledge, or be out of touch with the fact that this line exists.

I think for most, it's solely reliant on the fact that they lose sight of that line. Either they shun the idea that such a line exists, or they become out of touch with such boundaries. Sure, you could say for some, this is due to mental illness, but I think for many, it is more of a mental mindset.

furthering this idea, i directed a run of the play Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" was based on, Rope, and the concept of the play was lifted directly from the real life murder commited by Leopold and Loeb, and the idea was that murder was almost the ultimate experience, and if you could get away with it, consequence free, you were Nietzsche's Ubermensch. The concept of murder is not anything new, and while it could be connected to mental illness, yes, I think it mostly stems from male gender roles in our society, and the regard with which we hold power ideals. The rise of these terrible ultra violent school shootings represents something societal, there's a bigger picture here than mental illness, or the availability of guns, or the influence of violence. Killing your opposition, and even those who aren't your opposition, has been with us as human beings for a long time. Seeing it in such a concentrated, and deconstructed form, like in a school shooting, is shocking.

 

[Oreo]

furthering this idea, i directed a run of the play Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" was based on, Rope, and the concept of the play was lifted directly from the real life murder commited by Leopold and Loeb, and the idea was that murder was almost the ultimate experience, and if you could get away with it, consequence free, you were Nietzsche's Ubermensch. The concept of murder is not anything new, and while it could be connected to mental illness, yes, I think it mostly stems from male gender roles in our society, and the regard with which we hold power ideals. The rise of these terrible ultra violent school shootings represents something societal, there's a bigger picture here than mental illness, or the availability of guns, or the influence of violence. Killing your opposition, and even those who aren't your opposition, has been with us as human beings for a long time. Seeing it in such a concentrated, and deconstructed form, like in a school shooting, is shocking.

A million time yes.

 

[Chicknoodle]

Agreed with what was said prior.

 

[Grimes]

The reason massacres like this happen is because we all ignore each other. Eric and Dylan shouldn't have surprised ANYONE with their massacre, but they did. Know why? No one wanted to pay attention to them. I'm not going to get into motives and stuff, but if the media helped these kids instead of waiting for them to snap so they can call them "monsters," the outcome would be different! Do you really think anyone cared to mention what Eric and Dylan went through? No way dude, because if they did that they'd feel like they were justifying their crime. To say "they were provoked" would tell other kids in their situation to shoot up a school. People have to find a way to stand up for these kids without justifying their actions, because when warning signs are dropping like bombs (like Eric's AND Dylan's were), people would rather take the easy approach and say "man, those kids are weird!" than to just be brave and befriend them or ask them what's up. People ignore these kids, and even ones with mental illnesses are neglected by their peers because, again, "man, they're so weird!" People just aren't friendly enough to prevent these crimes. It's easy to say these kids were monsters or whatever because, I get it, they rifled off at whoever they saw because they were angry, but because of the actions they took part in nobody want to look at who they were before the massacre. I'm using Eric and Dylan because you did, but I'm still speaking in general. If you REALLY want to prevent this sort of stuff, you have to justify AT LEAST their feelings. I'm not going to say it's okay to shoot up a school or any place, but it IS okay to be that angry after so much negativity gets bombarded upon your shoulders. People have self-serving attitudes and always like to think (being specific here) that "hey, maybe Eric and Dylan have someone to talk to. I don't know them so why should I help?" THE BYSTANDER EFFECT. If I don't worry about it someone else will. NO, someone else won't. That's what society is forgetting. These people aren't always stone cold. Killing is actually a natural instinct. Just because people have chosen to delete this instinct and live amongst each other in a civil manner unlike animals, that doesn't mean that everyone can live up to this norm. Killing is associated with things such as feeling threatened, being angry, having adrenaline, or just feeling intruded upon. When the things in your life are constantly surfacing these feelings, you're bound to act out and lose control. We don't have to hide that these kids were bullied. To say that wouldn't be sending the message (at least in my opinion) that massacres are a solution, instead it'd probably help society out. For once, people need to start realizing the effect they have on others. Without considering killers who've been provoked, we should really not dismiss the potential for mental illnesses. I feel like that's something else, just like emotions, that people ignore a lot for the same reasons.