╌>

Why Are Mass Shooters Always Men?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  john-russell  •  5 years ago  •  67 comments

Why Are Mass Shooters Always Men?

Over the past number of years there has been a sort of bubbling up consideration of an intriguing concept - what if the world was run by women?  Would it be a better place?  I remember a 60 Minutes segment a few years ago which was about how powerful women are in Icelandic politics and how it made Iceland a much more successful and happier place. Iceland is considered one of the happiest countries in the world. 

It is hard to deny a belief that if women ran the world there would be less violence, less hostility, less extremism, less terrorism, and less hate. 

California governor Gavin Newsom held a meeting yesterday to address mass shootings and how to prevent them

"These shootings overwhelmingly — almost exclusively — are males, boys, men. I do think that is missing in the national conversation," Newsom said, according to Politico. "I think that goes deep to the issue of how we raise our boys to be men, goes deeply to values that we tend to hold dear — power, dominance, aggression, over empathy, care and collaboration."

We don't see young women involved in mass shootings. I can't remember even one that made national news, although I'm sure there are women who kill someone with a gun. Years ago there was a female serial killer Aileen Wuornos, who was messed up in the head and killed a string of men, usually by shooting them. It was considered unusual though , so unusual that a Hollywood movie about it , Monster, became a sensation and the actress who played her, Charlize Theron, won an academy award. We don't picture women as killers. 

Boys we do. 

We all know there are biological imperatives that create aggression in males, the need to provide for the family was why the man was fighting the prehistoric beast outside as the woman was huddled in the cave cradling the offspring. There were defined roles based on physical strength and aggressiveness. 

But the world doesnt often require physical strength to succeed anymore. It doesnt necessarily require physical aggressiveness. Young men (these mass shooters) get frustrated by how they are treated , not only by women but by the world in general, and they lash out in a burst of primeval violence. 

The Dayton killer was a member of a band which performed songs about raping and killing women. As much as there may be radical feminists who fantasize mass violence against men, it doesnt happen much at all in real life. Women have some quality that keeps them more grounded. We need as a society for that groundedness to transfer to the young men. 



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    5 years ago

Men have bees screwing up the world for thousands of years. Give the ladies more of a chance. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
4  Sunshine    5 years ago

In general men commit more violence than women.  It isn't surprising that most of them are the shooters.

Lack of fathers in the home maybe one reason, or fathers who ignore their sons.  No role models for them.

Who knows, lot of males have the worst home environment and still don't go on killing sprees.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5  Nerm_L    5 years ago

Ah, the search for easy answers.  And the desire to politicize those easy answers.

Perhaps the question that should be asked is why are men considered expendable in modern society?  Why are men overlooked in modern society?  Even the news coverage of mass shootings focus attention on women, children, and the elderly.  The only men that receive any attention are the shooters.

How many women run toward danger?  How many women were among the first responders on 9/11?  Why were men charged with cowardice for not running into Parkland School and engaging the shooter in combat?  Why weren't any women expected to sacrifice themselves at Parkland?

Why does modern society expect men to make the sacrifices while castigating and denigrating men?  Women are heroes for huddling in closets.  Men are heroes for charging into a hail of bullets.

Modern society expects men to kill or be killed.  Men are expected to go into danger willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others, particularly women, children, and the elderly.  Men are expected to go into the collapsed buildings and the raging fires to save others; anything less is cowardice.  Women only need be victims to receive far more attention than men.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
6  Dean Moriarty    5 years ago

Several factors contribute to males being the more aggressive gender. Behavioral conditioning and genetics are major contributing factors. The male has a genetic advantage when it comes to combat with a much more muscular build and better hormone balance for combat situations.

Same reasons you don't see any female NFL players. The male is the better hunter and the female the better gatherer. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    5 years ago
But the world doesnt often require physical strength to succeed anymore. 

It is still in our genes and will remain for a very long time.

Thing is, genes do not determine behavior, they are a factor in behavior.   Environment (especially growing up) is a critical factor.    Brain chemistry is a local, short-term factor.

Bottom line, those who are genetically pre-disposed to aggression will not necessarily be aggressive.   But if the right factors are in place, that genetic aggression will manifest.

In short, men are still genetically more aggressive (potentially) than woman and thus are more likely to act out aggression when the right mix of other factors is present.   

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8  It Is ME    5 years ago

"Why Are Mass Shooters Always Men? "

Men have more "mental" issues and don't know how to deal with them ….. Because it isn't manly to cry ?

The nut balls need to embrace their feminine side more often ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

I hear being "Pansexual" is a reliever, and makes for a super-duper happy camper type person.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  It Is ME @8    5 years ago

I think you have actually hit on something here.

Look at the average age of mass shooters lately and what was being said about masculinity during their formative years . if they could be asked , I bet you would get some pretty wild and differing definitions of what they though was being masculine or being a man, or what they thought society was expecting of them.

 The definitions are fine , but with no actual or physical role models that they can relate to,  too emulate , they could end up confused and lost, and maybe even choose the wrong things to emulate.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1    5 years ago
The definitions are fine , but with no actual or physical role models that they can relate to,  too emulate , they could end up confused and lost, and maybe even choose the wrong things to emulate.

OR

They were just nutz in the first place.

273 + or - mass murders since 2017 out of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of gun owners.....and we have enough of a serious issue to Ban guns because of those 273 retarded thinking folks ?

If it only takes 273 folks to get a law "Made" to "BAN" guns, what about those 32 grand worth of people that are killed while car owners drive drunk every year.

Ban the fucking cars. They're far worse, and a detriment to society "Life" !

I didn't have a Dad for 8 years, but I sure as hell ain't looking to go out and SHOOT someone over it !

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.4  It Is ME  replied to    5 years ago

And over 30 grand a year DEAD by Drunk Drivers is ?

"Grand' means Thousand" ya know..... 30 of them thousand . jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.4    5 years ago

There's no comparisons between the two.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.1    5 years ago

No one is talking about banning guns.

They're talking about keeping them out of the hands of those accused of domestic violence, mental illness where they might harm themselves or others, etc., NOT BANNING GUNS

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    5 years ago
They're talking about keeping them out of the hands of those accused of domestic violence, mental illness where they might harm themselves or others

Not in the "Liberal Presidential" caucus run they ain't. Trump is the one that was talking about "Mental Illness", and the Liberals running for President condemned him for not blaming "THE GUN". jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.7    5 years ago

He is the one who is mentally ill and that really has nothing to do with gun violence.  

I had a piece about that exact issue posted but had to delete it due to excessive trolling.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.10  It Is ME  replied to    5 years ago

Do you even know what an "Assault Weapon" is ?

Did you know that an AR15 is just a Super cool looking "Plastic" covered Ruger Mini 14 type gun ?

They both shoot the same ammo, but the Mini 14 is a wood stocked or composite covered rifle when you buy it. It's pretty, simple, and NOT on the "We need to ban" list. Does the same thing, but that Gewgawed AR15 just looks menacing, because of the neat Gewgaws around it.

To date....haven't seen the news reporting on your ridicules AK-47 comparison as the weapon of choice by the "Few" NUTZ that choose to MURDER !

Oh …. by the by ..... Did you know that "MURDER" has been against the "Law" in this country …. since it's inception ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.5    5 years ago
There's no comparisons between the two.  

"Clue" isn't just a board game.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.9    5 years ago
He is the one who is mentally ill and that really has nothing to do with gun violence. 

I agree....Trump has NOTHING to do with "Nutty Murderers" !

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.14  It Is ME  replied to    5 years ago
Yup, killed over thirty and injured scores more just this past weekend.

So the "Person" is the "Assault Weapon" ?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    5 years ago
No one is talking about banning guns.

Well, we already have many banned guns. Without special permits you can't own most military weapons and explosives. Most States even have bans on switchblade or butterfly knives, nunchucks and certain extension batons. We also had an assault rifle ban for 10 years and there was no slippery slope into banning all guns as many unreasonable gun advocates claim. A Republican led 108th congress with the Republican pedophile Dennis Hastert as house speaker chose to let the Brady Bill expire in 2004 and we're still experiencing the effects of such a horrible decision today with the vast majority of mass shooters using AK's or AR-15's, guns designed for maximum human carnage without being fully automatic, guns that would have required a special permit under the Brady bill.

So no one worth listening to is talking about banning all guns (there are some fringe nutter's who have expressed such a ridiculous sentiment), that is the red herring thrown about by the right.

I find the Gallup poll question on whether Americans would be fine with an assault weapons ban is telling. In 2000, before 9/11, 57% of Americans favored an assault weapons ban. Today that number has flipped with 57% against it. In fact, by 2004 it had dropped to 50% support as more Americans were mentally preparing for war after 9/11 and that trend, especially among right wing religious conservatives, has only escalated since.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to    5 years ago
The 'boys will be boys' excuse needs to go away and is a good starting point in raising our sons to be empathetic. Doing so does not diminish their 'manhood' in any way. Doing so makes them more of a man. 

And I didn't make that excuse , I don't think any one did.

 I will admit , things are a lot different today than when I was being raised and was being influenced on what "being a man " was. When I was raised , a certain amount of "Machismo" was acceptable , more emphasis was stressed on being a "gentleman " but still being "manly. Today its called toxic masculinity or chauvinism .

 At my age , I wont change , I will still stand when introduced to a woman or anyone for that matter , hold a door open for any woman , will when walking down a sidewalk  walk on the traffic side  of the walk when walking with a woman, still use ms or ma'am . and most importantly say please and thank you .

I will still give a certain amount of respect  as a curtesy, until that respect is proven to be misplaced, will definitely treat a woman as a lady , even after they have proven they are NOT one. 

I will always live by treat others as you wish to be treated , but the treatment one eventually gets from me is directly related to the treatment they give me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.18  It Is ME  replied to    5 years ago

So IT IS the person .

Got it ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
8.1.19  Sunshine  replied to    5 years ago
all while ignoring the rather simple questions posed. 

What are your suggestions to stop the mass shootings?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.15    5 years ago

Couple things I would like to correct  DP .assault "rifle"  definition pre existed before the brady bill and the Assault Weapon Ban from 94-04.  , the important part of the  definition of what an assault rifle was and still is  that it must be and have the capability for select fire , meaning both semi auto and full auto capabilities built into the weapon.

The reason assault "weapon " came into being is because the firearms that was desired to be banned lacked that very vital part of the assault rifle definition of having select fire capability.  and instead of defining what an assault weapon was based on its function, though it does specify it has to be semi automatic , the definition was based on strictly cosmetic features ( how it looked) that actually did not affect the over all function of the fire arm. and to qualify as an assault weapon , it had to have a certain number of those "cosmetic features, if they didn't , then the firearm was not affected by the ban. some claim that was circumventing the intent of the law .  that's not even bringing up the fact that the ban grandfathered most of the things it banned , so it was still legal to have them, and they could be resold , only thing the ban really did was ban the new manufacture in the configuration that it would fall under the definition of what an assault weapon was . so companies stopped offering off the shelf firearms with bayonet lugs , collapsible/telescoping stocks , flash hiders/supressors / defusers, and that's where the afternmarket took off but even using aftermarket items the weapon would fall under the ban if not a grandfathered item.

All the ban really did was increase the price that could be gotten in resale  for certain acsessories , and in some cases the firearms themselves because they were simply made before a certain date.

 After the 10 year period expired for review , it was found that the law actually had little to no effect at the time on gun crimes . and that was the main reason it was allowed to bipartisanly "sunset" and expire.

 True assault rifles aren't even banned , they are highly regulated and taxed, anyone that wants to go through the BGC required , and has the money can purchase one following existing regulations. As for military weapons there have only been 2, that have never been for sale through the civilian marksmanship program, and they both have select fire capability , the M-14 and the M-16 and any of its military variants. the CMP has never sold to my knowledge full auto military weapons. that would be the governments area.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.16    5 years ago
I will still stand when introduced to a woman or anyone for that matter , hold a door open for any woman , will when walking down a sidewalk  walk on the traffic side  of the walk when walking with a woman, still use ms or ma'am . and most importantly say please and thank you

None of that would defined as "toxic masculinity", you're just saying you would be polite, courteous and chivalrous.

"The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant , along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia , can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence , including sexual assault and domestic violence . The socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression."

So chivalry isn't the problem, not many women will complain about men opening the door for them or saying please and thank you instead of just ordering them around. What needs to end is the sad belief that men are some how superior to women and thus should always be put in charge or should be paid more for the same job. What needs to end is the belief that its okay for a husband to physically "correct" his wife if she talks back to him or doesn't show respect.

So keep up being chivalrous, few are ever going to have a problem with that. But true "toxic masculinity" needs to expire, it's useless and bigoted.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
8.1.24  Sunshine  replied to    5 years ago
Respectfully submitted.

Although those are all good suggestions, I doubt it would stop anyone who was determined to kill.  Perhaps your suggestions would stop accidental shootings, but mass shootings that are usually well planned out ahead, doubtful. 

I don't think any of us knows what to do about the mass killings.  And no one likes that feeling.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9  Tacos!    5 years ago

I think everyone already understands that men are generally hard-wired to be more aggressive and violent than women. However, being male (like being female) is a spectrum. There's no one kind of male behavior. The men who commit these crimes, are at the extreme fringe of what it is to be male. So, while 80% of criminals are men, 97% of men are not criminals.* 

Obviously (or perhaps it needs to be pointed out) the number of men who commit acts of mass murder is very tiny indeed. Of course, it doesn't take a lot to have a dramatic impact.

*My impulse was to say 99%, but I looked it up and the number of convicted felons in the United States is so high that something like 3% of the male population actually has a felony conviction. In Europe, by comparison, the percentage is minuscule - something like a tenth of one percent.

 
 

Who is online


Vic Eldred
Snuffy
evilone


62 visitors