3 ms·

I'm surprised that what shooters like/do not like can be generalized like this. I would have expected that it was more dependent upon the specific psychology of

I'm surprised that what shooters like/do not like can be generalized like this. I would have expected that it was more dependent upon the specific psychology of the shooter than this.

duxup 7y ago
IIRC a lot of mass shooters are focused on the aftermath and coverage / impact of their acts and what they imagine the media coverage is was important to a lot of them. I suspect there are exceptions. Also due to the number of people available for study I have to think certainly possible that things aren't as the study implied.
awakeasleep 7y ago
Especially interesting that this is 'known' considering how most shooters die in the event.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  A lot of the research about shooters can be based on their manifestos/writings, and many shooters have shown interest in previous shooters and coverage of them, so that's probably where a lot of this could be drawn from.
nf8nnfufuu 7y ago
Especially since a lot of shooters end up dead by the end of the shooting, so it would be difficult to determine what they like about the reports of their amok run.
- filoleg 7y ago
  It is less about their enjoyment of the coverage post-factum (which they are, obviously, aware they won't be able to witness themselves), and more about "they will be talking about and covering my deeds even after I am gone, so i will go out with a splash." It is just a perverted version of "leaving a legacy" behind and being immortalized in the public eye. If you take that away, there is not much "glory" or "legacy" left behind, which certainly would discourage a giant chunk of shooters. Note: I watched the first season of that show, thought it was terrible, and was told that the second season was even worse. The writers should have presented the topic in a better and more mature way, but they ended up doing a poor job of it. While I believe that the show should not be banned and creators should not be held responsible for it (for many reasons, with the main two being the overreach of censorship and freedom of speech; it is a work of fiction, after all), I do believe that the coverage of shootings and similar events by the mainstream media should be somewhat regulated/normalized. Whether it happens through a carrot (news self-regulating themselves) or stick (gov-t imposed regulations) is up to them, but I would much rather prefer them take the carrot.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
> They don't like stories about the victims that make the victims seem like they're human. If you're going to kill someone, actually take a person's life, the way mass shooters do, you can't possibly feel like that person is human. It's probably different for, say, a one off killing where it's more personal, or a serial killer who's projecting. But a cowardly shooter walking around killing people, they've completely convinced themselves the people they're killing aren't people, aren't human, are just targets.

I'm surprised that what shooters like/do not like can be generalized like this. I would have expected that it was more dependent upon the specific psychology of the shooter than this.

duxup 7y ago

IIRC a lot of mass shooters are focused on the aftermath and coverage / impact of their acts and what they imagine the media coverage is was important to a lot of them. I suspect there are exceptions. Also due to the number of people available for study I have to think certainly possible that things aren't as the study implied.

awakeasleep 7y ago

Especially interesting that this is 'known' considering how most shooters die in the event.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
A lot of the research about shooters can be based on their manifestos/writings, and many shooters have shown interest in previous shooters and coverage of them, so that's probably where a lot of this could be drawn from.

nf8nnfufuu 7y ago

Especially since a lot of shooters end up dead by the end of the shooting, so it would be difficult to determine what they like about the reports of their amok run.

filoleg 7y ago
It is less about their enjoyment of the coverage post-factum (which they are, obviously, aware they won't be able to witness themselves), and more about "they will be talking about and covering my deeds even after I am gone, so i will go out with a splash." It is just a perverted version of "leaving a legacy" behind and being immortalized in the public eye. If you take that away, there is not much "glory" or "legacy" left behind, which certainly would discourage a giant chunk of shooters. Note: I watched the first season of that show, thought it was terrible, and was told that the second season was even worse. The writers should have presented the topic in a better and more mature way, but they ended up doing a poor job of it. While I believe that the show should not be banned and creators should not be held responsible for it (for many reasons, with the main two being the overreach of censorship and freedom of speech; it is a work of fiction, after all), I do believe that the coverage of shootings and similar events by the mainstream media should be somewhat regulated/normalized. Whether it happens through a carrot (news self-regulating themselves) or stick (gov-t imposed regulations) is up to them, but I would much rather prefer them take the carrot.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

> They don't like stories about the victims that make the victims seem like they're human. If you're going to kill someone, actually take a person's life, the way mass shooters do, you can't possibly feel like that person is human. It's probably different for, say, a one off killing where it's more personal, or a serial killer who's projecting. But a cowardly shooter walking around killing people, they've completely convinced themselves the people they're killing aren't people, aren't human, are just targets.