Mass Shooters - The American Gun Extremist Superman

I had dinner the other night with a long-time friend and psychiatric colleague.  She and I ran an acute care unit for many years where we were charged with assessing and treating some of the most difficult problems in psychiatry. By definition, that also means the associated social problems.  That work included a significant number of civil commitments and in Minnesota associated hearings about medications.  The conversation turned to politics and then the recent attempted assassination of Trump.  Before I could say anything, she commented about how absurd it was that there was endless speculation in the media about “motive” and the fact that there was no motive. I agreed with her completely on that point.  What motive can you have for picking up a high-capacity military weapon and deciding to shoot and kill someone and anyone else who happens to be around?  And of course – why does it predominately happen in the US? 

As I pondered our conversation over the past couple of days and what I have written here about it – I came up with the idea of the American Gun Extremist Superman. This is not a traditional superman role or even the antihero role.  It is a superman role that can occur only in a culture of gun extremism.  I have written in the past about how this is quite definitely a cultural problem and the people who have been the source of the culture – extremist politicians, judges, and other gun extremist advocates largely blame everything else.  Incredibly they blame the lack of an armed staff in schools, a shortage of firearms in the most heavily armed country in the world, and more recently law enforcement and parents. They never examine the fall out of gun extremist policies that have been accumulating over the past 40 years.

Here are the features of the gun extremist superman that I have so far.  They are not diagnostic criteria by any means.  This is a societal and cultural problem more than anything.  It obviously exists only in the US.  There are undoubtedly people with psychiatric disorders who acquire these traits – just like people with psychiatric disorders assimilate other social and cultural traits.  But a psychiatric disorder does not explain most of these shootings.  I am using the pronoun he in these cases for the obvious reason that practically all of the shooters are men and boys.   

He is disgruntled and dissatisfied:  This is a common nonexplanation for mass homicide. It is basically a marker for what causes an unexplainable behavior.  When you study human behavior, these changes can occur from internally driven psychological states, external states, and all points in between.  To what extent is their insight, judgment, and decision making affected? To what extent does their moral decision making have an impact on what is occurring?  It is complicated by what is known about a person’s baseline.  For example, are they quiet and non-disclosing about their internal states or are they more demonstrative?

He has no problem at all attributing his state to the actions of others even when that is completely displaced.  In other words, displaced onto completely innocent coworkers, bystanders, school children, etc.  In psychiatry we call this projection and historically it is listed as a defense mechanism.  It is typically seen in persons with psychotic disorders and moderate to severe personality disorders.  It is a common experience to feel like you are being unjustly blamed during interactions with people using this mechanism or in the extreme case where that person is reacting to you as though their accusations are true.  Even though it is difficult to research this mechanism in mass murders – it seems intuitive that it has to exist at some level given the discrepancy between their real victims and the purported abusers (if any).

He knows that there is a burst of fame associated with each shooting and endless speculation about his motivations.  Although there is little information about the Trump shooter – it is known that he had details about a previous mass shooter on his electronic devices and this has also occurred with previous mass shooters. Anybody experiencing the news cycle in the US following a mass shooting notices a flood of information and speculation about that shooter that can go on for weeks followed by other bursts from associated court cases, documents, computers, web sites documenting mass shootings, legislation, and scientific literature.  Mass shooters seem to be guaranteed immediate and sustained notoriety – despite some concerns expressed in the literature that this is reinforcing the behavior.  The psychology of mass shooters is difficult to investigate, but I would not be shocked to learn that revenge fantasies go hand-in-hand with the expectation of notoriety from the act. 

He feels some justification by identification with previous mass shooters and cultural revenge themes.  As noted above many aspiring mass shooters have immediate access to the mass shooter literature as well as a wealth of revenge-based video games and movies.  The preponderance of this information depicts the shooter as the good guy meting out justice and revenging either his own victimhood (real or imagined) or that of his loved ones.  A secondary theme is that the usual channels of justice – law enforcement and the courts are too weak, do not apply to him, are too slow, or too negligent to be useful.

He sees it as a singularly masculine activity – especially with the use of firearms.

Most of the cultural figures engaged in this activity are men.  Armed men are typically the graphic elements of disaffected groups of society but their rhetoric has creeped into the political mainstream.  You don’t have to look too hard to find opinion that in the battle over “gun rights” – the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment will go to the winners of an armed insurrection or that the more heavily armed political party will “win.”  In that atmosphere was it an accident that we witnessed an insurrection on January 6^th?  Nobody steps back to point out that gun rights are there in the Second Amendment and the real battle is between gun extremism and common-sense guns laws.  In the common discussion nobody has advocated to take guns away from law abiding and responsible citizens.  At this point the US is awash in guns to the point that collecting all of those guns or buying them back is impractical.

Societal reinforcement of the Gun Extremist Superman. 

At first that seems like an extreme idea.  How can American culture and society reinforce this behavior? I have touched on the very real aspects of gun extremism and the cultural aspects that are reinforcing but there are others. Whenever mass shootings occur – politicians show up make the typical statements about “sick individuals”, offer “hopes and prayers”, and in some extreme cases have encouraged the affected communities to “move on.”  Mental health becomes a distraction, when politicians use it as a cause for the incident but never do anything constructive to address it.   The condemnation of the shooter is trivial compared with what has occurred. And no effective measures are ever suggested or accomplished. If anything, many politicians come up with a series of rationalizations about why the shooter was not stopped – the teachers were not armed, law enforcement response was inadequate, the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun, etc. Specifically, no measures to counter gun extremist laws are ever suggested and we are supposed to pretend that getting as many guns out on the street is a remote problem from the problem of mass shootings.  The real message to mass shooters is that “we are not going to do anything to stop or interfere with you.”

There is an additional message that is the direct result of gun extremism and that is – shoot first and ask questions later. Stand your ground and castle doctrines or statutes are a relatively recent development in the gun extremism landscape.  Stand your ground statutes basically say that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force. Before these laws self-defense laws included the provision that the person who is unlawfully attacked needs to exercise judgment to try to avoid the use of deadly force by retreating if necessary.  Stand your ground laws were passed initially in 2005 in Florida and since then these laws exist in 38 states. The details are available at this site, including references to the fact that it probably increases the crime and homicide rate.  Although these laws were passed primarily in the past 20 years, they are the culmination of gun extremist rhetoric that has emphasized the need for people to be armed and dispense justice with firearms.  My conceptualization of the mass shooter is that he likely believes he is dispensing justice, even though nobody would agree with that premise.

The additional cultural change that preceded stand your ground was the idea of the armed citizen.  In the 1960s, the people who owned guns were predominately hunters.  The focus of the National Rifle Association (NRA) was hunter safety. When I took that course one of the mainstays was never pointing a gun at a person and always assuming a gun was loaded.  As firearms become more important as political rhetoric there was a sudden shift to the idea that there needed to be more guns out there for personal protection.  Since then there has been a steady escalation in gun extremist rhetoric and the idea that there are defined preconditions for shooting someone.

Psychosis is not an exclusion from societal or cultural factors:  Although the majority of these shooters are not mentally ill there is a lot of confusion over whether mental illness excludes the person from societal and cultural factors - making the psychosis in itself an explanation for the behavior.  It does not.  Just as computer chips, microwaves, and surveillance satellites were incorporated into delusions as they became incorporated into society - gun extremism has the same effects.  There is no reason that they and the folklore of mass shooters cannot be incorporated into a delusional system of thinking and acted upon.  In other words - there is no de novo psychosis of mass shooting - it happens in a gun extremist society.

All of the above elements are more important to him than self-preservation.  Many mass shooter incidents occur with the death of the shooter by homicide or suicide.  The high mortality rate suggests that mass shooters are unconcerned about their own life in carrying out their actions. This information is readily available to potential mass shooters and I would argue is part of the Gun Extremist Superman stereotype.  

He has easy access to high-capacity firearms – both handguns and rifles. Easy access to legally purchased firearms is well documented in many of these cases.  In some cases the firearms are borrowed and in other cases they are purchased from licensed firearms dealers.  One of the common gun extremist slogans is “if guns are criminalized only the criminals will have them.”  It is obvious that firearms are legally available at this point to anyone who wants to commit a serious crime like a mass shooting. It is also obvious that there are loopholes that allow gun purchasers to bypass existing laws.

What I have described here is a Nietzschean superman who clearly rejects traditional moral values of society and adopts his own – even though they are morally reprehensible to almost everyone else.  There are currently numerous patterns in American culture and society that reinforce this pattern of activity.  We are on a course for that to continue unabated.  It may worsen as the pattern of gun extremism worsens.  There are two potential solutions as far as I can see.  Reverse gun extremism back to the gun rights laws of the 1960s or preferably the 19^th century.  If the 19th century seems  too radical - see the Tombstone ordinance at the bottom of this post.  A second more public health focused measure would be on mass homicide prevention – by identifying the problem and trying to intervene while researching it.  

At the time I am writing this - neither intervention seems likely.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA  

Supplementary:  If you have any doubt about the lack of motive for most firearm related homicides - I suggest watching crime TV like The First 48.  These shows typically have investigations by experienced homicide detectives that include interrogations of  suspects, witnesses, and family members.  In some cases court proceedings are included. The majority of cases are attributed to senseless violence and that typically means somebody got angry, there was a firearm available, and it was used to commit homicide.  Mass homicides can be viewed as taking the senseless violence theme to the next level.  Senseless violence is a predictable outcome of widespread gun availability and gun extremism.