Mass shootings can be contagious, research shows

[fooferdoggie]

Three shootings with multiple victims shook California over the last few days. The shootings Monday at two farms in Half Moon Bay, Calif., closely followed a massacre over the weekend at a dance hall in Monterey Park, Calif.

That's no surprise, say scientists who study mass shootings. Research shows that these incidents usually occur in clusters and tend to be contagious. Intensive media coverage seems to drive the contagion, the researchers say.

Back in 2014 and 2015, researchers at Arizona State University analyzed data on cases of mass violence. They included USA Today's data on mass killings (defined as four or more people killed using any means, including guns) from 2006 to 2013, data on school shootings between 1998 and 2013, and mass shootings (defined as incidents in which three people were shot, not necessarily killed) between 2005 and 2013 collected by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The lead researcher, Sherry Towers, a faculty research associate at Arizona State University, had spent most of her career modeling the spread of infectious diseases — like Ebola, influenza and sexually transmitted diseases. She wanted to know whether cases of mass violence spread contagiously, like in a disease outbreak.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

[AG_PhamD]

I’m not sure contagious is the correct term, but mass killings seem to inspire others to carry out similar acts. We have seen on numerous occasion, particularly in young perpetrators, they appear to have a hobby of researching previous mass killers.

Contagious typically implies one can become become “infected” involuntarily. Even when we talk about social/behavioral/emotional contagions there is an assumed lack of conscious decision making.

I think the better phraseology would be mass killers are indirectly “influenced” or “inspired” by other mass killers. To call it a contagion suggests a normal, mentally heathy person could turn into a mass killer. But indeed, those with certain risk factors- are probably more likely to carry out heinous attacks when other people are doing the same. But I’m not sure people without some degree of pre-existing homicidal ideation would be susceptible and the summary of the article doesn’t seem to really comment on that.

I have long considered the damage that may be caused by drawing so much media attention to mass killings. Don’t get me wrong, these heinous events deserve attention, both to to recognize the victims and to especially to bring awareness to the risks and need of measures to help prevent such attacks. But it’s absolutely a double edged sword. The more attention, the the more opportunity to inspire others- especially those seeking “fame” or notoriety. I think keeping the name of the perpetrator to a minimum in the media is helpful, but I imagine minimally helpful at that. Focusing on the victims more than the killer may or may not be helpful. This would be an interesting topic for someone to research to better understand how the media can make their reporting as least “inspiring” as possible.

It appears in recent times the focus of the media has been less about the killers and more about the victims or the response of the police- and ultimately a debate about gun laws supersedes everything. That said, reporting on minors can be difficult due to protective measures in the law. And honestly the media tends to have less of interest on reporting about the killer if he does not fit the “typical” mass killing schema of socially outcast young white male or if the perpetrator is subdued by a civilian with their own gun, if it doesn’t take place at a school, or if a weapon other than a gun is used. It is a bit concerning to see young mass shooters becoming more prevalent in other races and countries- again suggesting a “contagion” as the study’s authors would call it.

But it’s not uncommon for the media to be incredibly selective with their crime reporting…

If a wealthy suburban white woman goes missing or is murdered = front page news. The same happens to a man or minority woman- it maybe makes local news for a day or two.

Even with the Moscow Idaho murders, I don’t think most people would even realize a male was one of the 4 killed. He and his family received very little attention in the press from what I saw. I suppose it’s just not as appealing as the other 3 young attractive women.

 

[dada_dave]

I’m not sure contagious is the correct term, but mass killings seem to inspire others to carry out similar acts. We have seen on numerous occasion, particularly in young perpetrators, they appear to have a hobby of researching previous mass killers.

Contagious typically implies one can become become “infected” involuntarily. Even when we talk about social/behavioral/emotional contagions there is an assumed lack of conscious decision making.

I think the better phraseology would be mass killers are indirectly “influenced” or “inspired” by other mass killers. To call it a contagion suggests a normal, mentally heathy person could turn into a mass killer. But indeed, those with certain risk factors- are probably more likely to carry out heinous attacks when other people are doing the same. But I’m not sure people without some degree of pre-existing homicidal ideation would be susceptible and the summary of the article doesn’t seem to really comment on that.

I have long considered the damage that may be caused by drawing so much media attention to mass killings. Don’t get me wrong, these heinous events deserve attention, both to to recognize the victims and to especially to bring awareness to the risks and need of measures to help prevent such attacks. But it’s absolutely a double edged sword. The more attention, the the more opportunity to inspire others- especially those seeking “fame” or notoriety. I think keeping the name of the perpetrator to a minimum in the media is helpful, but I imagine minimally helpful at that. Focusing on the victims more than the killer may or may not be helpful. This would be an interesting topic for someone to research to better understand how the media can make their reporting as least “inspiring” as possible.

It appears in recent times the focus of the media has been less about the killers and more about the victims or the response of the police- and ultimately a debate about gun laws supersedes everything. That said, reporting on minors can be difficult due to protective measures in the law. And honestly the media tends to have less of interest on reporting about the killer if he does not fit the “typical” mass killing schema of socially outcast young white male or if the perpetrator is subdued by a civilian with their own gun, if it doesn’t take place at a school, or if a weapon other than a gun is used. It is a bit concerning to see young mass shooters becoming more prevalent in other races and countries- again suggesting a “contagion” as the study’s authors would call it.

But it’s not uncommon for the media to be incredibly selective with their crime reporting…

If a wealthy suburban white woman goes missing or is murdered = front page news. The same happens to a man or minority woman- it maybe makes local news for a day or two.

Even with the Moscow Idaho murders, I don’t think most people would even realize a male was one of the 4 killed. He and his family received very little attention in the press from what I saw. I suppose it’s just not as appealing as the other 3 young attractive women.

So I agree with a lot of your post but I think the term contagious is important. A lot of people studying the issue have said it is a public health crises and treating as such is more effective than treating it as a policing issue (true of a lot of things). It also does behave akin to other health issues and can be tied into them. Also I believe researchers were and I think still are barred from federal funding for projects involving studying gun violence which has hobbled the advancement of the field. However, again from what I’ve read using models from epidemiology and public health has apparently been a fruitful approach. So the term may not be as inapplicable as one might think.

 

[AG_PhamD]

So I agree with a lot of your post but I think the term contagious is important. A lot of people studying the issue have said it is a public health crises and treating as such is more effective than treating it as a policing issue (true of a lot of things). It also does behave akin to other health issues and can be tied into them. Also I believe researchers were and I think still are barred from federal funding for projects involving studying gun violence which has hobbled the advancement of the field. However, again from what I’ve read using models from epidemiology and public health has apparently been a fruitful approach. So the term may not be as inapplicable as one might think.

Well, I suppose contagion/contagious is a relative term. We say the flu is contagious because a wide number of people are at risk, especially those with certain risk factors. Suicide clusters can be considered a behavioral contagion because depressed individuals (and especially those grieving from the loss of their friends) would be at risk. So sure, calling mass killing a contagion works if you consider in this case a likely extremely narrow subset of individuals- which is only where my pedantic criticism comes from.

This epidemic of mass killings, especially school shootings, is undoubtly the manifestation of a mental health crisis, brought about by an inability to cope with social and cultural issues. I would absolutely agree there is a lack of focus on the prophylactically targeting the mental health component (and perhaps to some extent the factors causing these mental health problems). Policing and policy reforms (ie gun policies, red flag laws, etc) certainly have a place, but clearly no amount of regulation can prevent all tragedies (and many of the laws would fail to prevent the events that created them or simply do not work)- not will any one strategy alone. Unfortunately the way the media and therefore the public tends to cover these issues is solely through a regulatory lens (and the occasional talks mental health system reforms by politicians tend to go nowhere- the mental health resources in this country have long been dismal).

In fact, in my own discussions on this forum and elsewhere, many people tend to consider attributing mental health as a causal factor as providing sympathy to the perpetrator and that that cannot be allowed. I think these people, when not clouded by emotions from such traumatic, repeated events would recognize most mentally healthy people do not murder a classroom of children, that it’s possible to sympathize/empathize with someone’s life circumstances while not endorsing criminal behavior, and attributing mental health troubles to a mass murders does not (necessarily) mean they are not responsible for their crimes (exclusion being those who are insane and cannot judge right from wrong, which has not been the case in any of the major school shootings I can recall and therefore is rarely if ever going to be the case- people that sick typically don't have the capacity to successfully plan such attacks on that scale).

The “Dickey Amendment” technically only bans the CDC’s injury prevention and control funding and from gun-related research that would promote gun control. It’s a ridiculous law that should not exist but undoubtedly any government funding for such purposes is always going to be controversial. I think the bigger issue is the general perception that mass killings are primarily a matter of criminality and gun control and not significantly mental health related. And the funding that does exist will go to other, more pressing areas of research. While obviously to the public these killings are a serious issue, they account for an infinitesimally small number of gun-related deaths and injuries… and even smaller if you consider suicides.

It doesn’t help that many of the studies that do exist have a pretty obvious bias one way or another. There are a number of studies (anti-gun in fact) that claim mental illness is not a factor among mass shooters- yet when you dig into the study they define mental illness as strictly psychosis- which is obviously an extremely primitive way of looking at things (it also doesn’t help that many high profile mass shooters end up committing suicide, thus it can be difficult to assess their mental state). Just because someone isn’t psychotic doesn’t mean they’re not in a mental health crisis. So then this “finding” gets regurgitated over and over again and the media ergo public accepts it. And I believe this is intentionally done, unfortunately, to focus attention on gun law reforms above any other factor.

Back to the original topic, it should not be a surprise killers are inspired by other killers. Regardless of conscious decision and recognition- We see it with suicide and self harm. We see clusters of various psychogenic illnesses. We see it in copycat murders (and even copycat suicides). We see it in addiction too- and addiction recovery. Even the placebo and nocebo effects (opposite of placebo, ie negative expectations of a treastment, often influenced by others, leads the patient to believe the treatment has detrimental effects, even if given a placebo) in a way is probably related to this. The human mind is much more impressionable than we like to believe.

There is a “masculinity crisis” (the media’s phrasing, not mine) of young men in the US- resulting in skyrocketing rates of mental illness and substance abuse (another maladaptive coping mechanism), poor academic and vocational performance, relationship building (both friends and intimate), etc. This is well recognized in the psychiatric field. Many in the media, academia, and public have long treated these affected with disdain, which certainly does not help. Addressing the causes and symptoms is necessary. I would suggest, having read some of the manifestos of these mass murders, that this discontent found increasingly in young men is present.

Indeed we treated the conditions that results in mass murderering with more empathy, perhaps things might improve. If you consider how addiction and related criminality is treated now compared to the past. Obviously stealing for drugs is very different than murdering because you’re angry at the world- but I’m speaking more to how the public views these young men before they go off the deep end. Similarly, how we view these murders should not be purely criminal- in the same way we see an opioid addict robbing someone as wrong, immoral, and something they are responsible for, while also having some compassion that criminality is a manifestation of the disease of addiction- and striving to treat and prevent addiction. Mass murders should be held 100% responsible, but we can have some compassion for the conditions that drove them this behavior so that we can understand the causes and how to prevent others from going down the same path. And there is a lot of overlap in the psych issues that seem to motivate mass murders and lead people into addiction, another societal crisis.

I think it’s very evident we have a mental health crisis in this country- manifesting in many different ways from violence to suicide to addiction to so called “failure to launch syndrome”, etc. COVID-19 was a serious threat that devoted enormous resources, yet we have another pandemic that for a large part has been ignored and only garnered a tidbit of attention because COVID made it even worse. Maybe there is some hope this well resolve itself, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[dada_dave]

Well, I suppose contagion/contagious is a relative term. We say the flu is contagious because a wide number of people are at risk, especially those with certain risk factors. Suicide clusters can be considered a behavioral contagion because depressed individuals (and especially those grieving from the loss of their friends) would be at risk. So sure, calling mass killing a contagion works if you consider in this case a likely extremely narrow subset of individuals- which is only where my pedantic criticism comes from.

This epidemic of mass killings, especially school shootings, is undoubtly the manifestation of a mental health crisis, brought about by an inability to cope with social and cultural issues. I would absolutely agree there is a lack of focus on the prophylactically targeting the mental health component (and perhaps to some extent the factors causing these mental health problems). Policing and policy reforms (ie gun policies, red flag laws, etc) certainly have a place, but clearly no amount of regulation can prevent all tragedies (and many of the laws would fail to prevent the events that created them or simply do not work)- not will any one strategy alone. Unfortunately the way the media and therefore the public tends to cover these issues is solely through a regulatory lens (and the occasional talks mental health system reforms by politicians tend to go nowhere- the mental health resources in this country have long been dismal).

In fact, in my own discussions on this forum and elsewhere, many people tend to consider attributing mental health as a causal factor as providing sympathy to the perpetrator and that that cannot be allowed. I think these people, when not clouded by emotions from such traumatic, repeated events would recognize most mentally healthy people do not murder a classroom of children, that it’s possible to sympathize/empathize with someone’s life circumstances while not endorsing criminal behavior, and attributing mental health troubles to a mass murders does not (necessarily) mean they are not responsible for their crimes (exclusion being those who are insane and cannot judge right from wrong, which has not been the case in any of the major school shootings I can recall and therefore is rarely if ever going to be the case- people that sick typically don't have the capacity to successfully plan such attacks on that scale).

The “Dickey Amendment” technically only bans the CDC’s injury prevention and control funding and from gun-related research that would promote gun control. It’s a ridiculous law that should not exist but undoubtedly any government funding for such purposes is always going to be controversial. I think the bigger issue is the general perception that mass killings are primarily a matter of criminality and gun control and not significantly mental health related. And the funding that does exist will go to other, more pressing areas of research. While obviously to the public these killings are a serious issue, they account for an infinitesimally small number of gun-related deaths and injuries… and even smaller if you consider suicides.

It doesn’t help that many of the studies that do exist have a pretty obvious bias one way or another. There are a number of studies (anti-gun in fact) that claim mental illness is not a factor among mass shooters- yet when you dig into the study they define mental illness as strictly psychosis- which is obviously an extremely primitive way of looking at things (it also doesn’t help that many high profile mass shooters end up committing suicide, thus it can be difficult to assess their mental state). Just because someone isn’t psychotic doesn’t mean they’re not in a mental health crisis. So then this “finding” gets regurgitated over and over again and the media ergo public accepts it. And I believe this is intentionally done, unfortunately, to focus attention on gun law reforms above any other factor.

Back to the original topic, it should not be a surprise killers are inspired by other killers. Regardless of conscious decision and recognition- We see it with suicide and self harm. We see clusters of various psychogenic illnesses. We see it in copycat murders (and even copycat suicides). We see it in addiction too- and addiction recovery. Even the placebo and nocebo effects (opposite of placebo, ie negative expectations of a treastment, often influenced by others, leads the patient to believe the treatment has detrimental effects, even if given a placebo) in a way is probably related to this. The human mind is much more impressionable than we like to believe.

There is a “masculinity crisis” (the media’s phrasing, not mine) of young men in the US- resulting in skyrocketing rates of mental illness and substance abuse (another maladaptive coping mechanism), poor academic and vocational performance, relationship building (both friends and intimate), etc. This is well recognized in the psychiatric field. Many in the media, academia, and public have long treated these affected with disdain, which certainly does not help. Addressing the causes and symptoms is necessary. I would suggest, having read some of the manifestos of these mass murders, that this discontent found increasingly in young men is present.

Indeed we treated the conditions that results in mass murderering with more empathy, perhaps things might improve. If you consider how addiction and related criminality is treated now compared to the past. Obviously stealing for drugs is very different than murdering because you’re angry at the world- but I’m speaking more to how the public views these young men before they go off the deep end. Similarly, how we view these murders should not be purely criminal- in the same way we see an opioid addict robbing someone as wrong, immoral, and something they are responsible for, while also having some compassion that criminality is a manifestation of the disease of addiction- and striving to treat and prevent addiction. Mass murders should be held 100% responsible, but we can have some compassion for the conditions that drove them this behavior so that we can understand the causes and how to prevent others from going down the same path. And there is a lot of overlap in the psych issues that seem to motivate mass murders and lead people into addiction, another societal crisis.

I think it’s very evident we have a mental health crisis in this country- manifesting in many different ways from violence to suicide to addiction to so called “failure to launch syndrome”, etc. COVID-19 was a serious threat that devoted enormous resources, yet we have another pandemic that for a large part has been ignored and only garnered a tidbit of attention because COVID made it even worse. Maybe there is some hope this well resolve itself, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I don’t disagree with your contention that a holistic approach is necessary. However I would add that the gun culture is a major factor - not just in mass shootings but gun deaths overall. It stops us from examining the issue properly and proposing solutions that would dramatically reduce the rates of all gun deaths regardless of underlying cause. Simultaneously the culture of the gun in America is an … accelerant for the social/mental health issues you brought up - especially the masculinity crisis. Easy access, idealization of the gun, all the issues surrounding policing, and the difficulty of addressing mental health/societal problems is a very toxic stew. All of these need to be addressed, but I don’t think we should ignore that restricting access would theoretically be the most powerful if there was the will to do it. However, again, I agree it would not solve everything and violence would still be an issue until all or most of the factors above are ameliorated.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I don’t disagree with your contention that a holistic approach is necessary. However I would add that the gun culture is a major factor - not just in mass shootings but gun deaths overall. It stops us from examining the issue properly and proposing solutions that would dramatically reduce the rates of all gun deaths regardless of underlying cause. Simultaneously the culture of the gun in America is an … accelerant for the social/mental health issues you brought up - especially the masculinity crisis. Easy access, idealization of the gun, all the issues surrounding policing, and the difficulty of addressing mental health/societal problems is a very toxic stew. All of these need to be addressed, but I don’t think we should ignore that restricting access would theoretically be the most powerful if there was the will to do it. However, again, I agree it would not solve everything and violence would still be an issue until all or most of the factors above are ameliorated.

Totally agree with the gun culture discussion- it’s another topic not commonly discussed, at least in a balanced and constructive manner. I would say addressing culture is part of a holistic approach. No single solution can solve this.

Gun culture is not unique to the US, but we certainly have our own very unique flavor. Gun culture in places like Canada, the UK, Switzerland Israel, Russia, generally revolves around hunting, sport shooting, or (proper) military use- or some combination of these. I suppose the primary difference is this sense or 2nd amendment absolutism and the overwhelming intent on acquiring guns for self defense and the idea that nearly everyone should be able able to own a gun (or identifying people who should not but are not willing to enact laws to properly prevent them). The US also glorifies guns and often associates ownership to political identity (despite a decent % of dems and many independents owning guns) while countries with mandatory conscription (ie Israel, Switzerland) seem far less excited/impressed.

In most of the aforementioned countries, you cannot buy or carry a gun intended for self-defense (and in many cases carrying any weapon intended for self defense, ie a knife, is illegal). In Switzerland you can only shoot someone in self defense if you’re responding to a proportional threat- ie someone is trying to shoot you is okay, shooting an unarmed robber would be illegal. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. And I imagine that affects how people view guns in Switzerland.

In the US, a lot of gun culture (and this does not apply to everyone) seems to revolve around masculinity, power/empowerment, defending oneself from lurking danger at every turn, making one look cool, toys to show off, etc. Media portrayals probably don’t help. My impression in other cultures that guns are more universally treated much more seriously- probably in large part due to better training and exposure (ie military conscription). I believe it’s 30+ states that do not require a basic firearm safety class and a number that do not require classes for pistols. There is no federal requirement on gun storage beyond *selling* trigger locks with guns and half the states have no or extremely minimal storage laws.

While not a remotely a comparable situation due to significantly different gun laws, there are nations with sizable populations of gun owners and far less gun related crime- ie Switzerland and Canada (and also places ie South America with much higher deaths per capita despite much lower per capita guns- official counts anyways). So in my mind there is a way to vastly improve our situation without completely banning guns- which stands little chance politically for the time being. And the sheer number of guns in the country and lack of ownership tracking makes things exceedingly difficult.

I will say, the irony is that the more tragedies that occur, the more people demand gun bans and highly stringent and “unfavorable” (to gun proponent) regulations are demanded, the more people are likely to support such measures, and the greater likelihood such laws will come to fruition. In other words, the biggest threat to gun rights is a lack of gun regulations. On the flip side, every time there is a risk of gun regulations potentially coming down, people go out and buy guns in droves. So it should behoove second amendment absolutists and lobbyists especially and anti-gun proponents to find some compromise.

Part of the problem is the 2A absolutists have adopted the “not another inch” mentality… (which in itself has become part of US gun culture) with the belief ceding any amount of rights will result in a cascade of laws intended to ultimately ban gun ownership. I don’t think it’s much of an argument that there are many who have the intent to ban guns effectively or entirely, so I don’t see it as entirely unfounded. But as I stated before, I think the lack of reforms has and will ultimately hurt the 2AA’s in the long run. Especially when we now have a generation+ of children who have grown up being or being in fear of becoming a victim of a school shooting.

I believe there is a lot of room for negotiation to create meaningful reforms- but I could only see compromise if there was to be some kind of assurance guns wouldn’t be eventually banned or so regulated it’s impossible to own one. Somehow readjusting our gun culture to better value safe storage and gun safety- including who should be restricted from ownership- that probably starts with requiring education and having set accreditation standards.

———

I should disclaim that I have a pistol permit in the state of CT, though I live in Mass. My reason for ownership is more of a matter of circumstance than desire. Years ago I worked for a pharmacist who was also a cop, NRA instructor (and SWAT, ex-military instructor) who insisted on training me. In the end he gifted me a Glock, his first gun as a police officer, so pretty meaningful. Someone else gifted me a second pistol. Both guns are highly secured in my parents house (4+ layers of protection) and I haven’t fired them in over a decade.

I never had any interest in acquiring a gun, let alone a pistol permit. Even after getting my permit, I had no interest in buying a gun. I’ve never really had a desire to get a permit in Mass. I have no attachment to them beyond the sentimental value instilled by the people that gifted them to me. If society voted that pistols should be abolished, I would have no problem giving them up.

I understand many people view guns as as a fundamental right. I would hope we can maintain that right, but something needs to change to stop the madness. 2A is not absolute, as is the case with other rights. I’m willing to sacrifice some of my gun rights to hopefully make society safer.