Of course people who do something like this have  mental problems. Who in his right mind would do it?  

 But we as a society cannot wait  to solve everybody mental problems before doing something about the tools they use. 

 The immediate problem is the easy availability of weapons.  Never mind that a deranged one could find other ways of expressing their madness. It so happens that all the insane acts of lately were carried out with the use of guns. They all happen to use guns for a reason: because they are  easily available.

America is way above any other country in violent anti social acts .  Are Americans more wicked than anybody else? No. They just have too many damned guns available with which to to carry out insane acts.

Lest we forget, Tim McVeigh, the worst domestic mass murderer in American history, used diesel fuel and fertilizer. 

Jul 30, 2012 -- 6:29PM, arielg wrote:

All the hand-wringing over firearms misses the point.

What is it about American culture that tends to breed mass killiings?

So, you want to wait for a change in the American culture before doing anything?  What about the fact that anyone enamored of weapons of mass destruction is insane in some level?  Are we going to keep dancing around the issue and making excuses  until everybody becomes sane?

Did you read or comprehend anything I just posted?

Guns do not fire on their own. 

The guy tresponsible was James Holmes, and not the law-abiding gun owner.

Make sure Holmes never touches a gun again, and do not unconstitutionally rob law-abiding Americans of firearms.

Either that - or amend the Constitution.  That will require a SUPER-MAJORITY to do.  Good luck.

Jul 30, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

All the hand-wringing over firearms misses the point.

What is it about American culture that tends to breed mass killiings? 

OK. Against my better judgement, I'm going to take a swing at this.

First off, your system for delivering mental healthcare is woeful (and, lest it seems I'm playing favourites, Britain's is only marginally better). Being mentally ill is a tremendous stigma on the individual. It is a stigma to such an extent that an awful lot of people will flat-out refuse to seek mental care. I know, I was one of them. I had to be virtually forced into it by my other half (and bless her for that). Far too often, mental illness is seen as a weakness of the individual. The attitude that one can just pull oneself together and get over it is still far too common. And if it isn't that form of resentment, it "the look". Every mentally ill person knows that look, the look someone gives you when they find out you're mentally ill. It's a mixture of pity and fear, like you're about to lunge at their throat. Some mentally ill people are able to continue working if some accomodations are made. Others cannot work. I'm considered a danger to everyone around me if I try. In the US, more than any other nation I've known, you define yourselves by your employment. Everywhere else, you work to live. In the US, you live to work. And if you can't work, you're marginalised as a member of society. You become almost an "unperson", a burden much resented by the rest of society. So, in addition to your illness, you're very much aware of how much teh rest of society resents you. And to cap it all, your means of accessing healthcare might well be tied to that employment.

From what I've been able to gather, it would seem that either there is no system for having someone involuntarily committed or the system virtually takes an act of god to access. Here, I can be involuntarily committed if I'm considered a danger to myself or others and yes, that was once considered a serious option. According to a quick bit of Googling, it would appear that about 40% of the American homless population are suffering from some form of mental illness. And I strongly suspect that's because no-one is willing to put money into caring for the mentally ill. The mental hospitals were closed down. Here, it was given the nice media-friendly name of "care in the community" under Thatcher (and if you're asking my opinion, Thatcher was evil incarnate) and all the mentally ill people who should have been in care facilities were left to fend for themselves. So, if you want mentally ill people to recover or even just be prevented from going on a rampage, you need to put money into mental health care. I know Americans are f'ing insane about taxes (despite having one of the lowest tax rates in the civilised world) but if you want to care for the mentally ill, the money needs to come from somewhere.

Second, we need to talk about class. A PoliSci lecturer I once knew once told me that in the Seventies, he spent all his time telling students that Marx hadn't written the last word on everything. Now, he spent all his time telling them that not everything the man had to say was rubbish either. Now, I'm not a Marxist. I'm not a communist or even a socialist (I'm a social democrat which is a related but different thing) but I have read Marx and some of what he had to say about the struggle between social classes was correct (and yes, a lot of it was bull dung too). You have a big class problem in the USA, even worse than we do here (although your social mobility is much better than ours). You have created an underclass which has no hope, no prospects, which subsists purely on state handouts and the only reason anyone talks about them is to propose taking those handouts away. The fact is, those handouts are just enough to keep body and soul together but not enough to enable you to construct a way out of poverty and no-one wants to consider doing more, the only thing that ever gets considered is cuts. Why is this relevent? Because spree killers are mostly a product of the working or underclass. James Holmes is middle-class and he's unusual in that regard. And yes, I'm sure that if one looked, they could find other exceptions but they are exceptions. Spree killers come from the working and underclass. They come from a place where society has told you, in word and deed, that you are a worthless no-hoper. Remember all the televangelists who say "teach a boy he's descended from an ape and he'll act like one"? Yeah, the human mind doesn't work like that. Evolution is too abstract a process for us to internalise into our self-worth. But the messages society sends you daily about how little you're worth? Those do get internalised. And again, no-one wants to hear this one because it will take money to fix although if anyone wants to try, I have a few ideas.

Third, toxic religion. Now, I'm trying to pick my words carefully here because it's not religion in itself that's the problem. Canada is almost as religious as the USA and doesn't suffer from half as many spree killings. Britain is predominantly Christian by a large percentage as well and we also don't have as many spree killings (although we do have some). But there is a type of Christianity which is almost unique to the USA where faith is weilded almost as a weapon, where it has become not something to unite people but something to divide them. I'm going to use a Nazi reference here but not to Hitler himself (he made so many contradictory statements that we have little idea what, if anything, he actually believed). When the Nazis came to power, one of the many means they used to try and control the people was religion. At first, they tried to take control of the mainline churches (mainly through infiltration) and, as time went on, they created their own form of Christianity, known as "Positive Christianity". Look it up, it's fascinating in a horrific sort of way. Now, some Nazis genuinely believed that they were good Christians (I doubt anyone is going to argue that they were), others had no real time for religion but were willing to use it to control the masses. And that's what I mean by "toxic religion". A system of religion which is designed not for promoting love or peace or forgiveness or that good stuff but which is designed to control the masses. And this rolls right into my next point...

The public dialogue. Again, I'm trying to phrase myself carefully here lest someone acuse me of promoting censorship. You have allowed public discourse in the USA to reach a level of hostility unseen in the better part of a century. Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, reload", Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", half of everything Rush Limbaugh says. The level of rhetoric isn't new. What is new is the willingness to use violent imagery to make one's point. To you or I, it just means Palin is an ass but to someone already teetering on the edge, it could be enough to push them over. And if someone even suggests that maybe everyone should take a step back from the violent rhetoric, you're nothing less than an enemy of the First Amendment. Like suggesting a little restraint is the equivelent of burning books. I linked this point together with my last one because it all creates an atmosphere where it has become acceptable to say anything about someone one dislikes. Bill O'Reilly shot his mouth off about "Tiller the baby killer" a few hundred times and eventually, someone puts a bullet in Tiller's head. Does that trouble O'Reilly's sleep? Of course not, the man has no conscience. But his words contributed to an atmosphere where seeking violence became permissable. Our words are not spoken in a vacuum, they are heard by others and they become part of that other person's thoughts. And if our words act to dehumanise others, to demonise, to vilify, they contribute to an atmosphere where violence becomes permissable. How many times do you have to hear that Perez Hilton (name picked at random for illutrative purposes) is the scum of the earth, a man trying to destroy the country, how he's against everything you believe in. How many times do you need to hear that before you start thinking "this Hilton asshole's a real piece of work, someone should do something about him"? Let me answer that for you: Not very long. Here's a little secret of human psychology: It is child's play to raise and lower people's tolerence for violence (mostly, there's about 15% who it's very hard to do with for reasons that aren't entirely understood). Give me twenty minutes facetime and I can convince you that you suddenly like egg sandwiches. Any psychologist can do that, any psychology student can do that. In fact, it's very hard to not do it (which is why the British Psychological Society regulations, which I have signed and am bound by even as a student, are so strict). All it takes is a lot of repetition, the human tendancy to divide ourselves into groups and something to gain. That's why political parties run so many ads; because nine times out of ten, the party running the most ads wins. Repetition is the key. Repeat "Tiller the baby killer" often enough and it's internalised, sinks into the subconscious, becomes part of how the subject views the world. To an average person, they just think this Tiller guy's an asshole. But take someone already on the edge, already close to exploding and it gives them both that little nudge necessary and a target for their rage.

What are we up to now? Fifth? Yeah, let's go with that. Fifth, a culture of violence. In the US (and UK, we are, if anything, worse on this one), a certain level of violence is accepted, even lauded. Now, I'm not talking about televised combat sports like boxing or MMA or legitimate sporting endevours like wrestling. That's something different because it takes place in a controlled enviroment with an agreed set of rules. I'm talking about uncontrolled street violence and the two usually have little to do with each other. In the US (and Britain), our perceptions of masculinity tend to be tied up with violence or, at least, with the willingness to do violence. To be fully a man, societally speaking, is to be ready and willing to engage in violence at some level. And we've all felt the urge to violence at some point but in our society, there is an expectation that you will get involved in violence at least occasionally (usually as a teenager, when your perceptions of what is masculine are still forming). For a depressing number, that impression is formed at home, by the loving fists of their parent or guardian. And while not every victim becomes an abuser in turn (in fact, a healthy number do not), there are going to be a percentage who will internalise that violence.

Six, guns. You knew I was going to get to it eventually and a few things must be said. Now, first and for the record, I am not interested in taking your firearm away. As long as you're safe and law-abiding with it, good luck to you. However, there are just so damn many guns in the US that some of them will, by law of statistics, end up in the hands of crazy people. According to the Beeb, the FBI estimates (via records, arrests and some educated guesswork) that there are at least 270 million firearms in the USA. That's very nearly a gun for every man, woman and child; the highest per capita gun ownership in the world (and that's including places like Somalia, which doesn't even have a functioning government). In and of itself, that probably means little. The USA's per capita number of guns is 88.8 per 100 citizens but Switzerland has 45.7 per hundred (although that's tied into their civilian militia army so probably not a fair comparison), Finland has 32 and Canada has 30.8. So, in itself, the amount of guns wouldn't mean much. But when you combine it with all the other items on this list, you make it virtually a sure thing that a crazy person is going to be able to get their hands on a gun. Now, I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it so much more efficient. Yes, a crazy person determined to inflict mayhem could blow something up but that's time-consuming and labour-intensive. They could stab someone but that takes longer (and the longer it takes, the more likely it is for the cops to show up) and trust me, it's a lot easier to take a knife away from someone than it is to block a bullet. I can already hear the cries to leave law-abiding gun owners alone. It's frustrating that it's now gotten to the point where you can't even discuss firearms without someone shouting "Second Amendment!" and using that to shut down the conversation. But no-one is willing to tackle the other items on this list because they would cost money or become they'd mean getting serious about urban renewal or because they'd benefit a class of people you don't want one red cent going to and it's all of those, in combination with the sheer amount of guns in circulation.

Seven, population density. Crime writer Colin Wilson calls this the "crowded rat" theory. Spree killers are, by and large, creatures of the city. The reasons why are fairly obvious, that's where all the people are. Now, the USA is a big nation, easily big enough to accomodate it's roughly three hundred million people if the land mass was divided equally. But the land mass isn't divided equally. What you have are cities stuffed to bursting with people with big swathes of nothing in-between. The UK, incidently, gets hit with this one even harder in that we really don't have the land mass to accomodate our 60 million in anything like a sensible way. Now, there's little evidence on this one but it is possible that the sheer numbers crowded together in a relatively small area has some psychological effect.

Eight, the glamorisation of crime. Again, this is a topic where one has to pick one's words with care for fear of appearing to condone censorship. Now, many countries have a form of crime media but the USA produces a lot of it. And a lot of it is actually very good. I watch Criminal Minds on occasion (better than most shows about profiling but still heavily fictionalised). My other half watches Law & Order: SVU. In those shows, crime is presented as it should be presented, as dirty, seamy and distasteful. The cops are presented as heroes for being willing to wade through this filth for the good of society (and for many real-life cops, that's true). But there are other shows. There are shows where crime is presented as something exciting, glamourous. Does anyone watch an episode of The Sopranos and go out looking to end someone? No. Again, the human mind doesn't work like that (and anyone who wtched The Sopranos would hardly envy Tony's life). But if you watch enough of this stuff and you're already psychologically unstable, there's a chance that image of criminal glamour gets internalised. And that brings me to my next point...

Nine, media violence. Again, usual caveats apply. This one takes some explaining. Here, and in much of Europe, it is simply not possible for a kid to legally see The Dark Knight Rises. Our age certifications are a no-entry barrier. If the age certificate says "18", you better be able to show some ID to get in to see it because it doesn't matter if you've got the Pope with you, you're not getting in any younger. But because the USA has more-or-less abandoned the NC-17 certificate for mainstream cinema, movie studios try to angle for an R rating in order to maximise their chances to make money. That inevitibly results in studios pushing the envelope of what's allowable in an R-rated film. And because kids can get in to see an R-rating with an adult, the adults tend to think that an R rating means the film is suitable for kids. Now, this one can be dealt with simply by resurrecting the NC-17 certificate again, by making it viable to make films that are strictly for adults-only in the States. But how you go about doing that is rather beyond me. The last movie I saw at the cinema was The Avengers (which was bloody awesome and I've already pre-ordered the dvd). That was rated PG-13 in the States, 12A here (12A requires an adult). I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet but, assuming it's in a similar vein to the last two, it really should be an NC-17. That's not a knock on Nolan's trilogy of films. The first two were excellent and I'm sure this one will be too. But the first two also explored some very dark and very adult themes (fear in the first, order/chaos in the second). Both were extremely violent and both featured some highly disturbing characters. Hell, Ledger's Joker gave me the creeps and I'm in my mid-thirties. And that's just film. Now add in the mammoth amounts of violence which a kid, any kid, is going to be able to see on tv everyday. Just watching the evening news gives you a diet of murder, rape, violence.

This is not a call to sanitise the media. This is a call for the USA to realise that there is nothing wrong with making adults-only entertainment. It is a call for distributors to start dealing with NC-17's on mainstream films again and it is a call for the USA to come to terms with the fact that it's ok for not everything to be kiddie-friendly. Because for you and I, we've already finished our main psychological development. We can watch incredibly violent films and just be bored by them. But for a kid who hasn't finished developing psychologically and especially for one that is psychologically on the edge, that imagery can become part of the equipment by which they build their self-image.

Ten, and finally (because this is already in danger of becoming a sermon), look out for each other. Sounds simple, doesn't it? And it is simple but it's still something that very few of us do. Mental illness is rarely something that just happens one day. Even when someone just suddenly snaps and experiences a psychotic break (when the subject is out of touch with reality), it's usually preceded by what's called a stressor. And that stressor is usually something predictable. A divorce, a bereavement, being laid off from work. Something which challenges their self-image. But that kind of break is rare. Far more often, mental illness is a slow thief. Day by day, it steals a little of your mind and leaves a box of smoke in it's place. But in that long, slow downward spiral, it can make all the difference for someone to reach out to you. Mental illness is a little like drowning slowly each day but it makes all the difference in the old for someone to reach out a hand to steady you (forgive the mixed metaphor). And it doesn't have to be much. A phone call, a hand on the shoulder, a shared beer, telling someone you love them (apart from your other half, that goes without saying); all little gestures that mean "I care about you, you matter to me". And much of the time, that's all it takes.

We live in a world where many of us don't know our neighbours. Where the rush of life and the need to work ever longer hours to get by means we often don't have time to see or talk to those we should. We're so busy on society's little hamster wheel that we don't have time to look around us. I'm not blaming you for that. I know how easy that is. But here's a thing. If you're reading this, you have internet access and that means you have email access. And I guarantee that there's someone on your friends list that you haven't talked to in far too long. Email them, right now. Doesn't matter what you say. Talk about the Olympics, talk about politics or music or movies. Hell, gossip about soaps if you like because what you say doesn't really matter. But what the other person hears is "I care about you, you matter to me".

I don't know if James Holmes had people reach out to him. It's possible. But I know that with most spree killers, they don't. Usually, they cut themselves off from human access, retreat into their own little world. And that's when we need one another most of all, when we pretend we don't. Every mentally ill person wants to pretend, either to themselves or to the world, that they can manage. Addicts do it too and I've been an addict as well. They shut people out. Partly out of not wanting to share their lives and partly out of shame. And that's when we need to force our way in. Because nobody is so alone as those who claim to not be lonely.That's not to say that anyone else deserves the blame for his crimes. James Holmes, and he alone, pulled the trigger. No-one else can or should be blamed for his crimes. But, but. I contend that there was very likely a point when James Holmes could have been reached. Before he'd committed himself to murder or before his madness had so overtaken him, there was probably a time when he could have been reached.

I'm not a Christian but I have read the Bible several times and Jesus had a lot of worthwhile stuff to say. A lot of what he had to say was about how we, all of us, need to look out for one another. As a teaching, it's not unique to Christianity. Look in pretty much any faith or philosophy or belief system and you can find a similar message: That all of us need to look out for one another. And much of the time, all it takes is a gesture, "I care about you, you matter to me".

Here endeth the lesson. Peace with you.