Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?


Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence.

Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.

Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.

Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions.

But, it triggers more people to talk about guns than actually resolving problems so,....
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
black4white · 56-60, M
I am not one to ban guns... i am all about having my very own guns from pistols to semi auto shotguns and hunting rifles.....which i use all frequently from targets to skeet to hunting(of course)
MY problem is that assault rifles such as AK47 or M16 are made for one purpose and one purpose only and that is killing of people. I dont see the issues with banning THOSE types of weapons or make it crazy difficult to own those. change them to a class 3 to where it takes over a year to own ..who knows and at the same time try to reduce the number of them that are now on the streets legally with some type of buy back. The ability to get these weapons are far too easy mental health issues or not.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white So - you are OK with infringing upon the right to bear arms.

black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick I am ok with that yes simply because you still have the ability to have guns.... just not particular types..so i dont see the "problem" as this allows others to still own weapons just not CERTAIN weapons.

And for the argument about "fighting the govt" if they want you dont matter what kind of gun you have..the will sit at a desk and drone your house if you are wanted THAT bad... LoL
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white
And for the argument about "fighting the govt" if they want you dont matter what kind of gun you have..the will sit at a desk and drone your house if you are wanted THAT bad... LoL

You're breaking up Black and white - I can't understand you.
black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick Yes i am breaking up...but only because YOU know my point is valid.... so yeah its all good.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white You point is valid?
Your gibberish doesn't make a point.

Infringing on gun rights 'a little bit' in infringement.
Unconstitutional.
black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick So with that said go to an airport or on an airplane and scream i got a bomb as a joke.... and see if that is infringement on your freedom of speech... whats the difference?
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white The topic has been covered a thousand times.
Try to keep up.
black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick pick and choose.... you keep up and get with the times....get out of the 1700's or 1800's and realize that SOME weapons are problematic to society
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white The 2nd amendment is as relevant today as it was the day it was written.
Maybe even more so.
black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick As you would say sir.... keep up... just like you cant scream bomb... you dont need assault rifles... Yes..i am sure you and many others WANT one (or have for that matter) OR OR OR like i mentioned before..make assault type weapons Class 3 weapons.... this way YOU can happily get one but there is a mandatory 15-18 month waiting period and you have to pay lets just say an additional $1500 on top of the weapon price for your own background check..finger printing etc etc....
Soooo now we dont infringe on your rights...what you think of that?
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white
you dont need assault rifles.

It's not the Bill Of Needs.
It's the Bill Of Rights.

Extra taxes and burdens are also infringement.
black4white · 56-60, M
@Budwick Extra taxes and burdens are NOT infringements otherwise everything is FREE....
Budwick · 70-79, M
@black4white What are 'NTt infringements '?