Why aren't there women shooters ?

[Vicky89]

I've been wondering this for quite some time now.

 

Ever notice how shooting sprees are done by single males in their 20-40's ?

 

They all also have one thing in common, lack of a sex life. They don't have wives, no girlfriends, hardly any friends, they are loners.

 

Am wondering, does being alone affect people in harmful ways ? Or were these men already mentally ill to begin with ?

 

Why don't women go on shooting sprees ? Why is it only men ? Does being lonely affect men more than it does women ?

[Seraphim]

I've been wondering this for quite some time now.

 

Ever notice how shooting sprees are done by single males in their 20-40's ?

 

They all also have one thing in common, lack of a sex life. They don't have wives, no girlfriends, hardly any friends, they are loners.

 

Am wondering, does being alone affect people in harmful ways ? Or were these men already mentally ill to begin with ?

 

Why don't women go on shooting sprees ? Why is it only men ? Does being lonely affect men more than it does women ?

 

Extremely complicated answer as to why men are more outwardly violent than women. Has to do with development of the brain and the centre for aggression in the male brain is larger than in the female brain. Social development comes into that as well . Women are expressly taught not to be violent . Boys are taught it is OK to be boys are boys . However most people who kill other people have had some form of abuse which damages the brain .

 

However ,you must be mentally ill to shoot people . It is not just because people are lonely . However, mental illness can cause loneliness .

[Seraphim]

And if women kill it tends to be usually it with less violence although not always . Women usually kill with poisons and such. Women who kill with extreme violence though have usually been so horribly abused that the aggression centre in their brain has become more like that of a man's as in the case of Aileen Wuornos .

[LaHermes]

Vicky.

 

Again "being alone" and being a "loner" are not the same thing. And btw "loners" are not by definition killers. No, being alone does not affect people (by that I mean well-adjusted people) in harmful ways. One can have friends, acquaintances, relatives etc. etc.

 

There are thousands and thousands of pages of text out there on the topic of the shooting spree killer, with every possible explanation being examined. Many of the articles are very interesting.

[Seraphim]

Vicky.

 

Again "being alone" and being a "loner" are not the same thing. And btw "loners" are not by definition killers. No, being alone does not affect people (by that I mean well-adjusted people) in harmful ways. One can have friends, acquaintances, relatives etc. etc.

 

There are thousands and thousands of pages of text out there on the topic of the shooting spree killer, with every possible explanation being examined. Many of the articles are very interesting.

 

Exactly, loners are not by definition killers . Not every loner is mentally ill.

[happyfrank]

It has nothing to do with being alone. It has to do with their upbringing. Bullied, abused by a related, mental disorder.

 

The perfect example is Hitler. His father abused him and that turned him into the monster that he became. Columbine Highs chool massacre. Two teenager friends that were bullied and finally cracked.

 

one of the 2015 san bernardino killers was a woman. She was raised to have hate and look and what happened.

 

It's not a gender thing but how the village raised individually person imo.

[mustlovedogs]

What makes you think they are alone? One of the Columbine shooters had a prom date just days prior. The Aurora theater shooter had a girlfriend. There was a triple homicide near me a few weeks ago - he, too, had a girlfriend.

 

I don't think being single makes someone prone to crime. And it's crazy to think that anyway.

 

 

You really need to figure out ways to be happy alone. Someday, you may have a relationship where your partner ends up terminally ill, for instance. How would you function then? Knowing how to be alone and not lonely is a vitally important skill.

[LaHermes]

Yes, Frank. That is so.

 

"Many mass shootings are motivated by revenge or envy. That’s why many take place at a school or a workplace where shooters felt rejected, said Tony Farrenkopf, a forensic psychologist in Portland, Ore., who has created psychological profiles of mass shooters.

 

In addition, killers often exhibit risk factors that are generally tied to criminality: a history of abuse or ineffective parenting, a tendency to set fires or hurt animals, a sadistic streak, and self-centeredness and a lack of compassion.

 

School shooters often harbor anger and paranoid delusions, have low self-esteem and hang out with an outcast group, Farrenkopf said. And there is usually a triggering event — either a lost job or a falling out with a girlfriend — that finally makes them snap, he said."

 

From a HF article article "Mass Shooting Psychology: Spree Killers Have Consistent Profile, Research Shows"

 

To add from an article on bullyonline.org

 

"In many cases of spree killings, the gunman appears to have been a victim of abuse or a target of bullying, often for many years, and sometimes throughout his life. The bullying and abuse have built resentment which culminates in a violent outburst. A triggering event occurs, which may be minor in nature but is the last straw; the individual reaches his breaking point and extracts revenge on those he perceives as responsible for his circumstances, or responsible for failing to deal with his allegations. He may phrase this as "accountability" or "retribution" or "revenge" or "reckoning" depending on his state of mind. He may emphasise the lack of respect he's gotten throughout his life. He might also unwittingly allude to his delusional thinking processes by inferring how his act will finally bring him that respect.

 

Sometimes there is a history of mental health problems and in many cases it appears the spree killer was starting to experience delusional thinking but it may not have been significant enough to warrant medical attention or intervention. In many cases I've suspected the spree killer may have had some symptoms of schizophrenia."

"

[LaHermes]

That's exactly it MLD.

 

"You really need to figure out ways to be happy alone. Someday, you may have a relationship where your partner ends up terminally ill, for instance. How would you function then? Knowing how to be alone and not lonely is a vitally important skill."

[Vicky89]

Exactly, loners are not by definition killers . Not every loner is mentally ill.

 

That's like saying not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer, TRUE, but out of all the lung cancer cases, MOST of them are because they smoked. So while most loners aren't going out on shooting sprees, most of the shooting sprees seem to come from loners, outcasts and the types.

[mustlovedogs]

That's like saying not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer, TRUE, but out of all the lung cancer cases, MOST of them are because they smoked. So while most loners aren't going out on shooting sprees, most of the shooting sprees seem to come from loners, outcasts and the types.

 

I'm interested in your research. Is this colloquial knowledge or have you done a study?

 

And what's your point anyway? Perhaps they are loners (if this is true) because of other issues. I doubt they have issues because they are loners.

[LaHermes]

Yep, MLD.

 

"I'm interested in your research. Is this colloquial knowledge or have you done a study?

 

And what's your point anyway? Perhaps they are loners (if this is true) because of other issues. I doubt they have issues because they are loners."

[Seraphim]

The Cause-and-effect reasoning is a bit off .

[Vicky89]

I'm interested in your research. Is this colloquial knowledge or have you done a study?

 

And what's your point anyway? Perhaps they are loners (if this is true) because of other issues. I doubt they have issues because they are loners.

 

I guess am just curious as to why maybe loneliness affects men differently than women, hence more males commit shooting sprees than women. Or maybe the crimes aren't committed because they have issues with being lonely and you are right all along . IDK, was just curious.

[RainyCoast]

i was a (then undiagnosed) c-ptsd teen. among other things, my disturbance was marked by extreme anger at society at large. it is displaced aggression. by (thankfully only in my imagination) fighting the world, i was transferring onto substitutes the anger at my abusers. it was a defense against defenselessness, helplessness, excessive vulnerability, dis-empowerment and lack of any control of what happens/happened to me. it was really, really intense.

 

i was also brought up by, among others, an aggressive airforce fighter and lieutenant. i played "boys'" games as a child, and developed tomboyish interests, knew weapons at an early age. i enjoyed shooting from a sporty perspective, i liked the practice in focus and precision and coordination, and i was planning on being a licensed gun-owner when i grew up.

 

i thankfully was able to regain sufficient feeling of personal strength and control over my life through healthy pursuits. my c-ptsd was very bad by then, but i was a passionate active humanitarian and volunteer and my need for aggression as a means of coping with vulnerability turned into a need to dis-empower aggression, and empower the vulnerable, in harmonious and peaceful ways.

 

i had the fortune of being able to steer the life current that could not accept powerlessness by default into constructive rather than destructive pursuits.

 

shortly after i realized i had succeeded in that, it hit me, that i was so close to becoming something that so disagrees with my character. i wondered...could i have become...a girl delinquent, criminal, bully, shooter...did i have it in me, to, given enough desperation turn my extreme, forceful anger outwards? or would i have turned it inwards and went through with the ideas of suicide i so frequently entertained?

 

i don't know. but i know a was a petite, smart, talented girl...always ready to bite, strike, kick (shoot? ??) at perceived threat. i wasn't the prototype of person people usually think has such fury and aggression in them. had things developed differently, maybe i would have acted on it.

 

sublimation was life saving, imo, quite literally.

 

it's not a gender thing. girls can have the same defenses as boys. although if we were to hair-split, we could come up with both theoretical and clinical data that shows oedipal mis-configuration in boys to make outward aggression more likely, but there is also the societal programming and whom we accept has more "right" or "biological and cultural reasons" to cope aggressively, and so forth.

 

i would drop the assumption that girls/women are less likely to act like that. i would never assume "they are less serious, less likely, less able" or whatever to display the same pathological behaviors, just because women often find alternative ways of behaving destructively, or turn destructive impulses against themselves.

[Seraphim]

I guess am just curious as to why maybe loneliness affects men differently than women, hence more males commit shooting sprees than women. Or maybe the crimes aren't committed because they have issues with being lonely and you are right all along . IDK, was just curious.

 

Shooting spree's don't have anything to do with loneliness . They have far more to do with abuse and mental health .

[Seraphim]

i was a (then undiagnosed) c-ptsd teen. among other things, my disturbance was marked by extreme anger at society at large. it is displaced aggression, by (thankfully only in my imagination) fighting the world i was transferring onto substitutes the anger at my abusers. it was a defense against defenselessness, helplessness, excessive vulnerability, dis-empowerment and lack of any control of what happens/happened to me. it was really, really intense.

 

i was also brought by, among others, an aggressive airforce fighter and lieutenant. i played "boy's" games as a child, and developed tomboyish interests, knew weapons at an early age. i enjoyed shooting from a sporty perspective, i liked the practice in focus and precision and coordination, and i was planning on being a licensed gun-owner when i grew up.

 

i thankfully was able to regain the feeling of personal strength and control over my life through healthier pursuits. my c-ptsd was very bad by then, but i was a passionate active humanitarian and volunteer and my need for aggression as a means of coping with vulnerability turned into a need to dis-empower aggression, and empower the vulnerable, in harmonious and peaceful ways.

 

i had the fortune of being able to steer the life current that could not accept powerlessness by default into constructive rather than destructive pursuits.

 

shortly after i realized i had succeeded in that, it hit me, that i was so close to becoming something that so disagrees with my character. i wondered...could i have become...a girl delinquent, criminal, bully, shooter...did i have it in me, to, given enough desperation turn my extreme, forceful anger outwards? or would i have turned it inwards and went through with the ideas of suicide i so frequently entertained?

 

i don't know. but i know a was a petite, smart, talented girl...always ready to bite, strike, kick at perceived threat. had things developed differently, maybe i would have acted on that.

 

sublimation was life saving, imo, quite literally.

 

it's not a gender thing. girls can have the same defenses as boys. although if we were to hair-split theory, we could come up with both theoretical and clinical data that shows oedipal mis-configuration in boys to make outward aggression more likely, but there also the societal programming of whom we accept has more "right" or "biological and cultural reasons" to cope aggressively, and so forth.

 

i would drop the assumption that girls/women are less likely to act like that. i would never assume "they are less serious, less likely, less able" or whatever to display the same pathological behaviors, just because women oftn find alternative ways of behaving destructively, or turn destructive impulses against themselves.

Yes, women more likely turn violence in on themselves then outwards.

 

I do understand the whole having complex PTSD myself. If someone physically gets in my face they better clear off pretty quick because I will get violent. I do have the capacity for violence but I'm very well-controlled .

[RainyCoast]

Yes, women more likely turn violence in on themselves then outwards.

 

I do understand the whole having complex PTSD myself. If someone physically gets in my face they better clear off pretty quick because I will get violent. I do have the capacity for violence but I'm very well-controlled .

exactly, the same gut reaction may persist in subdued form, but it doesn't control ones behavior when they get some control over the disorder. i will still sometimes, but very rarely get supermarket rage or similar, and indulge in sadistic imagery of flinging whoever or whatever annoyed me across the room. very briefly. with no intent or need to act on it. then i tell myself stop thinking sh1t rainy lol.

 

in traumies especially, this has to do with slowly healing the so called Amygdala hijack/ limbic hijack, by learning how to allow the neocotrex to overpower the reactionary amygdala.

 

impulsive, reactionary aggression (like if someone you are not comfortable with insists on standing very close to you breathing on your neck and your impulse is HIIITT HIMMMM and you have to muster all the self-control you have to not bury your elbow in their face) is faster than the reasonable mind. the amygdala works faster than your thinking does! so you don't talk yourself out of inappropriate reactions upon perceived threat, because by the time your cognition catches on, you've done it already. it takes a lengthy, strenuous process of strengthening neocortical activity so it finally gets some control over the impulsiveness during a lymbic hijack.

[RainyCoast]

They all also have one thing in common, lack of a sex life. They don't have wives, no girlfriends, hardly any friends, they are loners

what nonsense! who the heck can confirm this?

 

i'd like to see the statistics on that.

 

some of the most violent criminals were seemingly respectable, loving, caring family men.

 

women are frequently recruited into militias and terrorist groups for example, and no less unhinged than their male counterparts.

 

i had a colleague in amnesty international who reported that the tamil tigers had a female division that outdid the already highly dangerous male TTs in ferocity.

 

many women have been brutally aggressive to their exs, to children, to female "competition" since...ever.

 

speaking of aggression being an overcompensatory coping mechanism for perceived or real excessive helplessness and vulnerability, delinquent females in contemporary russia come to mind as a textbook example.

 

why is the proposition that a person must be a lonely sexually frustrated male to behave antisocially, and why is it proposed that women cannot be equally unhinged, violent and dangerous because they are not reclusive shooters who haven't had sex in years?

 

there are plenty of ways to behave just as antisocially and violently without necessarily using firearms in public places.

 

and these violent people can and do live their social lives all along the spectrum from entirely reclusive (underground bunker in alaska, alone for the past 35 years with no communication with other humans) to next door neighbors like Cora's husband Clyde, the fun soccer dad and distinguished veterinarian and churchgoer, and Tina the bookish kid from elementary.

 

when the proposition itself is incorrect- a faulty vantage point, you can't get supportive arguments and there is no proof to confirm it.

 

when we feel like we need to insist on something that is very narrow and heavily biased against someone, it's helpful to ask ourselves why we're doing that.

[LaHermes]

Quite so, Rainy.

 

"why is the proposition that a person must be a lonely sexually frustrated male to behave antisocially, and why is it proposed that women cannot be equally unhinged, violent and dangerous because they are not reclusive shooters who haven't had sex in years? "

 

As ole Kipling said: "The female of the species is deadlier than the male" lol

[Seraphim]

exactly, the same gut reaction may persist in subdued form, but it doesn't control ones behavior when they get some control over the disorder. i will still sometimes, but very rarely get supermarket rage or similar, and indulge in sadistic imagery of flinging whoever or whatever annoyed me across the room. very briefly. with no intent or need to act on it. then i tell myself stop thinking sh1t rainy lol.

 

in traumies especially, this has to do with slowly healing the so called Amygdala hijack/ limbic hijack, by learning how to allow the neocotrex to overpower the reactionary amygdala.

 

impulsive, reactionary aggression (like if someone you are not comfortable with insists on standing very close to you breathing on your neck and your impulse is HIIITT HIMMMM and you have to muster all the self-control you have to not bury your elbow in their face) is faster than the reasonable mind. the amygdala works faster than your thinking does! so you don't talk yourself out of inappropriate reactions upon perceived threat, because by the time your cognition catches on, you've done it already. it takes a lengthy, strenuous process of strengthening neocortical activity so it finally gets some control over the impulsiveness during a lymbic hijack.

I so get you. ❤️

[RainyCoast]

As ole Kipling said: "The female of the species is deadlier than the male" lol

good one!

 

I so get you.

"shopping cart hit and run" is one of my remaining violent fantasies

[thealchemist]

That's like saying not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer, TRUE, but out of all the lung cancer cases, MOST of them are because they smoked. So while most loners aren't going out on shooting sprees, most of the shooting sprees seem to come from loners, outcasts and the types.

That is simply the difference between causation and correlation.

 

Causation. Being a loner increases your chances of going on a shooting spree.

 

Correlation. People who go on shooting sprees are more likely to be a loner.

 

There is a huge difference in these statements. People mix them up a lot.

[j.man]

There are plenty of theories, though the discrepancy between men and women as far as violent crime goes is undeniable. A few things come to mind as possibilities.

Bear in mind, all of these speak generally, so if I fail to specify within the point, keep it in mind.

 

- While "nurture" can and often does play a role, there are physiological precursors to men being more aggressive overall. NOT in any way whatsoever excusing the personal responsibility they alone are liable for.

- The relative disposability of men, even in the eyes of other men, making it easier to dehumanize and consciously engage in such an act as shooting another. (While I'm aware mass shooters can be relatively indiscriminate, men are exponentially more likely to shoot another man or, in general, commit violence toward other men than women).

- Men are exponentially more likely to successfully commit suicide. While that may not speak directly as a cause, it could serve as a reason they're much more likely to commit something such as a mass shooting, where they'd almost inevitably have their life taken (assuming they don't already have the intent to commit the deed themselves after).

- Men are far and away more likely to be trained, or at least proficient in the use of firearms (doesn't speak to a lack of capacity for women, simply cultural norms)

- When it comes to the household, women generally have a much more tangible and, in terms of physical presence, personal responsibility, particularly with rearing children, potentially making it more difficult to take such a big risk with such a brazen and direct action, or even take a risk with a more subtle equivalent for that matter.

- As stated by others, women tend to be much more discrete and opportunistic in their violence.

 

Again, my first point aside, I don't believe any of these are inherently biological. I do think you're staring at the complexity of thousands of years of cultural momentum that neither bullet points nor even a 500-page novel would do justice for. And before I get slammed for suggesting things in any way suck more for men, ergo they kill, I believe that women are generally led to a more passive role when it comes to violence by the same suck that, to this day, cultivates passivity in many ways that ultimately hinder them.

 

Don't take this as gospel. It's more or less random musings. I'm not really married to any of these ideas.

[LaHermes]

Rivetting and analytical article by Michael Mills PhD.

Running Amok: Why Are Virtually All Spree Killers Men?

An evolutionary psychology perspective: why virtually all spree killers are men.

 

 

 

"However, at the low end, there are indeed some men with whom no woman would want to risk a pregnancy. Some men are just so unappealing (unattractive, stupid, poor, in poor health, and apparently with lousy genes) that no woman would want to have sex with him. No woman would choose that man to be the father of her children. Imagine a homeless man, empty whiskey bottle in hand, sleeping in a urine stained cardboard box. Any takers? These guys are not happy campers. They are losing out in the most important biological game of life.

 

Many spree killers fall into this category, or, they so perceive themselves. Spree killings often follow a personal rejection by a female(s), and, the perception that more rejections are likely to follow perhaps due to social ostracism or loss of social status. Daly and Wilson (1988, p. 280) note that "The most common precipitating events are difficulties with wives or girlfriends, losses of face, and losses of money..." "

 

"Someting happens to males at about age 14 that doesn't happen to girls. The sex difference in committing homicides really starts to explode on the graph (see the graphic). From age 14 onward, the rate at which males begin to murder others begins to far outstrip that of females. It peaks when males are in their mid-twenties, and then it starts to decline. Although the graph is based on Canadian data, this same general pattern with respect to the sex and age of murderers is seen around the world. Even in cultures widely separated in space and time, the graph looks pretty much the same."