“Mass murder is frequently a form of suicide in that the perpetrator of such atrocities is often an enraged and fatalistic individual who intends to die at the scene of the massacre. In fact, more than 50% of mass shooters die at their crime scene. From this perspective, the increase in mass public shootings over the last ten years is very consistent with the increase in suicide.”

The above is written by Scott Bonn, Ph.D. a criminology professor, TV news commentator, public speaker, and author. He is an expert on the behavior and the motivations of criminals. He offers insights into various types of crime, including white-collar, state crime, bullying, domestic violence, sexual assault, and serial homicide. His expert commentary frequently appears in the popular news media.

In another opinion, Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, offered a different opinion in an article for Wired.

Lankford studied data from a 2010 New York Police Department report of active shooter incidents in the country where police knew the identity of the shooter and found that about half of the shooters who killed at least two people committed suicide.

The reason, according to Lankford, is that because the more people a shooter kills, the guiltier he feels, meaning he is more likely to kill himself. This suggests that those who have the most rage toward others – and therefore end up killing the most victims – would also feel the most guilty and ashamed about their crimes,” Lankford wrote for Wired. “They are therefore more likely to engage in “self-punishment” via suicide or suicide by cop. After the initial explosion of rage causes them to open fire, active shooters who see many dead or dying victims around them may feel a correspondingly higher need for self-punishment than shooters with fewer victims.”

Lankford also suggested that shooters who come to the scene more heavily armed are “possibly fueled by a more powerful sense of “injustice” and hopelessness than other active shooters,” meaning they are more likely to kill themselves. These people are also likely to feel that they and their beliefs are unrecognized and unappreciated. Recognition is important to them.

The idea that mass killing shooters are suicidal is shared by experts who study such events does not address the need for a plan which identifies these people before they do harm to others. In my checking for “suicide proclivity testing” I found the following indicating that there are lots of groups studying the matter. www.google.com/searchq=SUICIDE+PROCLIVITY+IDENTIFICATON

Let’s assume that one or more sources of a reliable tool will be found. If so, how could such a test be used and what could or should be done about those individuals indicated as having a suicidal tendency?

Among the many considerations are issues of age and sites for testing, frequency of testing, mandatory requirement for testing, privacy issues re the necessity of terms of release, cost reimbursement, qualification and licensing of testers, notification of law enforcement, treatment, parental involvement, identification of those tested, freedom of movement of those testing positive for suicide, wearing of an electronic ankle bracelet, etc.

First there would have to be federal and local legislation and then enforcement. There would have to be community acceptance of the problem and a recognition of a possible solution. The fact of there being those amongst us who represent a threat due to their illness must be accepted. Drunk drivers kill people.

A theoretically possible, but politically controversial, national identity card, as is currently compulsory in most countries, could be required to be always carried by all in the country. The information could include the individual’s health needs, military service, criminal records, and personally characteristics, such as suicidal proclivity, and others as deemed desirable by law enforcement agencies.

However, in this country, there would be fierce political opposition from those fearing increased government control over their lives. Of course, the amount and details of the information to be made available would have to be non-political and agreed.

Honest people would benefit from a national identity card holder’s location disclosure requirement, and others could be deterred from committing bad acts, knowing that they were always under surveillance. Those believing in the societal importance of law and order should support using personal data for the public good.

The information could also be imbedded in battery powered, cell phone-like, devices having transmission capability. This would permit law enforcement agencies to have the ability of learning who was where, whenever. There would ideally be an indication transmitted when the unit was turned off or separated from the individual.

Were this possible, and the plan enforced with severe penalties for not having the device carried and turned on, especially with individuals having possible suicidal proclivities and other antisocial characteristics, harm to many could be reduced.

There are political and financial issues of cost/benefit, as the program of identification and treatment will be expensive. The cost will be compared to other per capita benefit investments, especially as the program’s expenses will likely be both annual and growing.

In the end, there will be a calculation as to the estimated cost per life saved, if the program is enacted and successful. If the cost per life saved is significantly higher than other programs having similar objectives, it will not get the necessary funding support, and life and death will continue as is.

Reality assessment and developing remedial responses are frequently frustrating and unpleasant.

In the current Washington Post there is an article, from which the following is extracted, indicating the importance, and increasing incidence of suicide:

“Suicide has been the main killer of U.S. personnel since the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 30,000 of them have died by their own hands since, during a period that saw about 7,000 service members die in combat or training exercises, according to a project from Brown University. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Suitt_Suicides_Costs of War_June 21 2021.pdf”

 

Arthur Lipper                                           arthurlipper@gmail.com