 January 26, 2023 |
 | Deputy Editor, Opinion Graphics |
As recent mass shootings in California have left at least 18 people dead, once again we are looking for answers. It often feels like shootings are senseless and random, but two criminology experts who have profiled mass shooters for more than 50 years argue that they’re not. |
Jillian Peterson and James Densley are the creators of the Violence Project, a research center that has cataloged mass shootings dating back to 1966. Using public records, news stories and interviews with the friends, colleagues, social workers and teachers who knew the shooters, the Violence Project team has built a resource that contains detailed information about the killers, the types of weapons they used, their victims and the settings. This work has helped the researchers map patterns about the perpetrators. |
We turned to Peterson and Densley this week to help us try to understand why this keeps happening. The result is an Opinion graphic that shows the psychological profiles of killers, drawn from more than 150 mass shootings in the United States. The data show a pattern of distress and isolation, which Peterson and Densley argue is related to the increased frequency of mass shootings in this country. Many of the shooters previously mentioned suicide, isolation and conspiracies or had made disturbing comments or videos. |
“They chose mass shootings as a way to seize power and attention, forcing others to witness their pain while attempting to end their lives in a way that only they controlled,” write Peterson and Densley. |
Let’s hope that this data can help us identify warning signs so that we can try to limit further tragedies. |
In a column this week, Nicholas Kristof also writes about how we can try to stop this horrific trend in America. He argues that we need to face the fact that in a country with more guns than people, we aren’t going to be able to eliminate these weapons. The answer, then, is better regulation. “We can try to keep firearms from people who are under 21 or who have a record of violent misdemeanors, alcohol abuse, domestic violence or some red flag that they may be a threat to themselves or others,” he writes. |
ADVERTISEMENT | ||
Can we avoid gun bans and still reduce gun violence? Readers discuss. |
In the comments section of his most recent column, Nicholas Kristof debated readers on the effectiveness of banning guns to reduce instances of gun violence. Blossom, a reader from Ohio, argued that while liberals are pursuing alternative approaches, conservatives are fighting against “anything and everything that helps the non-wealthy.” |
In his response, Kristof pushed back on the idea that conservatives were the only ones to blame: |
@Blossom Oh, I totally agree with you that conservatives have been AWOL on those programs, but I don’t think that liberals have pushed them hard enough. There’s good evidence for some of those social programs like Becoming a Man or Cure Violence, not to mention early literacy efforts, and they don’t get adequate support even in blue cities and states where Republicans aren’t the problem. I’m in Oregon, a good liberal state where we have one of the worst high school graduation rates in the country, and investments in pre-K and K-12 education today are one step toward reducing violence a decade or two from now. |
You can read more of Kristof’s exchanges with readers here. |
Here’s what we’re focusing on today: |
Editors’ Picks | ||
| ||
| ||
ADVERTISEMENT | ||
More From Opinion | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
ADVERTISEMENT | ||
Subscribe Today |
New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that help readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer. |
No comments:
Post a Comment