That's a socially isolated failure at life, if you ask me.

There are millions of these guys out there.

this shooters motivation could be something just as stupid as his child support payments were going up. I'm pissed and everyone is going to pay.

Time will tell.

When I read that the shooter was a 20 year old man from NJ.

But isn't the idea that you are entirely right and everyone else is wrong a species of insanity? Certainly it is immoral, but are most people capable of believing this? Shouldn't a normal person have a basic instinct not to take it out on children?

I don't know the answers.

if your mind can picture that level of revenge and then actually act it out there is something seriously wrong with it

No doubt about it.

Holmes and that other kid in Oregon were in the middle of their college years.

...on a very general concept. I don't think some rational behavior, or rationalizations of behavior are indications of "normality."

My definition of mentally ill encompasses mass killers, whether they can express a rationale or not.

--imm

This guy or these guys killed CHILDREN. None more than 10 years old. A sane mind does not shoot a child for "revenge". A sane mind does not sit around and make a "well planned execution" of children.

Which is why I constantly question our fucking military actions.

They have no empathy for others and that's why they can justify their violent actions.
Not every sociopath is a potential mass murderer. Deep seated anger mixed with narcissism does not mean that these killers are mentally insane. The fact that they can plan and execute these horrendous events show that they are committing pre-meditated murder.

They are malignant narcissists with large egos.
Does this make them mentally ill?
I suppose that depends upon the definition of mental illness.

means nothing

to have in common are: Male, young to middle aged. And most likely mentally ill--some, like James Holmes, were even in treatment. That's it.

Many here are saying that killing kids is prima facie proof of mental illness. The usage of the term in casual speech supports this. Clearly someone who shoots up a classroom is not capable of rational and emotionally appropriate evaluation of that action.

I don't know enough psychiatry to know whether professionals use the term much differently. From what I do know it seems more likely that they expand the concept of treatable mental illness far more than laypeople; I'd be surprised if mass child murder in itself were not sufficient to diagnose some DSM entry or other. I'll defer to the better-informed to confirm or refute.

But the writer is a justice professional, and in that sense the concern is over whether a perpetrator of an illegal act was capable at the time of knowing the difference between right and wrong, and chose to do the latter. In this sense it is perfectly reasonable and highly likely to be true that most mass murderers do not qualify. Obviously no idea on the current bete du jour.

They do not effectively handle life's indignities which fester and blow.