Thanks for posting it.

He makes some good points.

If the CDC had been permitted to conduct the research that needs to be done - in order to create a coherent, effective response - it is possible that they would have come up with a similar assessment. Or, perhaps more accurately, they would have come up with assessments and recommendations that reflect reality, rather than kneejerk reactions after every event. The data is out there. The expertise is out there. But no one is taking any of it seriously.

Now, this does seem like the kind of thing that could be carried out by a think tank of some sort. The money is available, or benefactors could be persuaded to part with the money needed to do this work. It's a massive job, but it is doable. The fact, however, is that we as a nation lack the moral or intellectual backbone to even start the process, either in the public sector or the private sector.

All of that said, I do think that distinctions do need to be made between non-political shootings, killings by crazies (to use a professional, clinical term), and crime. There is likely to be overlap, but the responses - rather than reactions - to these different sorts of attacks may very well vary.

The terrorism label is an interesting one. I think it's applied - and we want it applied - in part because it raises the significance and carries with it greater penalties. And it may very well apply in some (many?) instances. But it has the potential to distract from the development of, as this guy put it, relevant and productive responses rather than the usual pointless reactions.

Overall, though, the problem is that we are not all living in the same country. We on DU, and this guy and others like him, live in the reality-based universe. There, we collect and analyze data, we craft what we hope are sensible policies, we evaluate the effectiveness of those policies, and we adjust as needed. The people who do this work are experts in their fields and truly want to do good work, because that is their ethical and moral duty and because they believe in what is broadly termed the greater good, or the common good.

Then there's the 60 million people who watch Fox and voted for Trump. These are people who live in fear and express that fear in the hatred of "The Other." They turn to religion for all of their answers. Science and sciency stuff is suspect. And as long as those people hold public office, nothing sensible or useful will happen.

my far from expert impression is that actual serial killers might have a sexual kink that requires their rituals and trophies.

a serial killer might think he is smarter than the authorities? a spree killer pretty much knows that it ends in "suicide by police."

Violence political acts are, imo, generally planned to have the most impact while NOT losing, if possible, the operative that carries out the act. Exceptions are suicide bombers but, imo again, they are viewed by the planners as cannon fodder, simply a delivery device.

Single person acts such as shooters have what the video correctly notes which are grievances. It does not matter whether or not the grievances are real or perceived since perception is reality. It is entirely likely that external stimuli directly impact the grievance/response process of individual actors. Words have impact. Since humans are not naturally rational there should be no surprise when a single actor does what he does. This is not mental illness of the bipolar or schizophrenic kind but mental/emotional unwellness/stunted growth. It is possible to say it is a fear response to a society that both has radical shortcomings and a response to perceived threat from changes happening in a society. How information exchangeimpacts single actors is important including who is doing the information exchange.

In the end I do not completely agree that the acts are not political. Most everything is impacted by the political economy. Perhaps a better way would be to understand how much is political and how much is not. It is entirely possible to be a political movement of one. Notoriety is part of that as well as being unable to cope with death. “There must be something to remember me by so I will commit such-and-such act to show the world my genius/plan which will save the world”. A savior complex perhaps.

are stoked up by the internet groups that encourage violence. These guys
are willing to chance getting themselves killed for an exchange of acceptance into the “hall of Fame for mass murders”. They are easily persuaded because they aren’t too bright, probably all have
Mental problems and bad family backgrounds.
It’s the “I wanna be a Celebrity” at any costs. Or “I wanna be a ‘hero’.
People can count on me,” kinda shit.
But the MOST dangerous aspect of these people is they have access to assault weapons.

usually it's some loser in life type.

but they are also different from those who carried out 9/11 attacks in that those guys were educated and i believe did or could have lived good lives.

most of those joining ISIS would not be smart enough to do something on the scale of 9/11.

so this could be where the split between ideological(political) and others come in. many hostages taken by ISIS said how the members seemed stupid and didn't really know much about the Quran. these are the guys that remind me of current shooters.

Other countries, Australia as a recent example, have banned possession of weapons such as these.

Other countries have seen a dramatic decrease in mass-murders. Hard to do with a knife or even a single-shot rifle/hand-gun.

Poor backwards USofA. Guess it's to be expected since we were founded by a bunch of misfits who had to first kill off the native populations. Time for a new evolution.

I don't know nothin' about anything psych - and I don't think many people really do given the lack of evidence-based studies.

But I do know that it is easy to push people in a particular direction. Particularly if they are on an edge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)