so if you can get it and can share the info and insights here, I, for one, would greatly appreciate it.
Well, I actually got the book, and just finished reading it. It's heavy going because the guy is big on statistics. Which is good. He's trying for objective, accurate data. It's also a lot to wade through, for a person who's bored by statistics.
He made some interesting points, but no grand, sweeping pronouncements. The first interesting point is that they really didn't start even trying to keep good statistics on this sort of thing until the mid-70's. Most of the data that's available is from the news media and most of the data that gets cited in studies is from the news media. He seems to have done his best to get an accurate view, but concedes the limitations. But, it's worth repeating, most of the available data, especially before the mid-70's is from the media. It's probably not totally representative.
We've always had mass killings in this country. The actual "classic" mass killing is more along the lines of "a father, for some reason, despondent, kills his family and, often, himself." Might use a gun, might use another weapon, might use fire. There are lots of variations on that theme. Or, a disgruntled employee kills coworkers and boss. Or something similar. There is also a long history of random mass killings by strangers. Sometimes with a gun, sometimes with something else. I was surprised at the number of cases he cited from pre-1900.
One of the things he mentions at the end of the book is that there are, and have been, events like this in other countries as well, but they are not extensively studied. He thought it would be interesting to study other countries and other cultures, past and present, to compare and contrast. He noted that we have a couple of words in our language, "amok" and "berserk", that refer to a rather random, homicidal violence and they come from other languages. He speculated that this sort of thing has been around for a LONG time.
The rate of mass killings seems to rise and fall along with the general murder rate and the general violent crime rate. There was a spike in all of that during the 20's & 30's. The mass murders at that time appeared to be most likely to be connected to financial stresses. There was a dip during the 40's & 50's. He speculates that might have been because it was a time of relative prosperity and it was also a time when society was stressing conformity.
Prior to 1900, mass killings tended to be committed by one group against another. (At least the ones that made the news, and this is a problem with the data.) The US military was rather into slaughtering native people. There were quite a few incidents of whites killing blacks, residents killing immigrants, militia killing labor protestors, etc. Much less of that after 1900. (Lynchings don't exactly fit this "mass killing" criteria, in most cases.)
In the conclusion, he notes that there isn't good data prior to 1900 and it's possible that the period of the 40's and 50's was part of a general decline in violence with the Depression era being a blip. Or, our current level of violence might represent a return to "normal" levels, after a relatively calmer period.
Here's an insight I found particularly noteworthy. And, I think this is worth considering in more cases than just this one. He pointed out that the news media (ALL OF IT) actually exists to make money. I'm sure there are journalists out there in search of truth and justice, I really am. But, in the end, they have to sell papers or magazines, or advertising, or something. Also, the news media only has so much time or space available to present stories. This combines to affect their choice of story. He looked at factors that appear to effect the reporting of a story and found some interesting things. The more victims, in general the more press. Guns get more coverage than other weapons. Female and juvenile victims get more coverage. Random victims get more coverage. (All of this is in general, there are exceptions.) So, stories like the Las Vegas shooting get way more coverage than the more "typical" mass killing. Because they sell. Not that they aren't bad, clearly they are. But mass killings are still relatively rare and this type is less common than other types.
Which is not to say that we aren't experiencing an uptick in this sort of thing. We might be. The book was published in 2007, so there's no data for the past few years. But, we've had upticks before.
The other thing he mentioned is that there are lots of ways of framing this kind of thing, depending on your agenda. Groups like law enforcement can use it to justify their existence and lobby for more resources. (He cites an example of the FBI collecting data on serial killers and presenting it in a way that was a bit deceptive, but helped finance projects they wanted to finance.) You could frame it as a domestic violence problem, because many mass killings involve families and a history of domestic violence. You can frame it as a mental health problem, because a notable percentage of killers were, or get, diagnosed with a mental health issue. (Most often paranoid schizophrenia and or major depressive disorder.) You can frame it as a school or workplace violence problem, and, of course, you can frame it as a gun problem. He doesn't try to frame it as anything, just points out that there are a lot of ways to use the data. Clearly, you can also use to to sell media.
He mentions the "copy cat effect" and says there are cases where that was clearly a factor, but those cases are fairly rare. He doesn't speculate on whether or not media attention to this sort of thing inspires more of it in a more vague, general way, because it kind of "normalizes" it.
So, maybe the conclusion is "It's complicated"? A bit of a disclaimer. I'm not good at reading statistical data and that's mostly what this book is. I've summarized A LOT. I've tried to be accurate, but I'm sure there's some of my own, personal bias in the way I summarized the data. But, there you have it, the book report I promised way back when.
