Quote of the day—Adam Lankford

The present study has offered three empirical predictions. (1) The number of fame-seeking rampage shooters will continue to grow. (2) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will attempt to kill more victims than past offenders killed. (3) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will “innovate” new ways to get attention.Whether these predictions will be borne out by future data remains to be seen. However, one social change that could potentially disrupt the growth of this threat would be a major reversal in the way the media covers these attackers. Recently, there has been some support for movements such as “No Notoriety” and “Don’t Name Them,” which encourage media organizations to avoid giving rampage shooters the attention and fame they often seek.

Adam Lankford
Aggression and Violent Behavior Volume 27, March–April 2016, Pages 122–129
Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions
[Via email from John Richardson, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money.

This is all consistent with other research that I have seen. The only quibble I have with this conclusion is that it limits the fame seeking to shooters. I also expect fire, knives, swords, vehicles, poison, chemical weapons, explosives, blunt objects, and many other tools will also be used by fame seekers.—Joe].

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Adam Lankford

  1. Dean Ing’s novel “Soft Targets” is an exploration of this notion. It starts with an agreement (conspiracy?) among major media to discuss terrorists only with ridicule, never to take them seriously. Interesting notion. I suspect it would be helpful.

    There’s a major hole in that “researcher’s” notion, which is that the whole premise relies on disarmed victims. “Fame-seeking” terrorists rely on that. If such terrorist attacks were quickly terminated by armed citizens, it would soon be very clear that such attempts will most likely end ignominiously. Existing examples show that terrorists who are resisted will often give up and kill themselves — exactly the desired outcome.

    • Rampage shooters who are not motivated by a political ideology will usually off themselves after encountering resistance.

      Those who are motivated by a political belief usually continue to fight, even when people are actively fighting back.

      • That sounds plausible. It means that resistance needs to be effective. Shooting at the bad guy isn’t sufficient; you have to shoot to stop the bad guy.

  2. people have been killing each other for a long time. some enjoy it, very much, apparently. and, a lot of “smart” people have tried to stop it, without much success.

    of course, if they get our guns, the “rampage killers” will simply switch to swords, daggers and gasoline.

    not to mention trucks. and, the head scratchers will continue to scratch.

    john jay

    p.s. btw, hands, fists, knives and heavy blunt objects account for almost as many criminal homicides in the united states on a yearly basis as firearms. go figure. the last major japanese politician killed was done in by a samurai sword, of all things. in a crowd. with security guys present.

  3. friends:

    the only defense to these kinds of attacks is if the people attack turn on the attacker, close on him en mass, and rip him to shreds and tear him limb from limb.

    that’s pretty straight forward.

    how do you defend from journalists who publicize an asshole like lawyer kahn? (a lawyer associated w/ hilary’s tax firm, btw. and, a member of the muslim brotherhood.) there is no defense from them, except to tar & feather them, and run them out of town on a splintery fence post.

    how do you defend against politicians who import syrian and somali terrorists.

    you figure it out.

    john jay

Comments are closed.