Mass murdering veterans.

[Arkady]

Given what a small percentage of our population serves in the military, these days, it seems like veterans make up more than a proportionate number of those responsible for mass killings. Just off the top of my head, there was Aaron Alexis, Joseph Whitman (the UTexas sniper), Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Eric Rudolph (Olympic park and abortion clinic bombings), John Allen Muhammed (beltway sniper), Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple shooter), and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (OK City). Some of the big names of mass murderers in this country who weren't vets themselves were one degree removed (e.g., Columbine mastermind Eric Harris, the son of a military vet and defense contractor employee; Jared Lee Loughner applied to the military but was turned down).

If there are a disproportionate number of veteran mass killers (and I think there are), why is that? Is it that military service screws with people's heads, or that people who are more screwed up are more likely to join the military, or some combination, or some other factor?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Well..in all fairness, this last taterhead was a reservist. And an AE3 at that. (Aviation Electrician) Never saw a moment of combat.

Claimed he had PTSD due to having been a 'responder' during 9/11?

I think he was just a nut.

 

[connieb]

Given what a small percentage of our population serves in the military, these days, it seems like veterans make up more than a proportionate number of those responsible for mass killings. Just off the top of my head, there was Aaron Alexis, Joseph Whitman (the UTexas sniper), Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Eric Rudolph (Olympic park and abortion clinic bombings), John Allen Muhammed (beltway sniper), Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple shooter), and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (OK City). Some of the big names of mass murderers in this country who weren't vets themselves were one degree removed (e.g., Columbine mastermind Eric Harris, the son of a military vet and defense contractor employee; Jared Lee Loughner applied to the military but was turned down).

If there are a disproportionate number of veteran mass killers (and I think there are), why is that? Is it that military service screws with people's heads, or that people who are more screwed up are more likely to join the military, or some combination, or some other factor?

I think it is several factors. Our military action can definitely screw with people's heads and I think that when they find a lack of support from the military who screwed them, I think it makes them angry and that is part of it. I think the people more affected by that though are also not the type to be career soldiers. There is certainly a different level of mental toughness and committment that goes with that.

Part of it too though is that I don't think they are none- too picky about who gets into military service these days.. and you get people who get in for no reason other than they have nothing better going on. I don't think these people are the kind who go on to be career service men and women. But, they are the kind that wash out eventually. My BIL - who I do think is highly mentally unbalanced, joined the reserves - went to boot camp the whole 9 yards. I am a BIG proponent of second amendment rights and I said to DH - they are going to let HIM have a gun? Seriously - talk about the kind of nut with a hair trigger temper... but he did eventually wash out - because well, people like that are no good at taking orders. He also incidentally tried for many years to become a cop but could never pass the psych...but he is fit for battle.......

But, given that he tried for years to also be a cop, I also think that some people who are overly aggressive personalities and want to dominate are called to those kind of fields disproportionately. That doesn't mean ALL are that way, certainly not, but the military and law enforcement get a disproportionate amount of bullies.. and maybe that is because - at least to start they are all essentially pretty low pay for a lot of danger... and you either really have to be committed to the cause and or creating a future for yourself.. or you have nothing else to do and no one else will take you... -

connie

 

[trapdoor]

Just off the top of my head, there was Aaron Alexis, Joseph Whitman (the UTexas sniper), Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Eric Rudolph (Olympic park and abortion clinic bombings), John Allen Muhammed (beltway sniper), Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple shooter), and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (OK City). Some of the big names of mass murderers in this country who weren't vets themselves were one degree removed (e.g., Columbine mastermind Eric Harris, the son of a military vet and defense contractor employee; Jared Lee Loughner applied to the military but was turned down).

If there are a disproportionate number of veteran mass killers (and I think there are), why is that? Is it that military service screws with people's heads, or that people who are more screwed up are more likely to join the military, or some combination, or some other factor?

Aaron Alexis = veteran
Joseph Whitman = reservist (and he suffered from a brain tumor apparently unrelated to his military service).
Nidal Hassan = active duty military
Eric Rudolph = discharged for using marijuana use (veteran status usually includes an honorable discharge).
John Allen Muhammed = veteran
Wade Michael Page = general discharge (discharge under other than honorable conditions)
Tim McVeigh= veteran
Terry Nichols = veteran

First and foremost, you're mis-defining veteran. It isn't just a term that means "some one who at one time served in the military."

It does not apply to those who are on active or reserve military status: ie: still serving in uniform (Hassan, Whitman)

And no -- there are not a disproportionate number of violent or misguided people from the military environment as compared to the population at large.

 

[Dawg]

other than Hasan, the others didn't murder on military bases...........may not have murdered on military base if it wasn't a Gun Free Zone.........A-hole would have never taken his shotgun to a military base where vets armed with M-16/M-4's........and or side arms...........not unless it was suicide by Vet.

 

[freyasman]

Given what a small percentage of our population serves in the military, these days, it seems like veterans make up more than a proportionate number of those responsible for mass killings. Just off the top of my head, there was Aaron Alexis, Joseph Whitman (the UTexas sniper), Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Eric Rudolph (Olympic park and abortion clinic bombings), John Allen Muhammed (beltway sniper), Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple shooter), and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (OK City). Some of the big names of mass murderers in this country who weren't vets themselves were one degree removed (e.g., Columbine mastermind Eric Harris, the son of a military vet and defense contractor employee; Jared Lee Loughner applied to the military but was turned down).

If there are a disproportionate number of veteran mass killers (and I think there are), why is that? Is it that military service screws with people's heads, or that people who are more screwed up are more likely to join the military, or some combination, or some other factor?

Yes....

 

[freyasman]

I think it is several factors. Our military action can definitely screw with people's heads and I think that when they find a lack of support from the military who screwed them, I think it makes them angry and that is part of it. I think the people more affected by that though are also not the type to be career soldiers. There is certainly a different level of mental toughness and committment that goes with that.

Part of it too though is that I don't think they are none- too picky about who gets into military service these days.. and you get people who get in for no reason other than they have nothing better going on. I don't think these people are the kind who go on to be career service men and women. But, they are the kind that wash out eventually. My BIL - who I do think is highly mentally unbalanced, joined the reserves - went to boot camp the whole 9 yards. I am a BIG proponent of second amendment rights and I said to DH - they are going to let HIM have a gun? Seriously - talk about the kind of nut with a hair trigger temper... but he did eventually wash out - because well, people like that are no good at taking orders. He also incidentally tried for many years to become a cop but could never pass the psych...but he is fit for battle.......

But, given that he tried for years to also be a cop, I also think that some people who are overly aggressive personalities and want to dominate are called to those kind of fields disproportionately. That doesn't mean ALL are that way, certainly not, but the military and law enforcement get a disproportionate amount of bullies.. and maybe that is because - at least to start they are all essentially pretty low pay for a lot of danger... and you either really have to be committed to the cause and or creating a future for yourself.. or you have nothing else to do and no one else will take you... -

connie

Yes...

 

[Arkady]

I think it is several factors. Our military action can definitely screw with people's heads and I think that when they find a lack of support from the military who screwed them, I think it makes them angry and that is part of it. I think the people more affected by that though are also not the type to be career soldiers. There is certainly a different level of mental toughness and committment that goes with that.

Part of it too though is that I don't think they are none- too picky about who gets into military service these days.. and you get people who get in for no reason other than they have nothing better going on. I don't think these people are the kind who go on to be career service men and women. But, they are the kind that wash out eventually. My BIL - who I do think is highly mentally unbalanced, joined the reserves - went to boot camp the whole 9 yards. I am a BIG proponent of second amendment rights and I said to DH - they are going to let HIM have a gun? Seriously - talk about the kind of nut with a hair trigger temper... but he did eventually wash out - because well, people like that are no good at taking orders. He also incidentally tried for many years to become a cop but could never pass the psych...but he is fit for battle.......

But, given that he tried for years to also be a cop, I also think that some people who are overly aggressive personalities and want to dominate are called to those kind of fields disproportionately. That doesn't mean ALL are that way, certainly not, but the military and law enforcement get a disproportionate amount of bullies.. and maybe that is because - at least to start they are all essentially pretty low pay for a lot of danger... and you either really have to be committed to the cause and or creating a future for yourself.. or you have nothing else to do and no one else will take you... -

connie

I was wondering whether the decreasing standards for the military might factor in. That would show up in higher murder rates by vets of the Vietnam and Iraq-War eras, relative to the era of relative peace between those two times, when it was easier to be choosy about who to accept.

Regarding second-amendment restrictions, one fairly simple form of gun control would be making the gun rights voidable for anyone who commits a crime, however minor, with a gun. Basically, treat guns as so dangerous that anyone who shows insufficient respect for them (by, for example, shooting out the tires of a car during a tantrum) loses the right to have them. That could be consistent with the second amendment, in that a well-regulated militia requires disciplined militia members, and someone who is reckless with a gun doesn't have the discipline to pass militia muster. That would weed out at least a few of these wackos.

 

[Arkady]

Aaron Alexis = veteran
Joseph Whitman = reservist (and he suffered from a brain tumor apparently unrelated to his military service).
Nidal Hassan = active duty military
Eric Rudolph = discharged for using marijuana use (veteran status usually includes an honorable discharge).
John Allen Muhammed = veteran
Wade Michael Page = general discharge (discharge under other than honorable conditions)
Tim McVeigh= veteran
Terry Nichols = veteran

First and foremost, you're mis-defining veteran. It isn't just a term that means "some one who at one time served in the military."

It does not apply to those who are on active or reserve military status: ie: still serving in uniform (Hassan, Whitman)

And no -- there are not a disproportionate number of violent or misguided people from the military environment as compared to the population at large.

"Veteran" may have a specialized legal meaning of the sort you're suggesting, but I'm using the more standard dictionary definition that would encompass anyone who served in the armed forces. You're right, though, that active duty wouldn't fit. But that's beside the point for the question I'm trying to get at, which is whether this apparent affinity between military service and commission of mass shootings is related to the same personality types being drawn to both, or related to some impact military service has on the mind.

In the wider world, there's even more disturbing relationships. It seems that most of the truly prolific mass murderers in history had a military background (like, say, Adolf Hitler).

 

[fairsheet]

Noting that shooters tend to be former service members is just a little like saying that bakers bake the most bread. They aren't exactly the same but...it's sort of intuitive that people who are trained to shoot other people, will shoot other people.

On another note, it's my understanding that people who study war-type stuff figured out that in WWII, only about 15% of the soldiers did the actual shooting and fighting. The rest spent most of their time and energy just trying to not get killed.

So..the military experts decided that it was important for them to instill the "killer instinct" in all those who otherwise didn't have it. Soldiers ARE trained to kill.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Selection bias. People with a violent nature tend to choose violent careers.

I don't doubt that the military environment is, in and of itself, also a factor.

 

[Arkady]

Selection bias. People with a violent nature tend to choose violent careers.

I don't doubt that the military environment is, in and of itself, also a factor.

Selection bias seems a likely candidate for the majority of the correlation. I mean, although it sounds offensive to state it so bluntly, it's essentially true: in a time without a draft, military personnel are individuals who volunteered to kill strangers for money. That's a harsh way to put it, but it's a big part of why I never volunteered, despite being sorely tempted in the aftermath of 9/11. I knew that if I volunteered, I could then be sent anywhere to kill at the pleasure of the president, and that's just not something I morally thought I could do. Although I'd have been willing to deploy to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda for what they did, I had a sneaking suspicion that George Bush would instead order me off to kill people in Iraq, or some country in Central America, or some other unrelated target of convenience. Military volunteers need to be the kind of people who are comfortable with that risk, either because they have a huge (and I think unearned) faith in our system, or because they don't consider it a terribly weighty moral matter to kill people in war.

 

[Dawg]

I was wondering whether the decreasing standards for the military might factor in. That would show up in higher murder rates by vets of the Vietnam and Iraq-War eras, relative to the era of relative peace between those two times, when it was easier to be choosy about who to accept.

Regarding second-amendment restrictions, one fairly simple form of gun control would be making the gun rights voidable for anyone who commits a crime, however minor, with a gun. Basically, treat guns as so dangerous that anyone who shows insufficient respect for them (by, for example, shooting out the tires of a car during a tantrum) loses the right to have them. That could be consistent with the second amendment, in that a well-regulated militia requires disciplined militia members, and someone who is reckless with a gun doesn't have the discipline to pass militia muster. That would weed out at least a few of these wackos.

same with automobiles.......used as weapons..........k

 

[Dawg]

Selection bias. People with a violent nature tend to choose violent careers.

I don't doubt that the military environment is, in and of itself, also a factor.

at 18 just out of high school and DI's have you making piles of sand in sand pits during Basic Training........stomppin' said pile of sand...screaming...ki-ya.........yeah that could be were it starts.......esp after a 'Dear John'

 

[Dawg]

Selection bias seems a likely candidate for the majority of the correlation. I mean, although it sounds offensive to state it so bluntly, it's essentially true: in a time without a draft, military personnel are individuals who volunteered to kill strangers for money. That's a harsh way to put it, but it's a big part of why I never volunteered, despite being sorely tempted in the aftermath of 9/11. I knew that if I volunteered, I could then be sent anywhere to kill at the pleasure of the president, and that's just not something I morally thought I could do. Although I'd have been willing to deploy to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda for what they did, I had a sneaking suspicion that George Bush would instead order me off to kill people in Iraq, or some country in Central America, or some other unrelated target of convenience. Military volunteers need to be the kind of people who are comfortable with that risk, either because they have a huge (and I think unearned) faith in our system, or because they don't consider it a terribly weighty moral matter to kill people in war.

Ark..........when did you serve in the military___________?

 

[afella]

Given what a small percentage of our population serves in the military, these days, it seems like veterans make up more than a proportionate number of those responsible for mass killings. Just off the top of my head, there was Aaron Alexis, Joseph Whitman (the UTexas sniper), Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Eric Rudolph (Olympic park and abortion clinic bombings), John Allen Muhammed (beltway sniper), Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple shooter), and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (OK City). Some of the big names of mass murderers in this country who weren't vets themselves were one degree removed (e.g., Columbine mastermind Eric Harris, the son of a military vet and defense contractor employee; Jared Lee Loughner applied to the military but was turned down).

If there are a disproportionate number of veteran mass killers (and I think there are), why is that? Is it that military service screws with people's heads, or that people who are more screwed up are more likely to join the military, or some combination, or some other factor?

Misfunction comes in various forms. Military service provides the government with a deadly weapon, once training is completed. That small amount of our populace that has been asked to bear the burden for our country, does so on their own accord. We also have an all volunteer force, meaning they want to be there, and the investment in that force is far higher, per soldier, than it has ever been. Simply because it makes dollars and sense. Also meaning that our current military is far better trained then ever before, better equiped, and at our politicians will better experienced. Also more fragile from the decade of war.


Returning veterans, and in particular combat veterans, have bore that burden just as any other generation has. They have acted the same as past generations, dealt with it the same as past generations, etc. It's just more highly publicized now, plus there is a taboo of our current veterans. A "Better you than me, but hey thanks here is a handshake." type of an attitude. While I quite frankly don't care if that's the attitude or not, it leads to a festering. Had a draft been kept in place, with no exceptions, some of these nut bags could have been chased out of the military simply because there is an easy means of replacement of said individual.


There may not be a link in tendancy to commit these crimes because of prior military service. However, there may be a link in the "efficiency" of carrying out these attacks. For example, while a civilian may view a naval yard as a hard target, a military veteran may consider it a soft target due to some lack of security and some various means of easy entry. Also training makes you a killer by nature, and those skills stay with a person making any action that they take to be far more efficient than that of a civilian, with no formal training or even minimal.

 

[Arkady]

Noting that shooters tend to be former service members is just a little like saying that bakers bake the most bread. They aren't exactly the same but...it's sort of intuitive that people who are trained to shoot other people, will shoot other people.

On another note, it's my understanding that people who study war-type stuff figured out that in WWII, only about 15% of the soldiers did the actual shooting and fighting. The rest spent most of their time and energy just trying to not get killed.

So..the military experts decided that it was important for them to instill the "killer instinct" in all those who otherwise didn't have it. Soldiers ARE trained to kill.

I've seen a few documentaries on military training (Marine boot camp, West Point, and training for Seals and Rangers), and what you say seems right. A lot of the rituals of that training seem to be designed to break down natural human taboos against killing (presumably with the intent of ONLY breaking down those taboos in the context of following orders in a war situation, but possibly with "collateral damage" outside that context).

 

[Arkady]

same with automobiles.......used as weapons..........k

Yes. If anyone ever intentionally uses an automobile as a weapon, other than in some legitimate self-defense manner, he should lose driving rights for life.

 

[Arkady]

Ark..........when did you serve in the military___________?

I never did. That's what I was indicating. I was seriously considering volunteering and decided against it, because I didn't trust the government not to order me off to kill Iraqis or some such nonsense unrelated to the goal of defending America.

 

[Arkady]

Misfunction comes in various forms. Military service provides the government with a deadly weapon, once training is completed. That small amount of our populace that has been asked to bear the burden for our country, does so on their own accord. We also have an all volunteer force, meaning they want to be there, and the investment in that force is far higher, per soldier, than it has ever been. Simply because it makes dollars and sense. Also meaning that our current military is far better trained then ever before, better equiped, and at our politicians will better experienced. Also more fragile from the decade of war.


Returning veterans, and in particular combat veterans, have bore that burden just as any other generation has. They have acted the same as past generations, dealt with it the same as past generations, etc. It's just more highly publicized now, plus there is a taboo of our current veterans. A "Better you than me, but hey thanks here is a handshake." type of an attitude. While I quite frankly don't care if that's the attitude or not, it leads to a festering. Had a draft been kept in place, with no exceptions, some of these nut bags could have been chased out of the military simply because there is an easy means of replacement of said individual.


There may not be a link in tendancy to commit these crimes because of prior military service. However, there may be a link in the "efficiency" of carrying out these attacks. For example, while a civilian may view a naval yard as a hard target, a military veteran may consider it a soft target due to some lack of security and some various means of easy entry. Also training makes you a killer by nature, and those skills stay with a person making any action that they take to be far more efficient than that of a civilian, with no formal training or even minimal.

It seems to me that there is an unusual opportunity to screen for potentially dangerous members of society within the military, if there is indeed the kind of affinity between military services and non-military violence that I'm talking about. I wonder how much work has been done to look into that. Surely there must be some common character traits and symptoms that could be spotted among these guys who eventually break and kill a bunch of civilians -- surely, during the stresses of training camp, there must be some indicators that people could spot if we had good guidance about what to look for, and perhaps then they could be steered away from the training that might worsen those traits -- or steered out of the military and towards mental help.