BAD, SAD, MAD . . . AND EVIL: The Psychopathology of Spree Shooters

Ellis Amdur M.A., N.C.C., C.M.H.S.

It is May 27th, 2022, three days after the vile murder of nineteen children and two adults in Uvalde, Texas. I have received letters from people asking for my ideas on this situation. I will not discuss the reported lack of effective police response–there, all I can offer is my opinions as a private citizen who reads various news reports, and I would like a full, complete inquiry by police professionals who are courageous enough to call out such things as command failures, training failures, and cowardice, if any of those things contributed to this horrible event.

I will, here, publish a working outline that I prepared some years ago for police training regarding what we know about those who enact these atrocities. It is partially based on research (the references are at the end), and partially opinion, based on my clinical and personal experience with those who hate.

The reader should understand that this was a working outline used as a ‘training platform’ to discuss a number of issues in more detail. I hope, however, that it will contribute to people’s thinking about these terrible events–and the people who, embracing evil and hatred, enact them.

Active Shooter = Spree Killer

In active shooter events, “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” In its definition, DHS notes that, “in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.” (There is the obvious tautology within this definition, but by ‘active shooter,’ DHS essentially means ‘spree killers.’) The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has limited this definition to include only those cases that spill beyond an intended victim to others.

Every time there is an active shooter incident, both media and experts cite the issue of mental illness, to the degree that this has assumed almost talismanic power. A “moral panic” ensues (a type of mental illness in itself) in which there is an assertion that with proper treatment, this murderous tragedy wouldn’t have happened, and that because treatment options are so scant, that we will see more and more of these events.

Which begs a number of questions:

Active shooters are a minute portion of the population
The vast majority of mentally ill individuals are not violent whatsoever, much less organized mass killers.
According to the US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, there is no reliable profile of a school active shooter. So what this means is that no particular mental illness, no reliable compendium of character traits, is associated with active shooter events. And there is much evidence that many active shooters do not have mental illness at all, unless we stretch the term “mental illness” to cover every eccentricity, every oddity, every pathological style of interaction with others. However, it is true that they may have certain significant character traits that are associated with their motivation to kill.
Even among those who are mentally ill, those who become active shooters are often those individuals who not only resist treatment, something they usually have a legal right to do, but they do not even have insight that they are mentally ill – this is something that in many individuals, suffering from psychosis seems to be neurologically based. In other words, their own brain informs them that they are well when they are profoundly ill. How do you “treat” someone who refuses treatment, and in particular, when we do not have reliable, evidence-based methods of treatment that can assure society that an individual’s drive to murder will be reduced or eliminated?

As there is no useful “profile,” inquiries should focus on behavior and communications to determine if someone is a threat. The fundamental question is if any common denominators can be found among active/spree killers, whatever their mental health diagnosis might be?

Let us consider the kind of information we usually receive regarding active shooters—invaluable, but not all that predictive. We find that ADULT active shooters have some previous history of argumentative behavior; have previously implied threat or at least their actions are perceived by others as threatening; some have actually made explicit threats, including brandishing a fist, posturing, brandishing a weapon; others have offered either low-level assault or actual violence. IN OTHER WORDS, ACTIVE SHOOTERS GENERALLY HAVE A PREVIOUS HISTORY OF AGGRESSION. We could trivialize this insight, but let’s step back a moment. It tells us several things: in almost all cases, active shooters ‘leak.’ Although the behaviors described above are so common that they are not predictive, it does underscore that active shooters are rarely, if ever, ordinary peaceful beings who “snap.”

Juvenile Suspects

US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center states that incidents enacted by juveniles are rarely impulsive. In most incidents the attacker developed the idea at least 2 weeks in advance.

In 75% of the incidents, the attacker planned the attack.
Over 50% had revenge as a motive. Note that revenge is a <grievance claimed.> It does not necessarily mean that there is any justification whatsoever for that motivation.
Over 66% of the attackers claimed to feel “bullied” or “persecuted.” (Not the same!!!!!) This sloppy language can confuse things, because the sense of persecution can be self-generated, self-created. Some people stabilize their consciousness through a sense of grievance. In addition, millions of people experience bullying – an almost infinitesimally small number are moved to murder, much less mass murder.
Most attackers engaged in behavior that brought attention to themselves. In 75% of the incidents, an adult (teacher, administrator, etc.) had expressed concern about the attacker. What this means is that their intention – at least their attitude (which, as will be discussed, can include hatred, malignant contempt, grandiosity, violence) “leaked” out.
Most attackers communicated grievances to OTHERS prior to the attack. As will be discussed, grievances legitimize the desire to do violence–they are not an explanation of why the person became violence.
Prior to the incident in 75% of the cases, the attackers told someone about their interest in mounting an attack. In more than 50%, they told more than one person about the ideas or plans. In only 2 cases did peers notify an adult of the threat. This is profoundly significant. There is such alienation between youth and adults in our society that adults are not consulted by youth as sources of wisdom or guidance. Understand that one can have multiple motivations for disclosure: among them are grandiose display, attainment of status among peers, but also a (sometimes unconscious) attempt to get a normative response (horror, outrage, guidance) as one is going off the rails. [NOTE: I similarly recall one of the FBI profilers, John Douglas or Robert Ressler, stating that none of the serial killers they interviewed ever expressed shame about their actions. However, many did express shame about their childhood fantasies before they began to act. The writer(s) speculated that this might have been a realization that if they had voiced those fantasies someone who could have provided guidance, they would not have stepped out of humanity into the demonic (the italicized phrase is mine).]
In nearly 66% of the incidents with juvenile active shooters, the guns came from their home or that of a relative. IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS WITH JUVENILES, GUN SAFETY IS PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. Please note that I am not minimizing the need for necessary mental health, assessment and social services in the least – simply put, if gun owners are responsible and ACTIVELY interdict their juvenile family members from access to their own firearms, many kids will be found out as they struggle to find another option. [NOTE: Surprisingly, most attackers did not appear to have a “fascination” with guns.]
Seventy-five percent of the attackers either threatened to kill themselves, made suicidal gestures, or attempted suicide. Suicide is an apocalyptic destruction of the world as embodied within one’s own physical body. Spree shooting is an apocalyptic destruction of others’ worlds as well. A sense of resentment or grievance can lead one to think: “Why should I suffer alone?” Making others suffer gives a sense of power.

College Campus

In a survey of attacks on college campus’, we find:

99% perpetrated by one individual
94% male
Age range of 16 – 62, with average of 28
60% current or former students
20% had indirect contact through a relationship with current//former student or employee, while only 9% had no known relationship. [NOTE: What this last number means is that is is relatively rare that someone randomly picks a college campus as a place to enact a spree mass murder].
26% died of self-inflicted injury during or within hours or days subsequent + 4% surviving self-inflicted injuries
4% killed by LEO
In spree killings on college campuses, 54% firearms, blades in 21%, 10% combo (strangling/stabbing most common)

Motives [NOTE: In some of these, I’ve added questions or comments in parenthesis, where more information is needed, or something needs to be highlighted because it is contrary to “common knowledge”)

36% intimate relationship (this is too general to be of help, but suggests that the perpetrator, at least, viewed himself as being in a relationship with someone else he associated with his actions.)
17% unknown
14% retaliation for something (claimed revenge as motive)
10% precipitated by having their”romantic” advances refused or rejected (is this due to obsession/stalking or a sense of pride?)
10% academic stress or failure (is this an explosive release of stress or blame of others for one’s problems?)
10% acquaintance/stranger based sexual violence (part of rape – it is not clear how this mutated into mass killing)
8% psychotic (please note how few were associated with this mental disorder.)
6% workplace dismissal or sanction (note how few, comparatively, in college settings – this is different from workplace violence elsewhere)
3% “need to kill” (the cliché’d “crazy psychopath,” so common in movies, is rare)
3% to draw attention to self (a 2nd cliché that seems to be uncommon)
2% bias related (so the perpetrator or those with an agenda say)

[To highlight: note how few of these events were associated with a) mental illness b) the stereotypical attention-seeking “natural born killer,” or suffering from prejudice or “bias.”]

Warning Signs in campus spree murders (unclear how much overlap there is with these two items):

29% pre-incident harassment, letters, stalking or physically aggressive acts
31% of time, displayed concerning behaviors that were observed by friends, family or law enforcement

NYPD Active Shooter Report

4% female (Spree killing is almost completely a male behavior)
15-19 years of age AND 35-44 (This is an interesting gap. My speculation is that the youthful killers are ‘unformed,’ not-yet adults. Those with that mindset, who somehow mature out without murdering anyone then enter life, with the possibility of a new home, neighborhood, friends, and job. It could be that by the mid-thirties, this is when a sense of renewed failure sets in. )
98% single attacker
22% no connection with victims
In the majority of active shooters, there has been a connection. It is: Professional 41%, Academic 23%; Familial 5%,and other 9%
Regarding the professional connection, only 1/3 due to terminated employees (2/3 due to current upset on job-site)
36% used more than one weapon

How Spree Killings Ended:

46% end with applied force (much more success by police in general spree shootings than school or campus shootings)
40% by suicide or attempted suicide (much more suicide was off-campus – as if there is an emotional ‘crash’ after the event is over)
Ended 14% no applied force – i.e., surrender
<1% fled (in only a fraction of the cases did the shooter actually act like a classical criminal, who did a crime and tried to escape. What this suggests is that there is an element of suicide or at least of ‘throwing one’s life away’ in the vast majority of these incidents)

Through the Lens of Research

I carried out a review of 280 cases enumerated in the NYPD Active Shooter Report. What I did with this is draw out salient character traits that seem to be common among various of these killers. I’m presenting them in rather random order.

Ideology

Ideology is a driver of political violence and terror. However, that does not mean that all perpetrators of political violence can be considered to be mere soldiers. Individuals with a variety of psychopathologies will be drawn to terroristic movements, to find an opportunity . . . . a “playground.” What I mean by this is that their generalized hatred and desire for destruction is given license by an acquired ideology. In other words, the shooter who talks about “saving the white race” is essentially identical to one who writes about “ecological collapse” or one who proclaims he is acting against a “racist society.” Ideology, for the spree killer, is often a vehicle to contain, drive and amplify general hatred.

Depression

Depression seems to be a hallmark quality described over and over in profiles of active shooters. Yet, what do we mean by depression? The problem is that when we hear depression, we think of sadness, helplessness and ineffectual struggles with problems. Why would that be so dangerous? We have almost innumerable sub-divisions of depression in our modern diagnostic manual. Once upon a time, this complex of syndromes was divided in two: melancholia, a profound collapse of self, a desperate hopelessness coupled with psychosis. Much more common was neurasthenia – the disorder was conceived as a nervous disorder, with traits of “helplessness & hopelessness,” anxiety (a feeling of impeding doom, where what is imagined is experienced as if it is happening), physical complaints (you just feel miserable, “un-homed” within your body) and a bitterness (Why is this happening to me!??? It’s not fair! Why me, not you?”). All of this leads to a feeling that one is worthless and it”s not fair —violence makes you feel worthwhile.

Obsessive stalker

Obsessions are fixed thoughts, intrusive, that one cannot stop. A compulsion, which so often accompanies an obsession, is an internal drive to do an action, whether it is logical or even desired. For example, you know you have washed your hands, but your mind tells you might have touched a doorknob previously touched by someone with leprosy, and you must go back to wash your hands again and again and again. If you resist washing your hands, you believe, despite all logic, that you are going to die. The obsessive stalker fixates on a human being. He or she is aware that the other person is not interested, but their obsession drives them – they MUST connect, they must relate, they must possess. When the object of their attention refuses, the obsessive stalker experiences anguish. The anguish is “caused” by the other person. This leads to a number of profound dangers:

You, the object of my affection, are hurting me. You deserve my revenge. [There is a profound narcissism in such a sense of being victimized or entitled – we also see this as a social movement among those referred to as ‘incels’]
If the only way I can possess you is by TAKING your life, then that is the best option.
Those associated with you must also suffer.
If I do something apocalyptic, you will be the one to blame. My action will be your fault.

Neuro-atypical (WITH paranoia) -Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook

Although young people with neuro-atypical organization(s) can present some level of behavioral problems in schools (either because of stress, over-stimulus, fixation-obsessions), they do NOT have a high rate of violence. To reiterate, autism is on the low end of the spectrum of mental disorders/differences associated with murderous violence. It is probable that the shooters at Virginia Tech and at Sandy Hook both were high-functioning autistic people, and in the latter case in particular, that fact ignited a brief moral panic among the general public. What is important is that these two shooters also seemed to show paranoia, a hair trigger hyper-sensitivity and blame of others (see next section). When you couple paranoia with the obsessive traits that so many folks with autism can display, you can have a dangerous person. To underscore, however, this is a very rare phenomena among those on the autism spectrum.

Paranoia/grievance/resentment (jealousy/relationship-worksite)

Paranoia, itself, is not a delusional state, it is an attitude. The attitude is: not only is “it” not my fault, it’s your fault for saying it’s my fault. From the statistics gathered by the NYPD, it appears that worksite grievances are the most common driver of active shooters—not only terminations, but frustrations and resentments. Similarly, in academia, many shooters who are academically struggling, are NOT responding out of desperate depression—it is a slow burning rage and resentment that they are not getting what they deserve. The paranoid person is a grievance collector—they actually feel more secure when they have something to hate. Their target gives focus and organization to their life. If they ever lost a resentment, they’d be in a state of void and panic until they figured out something else to blame and hate (Two significant examples of this, both murderous against police, were Christopher Monford and Christopher Jordan Dorner. Their general character traits:

The paranoid goes his or her way in the world with already established beliefs. Their life is one looking for clues, for evidence to confirm their beliefs. Their stance towards the world is primarily suspicious. The paranoid style is a lonely one, because to trust another is to risk betrayal.
They have a sense of vulnerability that is covered in defenses, much as a porcupine projecting quills over a soft underbelly, or the beaded tough skin of the gila monster, torpid and still unless something steps on it and then they clamp down with poisonous jaws.
Their life is one in which they are always experiencing a sense of having their integrity violated. Interaction with others, when they are not in complete control, is experienced as a penetration, almost a psychic rape, because the other person makes them feel and therefore, they are in the other person’s control.
They are highly resentful of authority or coercion. Paranoid individuals are often quite concerned about hierarchy and power relationships. They often provoke opposition. Waiting for the other shoe to drop is intolerable. Therefore, they will push the issue, push the other person until their true colors are revealed.
If they sense fear in another, they expect that the other will deal with their fear as the paranoid would – by attack. So when they evoke fear in others, they “counterattack first.”
Paranoid styles are evoked by drug abuse, particularly methamphetamine and other stimulants. This often becomes worse, going into delusional and psychotic states.

A Grievance Sidebar – Using ‘ism as vehicle for ecstasy

Some people use a genuine or concocted story of bias or victimization as a means of control. That works particularly well in our society, where, for the first time in human history, weakness, victimization, or claims thereof, are the means of power over another. In particular, we see this in a phenomenon that could be called “victimization plus intimidation.” For example: Bahai’s, Yehzdi’s, Assyrian Christians and Muslims all live in the same part of the world. Why are such groups associated with the latter such as the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, the darling of some members of the left, whereas those of the other groups do not draw any attention, much less concern, even though they are being devastatingly victimized? The reason is that they don’t intimidate, while playing on guilt. If a group is far away, not like us and not dangerous to us, we can easily forget them. However, when one is simultaneously being blamed as being an oppressor and at the same time, is intimidated by the alleged oppressed group/individual, the latter achieves power. Such power is intoxicating to the intimidator, because it is fueled by resentment and hate. We will address the ecstatic release of violence later, but resentment provides an excuse for apocalyptic violence just as many rapists blame women for depriving them of what they deserve.

Explosive/Borderline States

Imagine a man walking along a resort beachfront. He’s had an argument with his girlfriend, whom, he believes, has been flirting with several guys in the hotel bar. Then the strap of his flip-flop breaks and he’s hobbling down the street and it’s hot, so hot that the asphalt is melting and sticks to his bare feet. He yelps and jumps and hobbles, and some passing girls start laughing at him, and there are some people he knows from the neighborhood, but they are in another clique and they start laughing at him too. He explodes and starts yelling at them and they ask him what he’s going to do, there are four of them, and he gets in one man’s face who contemptuously shoves him away, and that’s IT! He pulls a gun and starts shooting.

Such an individual has an emotional style that is referred to as “borderline”: they orient themselves in the world through what they currently feel – they have an emotional personality structure like that of a toddler in an adult body. They do not “have” emotions—emotions have them. In borderline states, the sense of self is very fragile. What this means is that very little stress threatens their “structure,” their self-image that keeps them functioning as a pro-social being.Many individuals with this style are primarily self-destructive. But road-rage is a borderline state, as is the cyclical battering of the classic abuser.

Because feelings are so important, this means that some will romanticize a relationship as fulfilling them and making them complete. They are possessed as they possess. They must dominate so the other won’t escape. [Let us return to the fact that 36% of college active shooter type incidents are associated with “intimate” relationships]. Such individuals have a fear of abandonment, yet a belief that closeness means destruction (because it is you that overwhelms me with feelings). Love, therefore, brings rage, very similar to what happens if you leave a toddler alone.

NOTE #1: Borderline states are often associated with suicide – and also suicide by cop. The only different between suicide and homicide is what direction the weapon is pointing – one wishes to destroy someone viewed as causing pain, rage or anguish.

NOTE #2: The Borderline state can be one in which the individual murders in a ‘red haze’ – for example, one is thrown out of a bar or a party, goes to one’s car and grabs a gun, returns and shoots the place up.

NOTE #3 – Spree shootings associated with broken relationships, domestic violences, jealousy, brooding about infidelity, etc. are often associated with borderline states.

Psychosis

The vast majority of individuals with psychosis are not dangerous, much less inclined to mass murder. However, psychosis + paranoia does seem to be a hallmark trait of those who have psychotic symptoms who do enact violence. Those who become socially isolated are much more likely to be dangerous because such a person has no reality check – no one to disrupt their delusional thinking. Although individuals with psychotic diagnosis are statistically no more likely than non-psychotic individuals to be violent, individuals with psychosis who also use intoxicants (psychoactive drugs, including alcohol) are exponentially more likely to be violent: one researcher whose work I audited stated the rate is eight times the rate of those who don’t use intoxicants.

Desperation

There are examples of school shootings and other acts of violence where the perpetrator was also a victim: bullied, tormented and ostracized. That said, we citizens all too readily embrace the myth of the bullied child because it is less frightening than the idea of evil—that the murderous little-more-than-a-child desires to do harm for the ecstasy, the grandiose godlike destruction, the satisfaction of hatred, that it offers. If it all comes down to bullying, then, we think that all we have to do is stop bullying and such violence will disappear (even though our current anti-bullying programs have little to no effect on the problem of bullying in schools). As for bullying, the question really is more of fostering resilience in those victimized and fostering empathy as much as it is imposing the strictest of rules on the bullies, regarding what one can do or say that might possibly hurt feelings. The best anti-bullying program that I am aware of is called Roots of Empathy and involves bringing babies to the classroom.

However, consider this. Ostracism used to be capital punishment in pre-civilized societies. If you were ostracized, you were dead. Cut off from community, nurturance, safety—all that allowed you to live and feel a part of something. When kids, in particular, are ostracized, they are in agony. Whether it is cold indifference or vicious tormenting, if the child believes that they cannot ever escape, violence helps them break free of other’s control, get revenge, make themselves seen (in spite of their tormenters’ intentions), and simply, for a moment, make it stop.

Why? Because Destruction of Other’s Well-being is the Best Feeling There Is – The Psychopath (Sociopath)

These are individuals who truly do not experience guilt or remorse. They can be empathetic (can “track” other people) but have no sympathy. They do not care about other’s pain—other than enjoy it). They can be highly intelligent, but can only track but not really internally understand what other people experience. When this is coupled with sadism (the enjoyment of tormenting or having power over others), you see the sociopathic spree shooter. As was noted above, however, a surprisingly small cadre of spree shooters would fall under the rubric of a sociopathic individual.

The Core Overlapping Traits Of All Spree Shooters

What follows are, as far as I can tell, the core traits that are common to most, if not all, spree shooters.

The attainment of God-like powers: He (or she – rarely) holds the power of life and death. The spree killer can destroy futures, can shock a community, a nation. He has become God, or better put, has usurped God’s role. The term “Satanic” is not out of place. Lest there be any confusion, I am not espousing a religious doctrine here—regardless of what my beliefs may be. I am attempting to capture, through an image, the intent of a one who willfully destroys lives, who slaughters. Both a “divine deity” and a “satanic deity” may have the same powers—the difference, however, is that the former, in just about every culture, is typified by, among other qualities, an attitude of caring and protectiveness, of love towards those over which the deity has power. The “satanic deity” is typified by malignant contempt and hatred. Similarly, genocidal people dehumanize–refer to their victims by such terms as vermin, cockroaches, rats, or various obscenities and curses. What many naive people do not understand is how powerful hatred makes one feel: it gives you focus, intent, and a life full of meaning.
Ecstasy: Such an individual, in the midst of slaughter, is in a state of ecstasy – the equivalent of mystic transport, orgasm, unbounded, each gesture, each twitch of a muscle ending a life, destroying dreams and families, shattering all the constraints of humanity. Those in ecstasy can “crash” after the explosion of violence – become passive, surrender, even suicidal– this was the greatest, the freest, the most unconstrained moment of their lives.
Sadism: the conscious infliction of suffering on others, for one’s own pleasure or reward. One can clearly see the relationship to the previous two items. When one tortures, one has absolutely possessed another person, can make them betray their own family, their own integrity. There is a perverse joy in transgression, be it the violation of morality or the physical and spiritual integrity of another human being.
Samson in the temple suicide/honor guard to Valhalla – Those enacting suicide-by-cop as part of a spree shooting are most fixated on honor, on “name,” on becoming famous, glorious. Others have an “encysted audience” within a chatroom or other social media platform that provides an echo-chamber to encourage their actions. This is a possible outlier, in the sense that many spree killers are not ‘performing for an audience.’ However, the other three traits named above are also present.

All of the above traits are shown clearly in an archived account from a 5/20/2018 article on the Zerohedge website. The title was: “”Smart, Quiet, Sweet” Texas School Shooter Killed Female Student Who Rejected Him, Taunted Victims”

After scrambling to escape the shooter’s blasts in the art room, Isabelle Van Ness, covered in dust from rounds hitting her classroom walls, could hear the shooter in a next-door classroom yelling, “Woo hoo!” while shooting, according to her mother, Deedra Van Ness. “The gunman then comes back into their room and they hear him saying … are you dead? Then more shots are fired,” Deedra Van Ness wrote.” By this time, cell phones all over the classroom are ringing and he’s taunting the kids in the closet asking them … do you think it’s for you? do you want to come answer it? Then he proceeds to fire more bullets into the closet and tries to get in.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

References

IHE attacks: “Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting Institutes of Higher Learning” – Quick Reference Guide and Summary of Findings
NYPD Active Shooter Report
Rapid Deployment Instructor Course – Module 3: Review of Active Pre-Incident