The Traits Of Young Mass Killers

John A. Czajkowski, a former Navy SEAL officer and a teacher, notes that all young mass killers had:

  1. Perceived feeling of injustice and grievance (70% had been bullied)
  2. Obsession with violent video games and media violence
  3. Persistent themes of violence in schoolwork
  4. Access to guns

He said none of them willingly participated in:

  1. Varsity sports
  2. Student Body leadership
  3. Community groups like church, 4H, etc.
  4. Boy Scouts
  5. JROTC
  6. School band (a handful were forced to join by parents, but soon dropped out)

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 3/29/2013 9:25 AM Kristina wrote:
    Don't take the word of one person. There's no hard study showing video games cause violence and Boy Scouts is homophobic - I'd never let my kid join. Let's not forgot the hate religion preaches against gays, women, atheists (or other beliefs.)

    Overturn DOMA and Prop 8!
    Reply to this
    1. 3/29/2013 10:04 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
      Czajkowski isn't claiming that video games cause violence. He's listing the traits of young mass killers. It's quite appropriate to question him but if you want to refute him you ought to provide evidence and reasoning rather than make a simple assertion. And you want to be clear that what you are refuting is what he is claiming which is not that video games cause violence but that all young mass killers were attracted to violent video games.

      Regarding "religion" what "hate" does "religion" preach? Are you referring to atheism? The Supreme Court has declared it to be a religion. Atheism preaches a lot of hate.


      How have gays been treated by Castro? How were they treated by Pol Pot, or Stalin or Mao or Ceaușescu?

      The Marquis de Sade was an atheist who helped bring about an atheist government in France. How did he treat women? How did the atheist government of France treat its citizens?

      Atheism is very evil when made into policy, but when it is a just parlor game, the problem with it is that it is silly. A pantheist who worships trees has fewer logical inconsistencies in his belief than an atheist.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/29/2013 10:21 AM Kristina wrote:
        Haha! You think atheism is silly, yet you're the one who believes in an invisible being based on a book written by people who thought the world was flat and said that marriage is between a man an multiple women, a rape victim and her rapist, a widow and her dead husbands brother, a slave and their owner....and said that a virgin got pregnant. If you had a daughter who got pregnant and she got pregnant, would you believe she was a virgin?

        And no, the Supreme Court has not ruled atheism to be a religion. Atheist states are not horrible and all the people (like Castro and Stalin) were very religious. Lets not forget Hitler who did everything in the name of religion.

        We get our proof from scientific facts. You validate your book....by using the same book. By that logic, I could say Spider-Man exists because there's a comic about him.

        And yes, religion does preach hate. Maybe you should read the bible once in a while. Even pope Benedict had a woman removed from a photo with him becuse women shouldn't be allowed near such a religious man. It's in the book. It's still going on. He wasn't pope very long ago.

        As for ALL mass killers doing all those things in the list? I'm pretty sure there were mass killings before modern technology. What's the excuse for that?
        Reply to this
  • 3/29/2013 11:26 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
    Where are you getting this stuff from?

    Stalin and Castro were "very religious"?

    Hitler did everything in the name of religion?

    Women shouldn't be allowed near the Pope?

    Someone removed your brain, sent it to the wash and dry, then sewed it back in.

    Everyone of those things you said is false.

    Regarding the Bible, I do read it. If you read it in context without trying to pick and choose verses you will find that its message is rather consistent in telling you that you should love your neighbor and do unto others as you'd have them do to you. And that's the Old Testament as well, btw.

    Czajkowski is talking about "young" and recent mass killers, and random mass killings by young people do seem to be a fairly recent occurrence. Again, feel free to rebut.
    Reply to this
    1. 3/29/2013 11:37 AM Kristina wrote:
      Actually you're the one who is cherry picking.

      All this information is readily available everywhere. You can easily look up the before and after photo were Benedict had a woman removed from a photo because he didn't want to be seen near her. I never said women shouldn't be allowed near the pope - I said that's what he thought. I also don't hear you refuting anything about the marriages.

      Your brain seems to have been removed a long time ago and never put back.

      And yes, hitler was religious. He wasn't an atheist like so many religious fools claim. He was catholic just like you.

      Atheists don't preach hate towards religion. We don't like people bible bashing everyone and trying to push their religion into our government and infringing on our rights. Keep it to yourself. If you want an imaginary friend, fine. Don't shove it down my throat when I believe in facts.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/29/2013 12:33 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
        Here is what happens when you type in Benedict had woman removed from photo . Nothing about Benedict removing a woman from a photo although it is worth nothing that Women Removed from White House situation room photo and Hillary Clinton Removed From Situation Room Photo do pop up.

        Hitler was an anti-Christian. He closed religious schools. He tried to replace Christmas with Wintersonnenwende (Winter Solstice). His plan was to destroy Christianity.

        Atheists don't preach hate towards religion?

        Sure

        Regarding the marriages, our society bans polygamy. Why? Our society prohibits rape. Why? Our society prohibits slavery. Why? It wasn't atheists who caused these social changes from what once was.

        If gay marriage prohibitions should be overturned what would be the grounds for stopping polygamy or incestuous marriage?
        Reply to this
        1. 3/29/2013 1:17 PM Kristina wrote:
          Because nobody gets hurt in gay marriage. They're not related. They're not marrying numerous people at once. They love each other and they should be allowed to be together the way everyone else is. One of my friends from high school is engaged to his boyfriend and I plan on going to their wedding.

          Marriage is a constitutional right - not a heterosexual privilege.
          Reply to this
          1. 3/29/2013 2:00 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
            And what others do regarding ceremonies with bffs is not my business and I don't plan on making it such, but what is the point of civil marriage? Why is the state involved in it?

            How do you figure marriage is a constitutional right, btw?
            Reply to this
            1. 3/29/2013 2:20 PM Kristina wrote:
              First of all, they are BOYFRIENDS. Not best friends. They are engaged to each other. Get it through your head.

              And marriage is a constitutional right because 1) the state issues the marriage license, 2) a marriage can be performed by anyone, anywhere, as long as you get the license signed by a mayor, justice of the peace, county clerk, 3) They are started and ended in court, 4) marriage certificates are issued by the GOVERNMENT - not the church, 5) And let's not forget the words "and by the power vested in my by the STATE of ______."

              Love isn't gender biased. Only humans (mostly uneducated, conservative ones) are homophobic.

              Marriage was around long before religion and it'll be around long after.

              Oh, and before you say a marriage in a civil court doesn't count, then I guess that means my grandmom was never married since she got married in a court house.
              Reply to this
              1. 3/29/2013 4:45 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                States issue dog licenses. Is it a constitutional right to own a dog?

                That they are "boyfriends" who are engaged to each other means absolutely nothing in the context of the purpose of marriage.

                Your friend is not looking for a blessing from something he doesn't believe in. He is looking for drama and approval and to be the center of attention.

                Sorry if I can't get upset about it or take it too seriously. If he really wants me to, I'll try harder.

                Love and marriage, btw, are not synonymous and that gets us to the point you are missing: the state does not need to be involved in the relationship of two best friends regardless of what they happen to be doing in the privacy of their home.

                It does need to be involved in marriage, unfortunately.
                Reply to this
                1. 3/29/2013 6:58 PM Kristina wrote:
                  Religion has no place being involved in marriage. And yes, my friend is looking from a blessing from his friends. He's not trying to be the center of attention or drama. He barely says anything about being gay at all - he tries to downplay it so people like you don't criticize him.
                  Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.