A Single Predictor For School Shooters

An Analysis of the Causation Factors for School Shooters to Determine a Common Predictor

Tracy Willis

9/30/2014

Criminology

ABSTRACT

School shooters have many things in common. Gender, suicidal thoughts, and depression

are just a few of these shared traits. An examination of other root causes, including biological,

sociological and psychological, might possibly lead to a single common predictor for these types

of crimes, or it may give us more questions to answer.

School Shooters

1

The crime of mass murder is not a new phenomenon. The frequency of this crime,

especially by students at school, appears to be increasing in today’s modern society. A variety of

factors contribute to the production of a school rampage killer. A thorough analysis of these

factors, or predictors, and the narrowing down to one single predictor, might prove useful to the

early detection, and eventual prevention, of these horrific crimes.

Before examining the predictors of these crimes, it could be helpful to try to determine

whether these crimes are actually increasing. The flood of news coverage of school shootings

could easily lead one to believe that gun violence in schools is a growing problem. However, in

his analysis, Gary Kleck (1999) found instances of gun homicides in schools to be declining

prior to the most famous case of school shootings in this country’s history, which occurred at

Columbine High School, in April of 1999 (Kleck, 1999).

Mass shootings in schools may be one of the few forms of violence that increased from

the 1990’s to the late 2000’s (Kleck, 1999). Not only were the events of Columbine shocking, as

Lynn A. Addington noted in her report, the media coverage was extremely “graphic and

pervasive” (Addington, 2003). The coverage of this mass murder was also continuously cycled

by the news media. While mass shootings were on the rise, they were not escalating at the rate

that the media portrayed them to be.

A myriad of factors, or predictors, have been mentioned and reviewed prior to this

writing. The most probable causes of this type of crime are varied and have been the object of

much speculation by journalists and news media sources, for quite some time. A partial list of

these supposed causes of such crimes, put forth by Kleck (1999) includes the following: access

to guns; school bullying; inadequate school security; excessively large student populations at

schools; uninvolved parents; lack of religion in schools; exposure to violence in all forms of

School Shooters

2

media, including movies, television, music and video games; desire for fame; mental illness; and

Southern Culture influences (Kleck, 1999). Most of these supposed predictors do contribute to

the making of a school shooter, but none have been proven to be a single common cause of such

crimes.

A narrowing of predictors into three common categories: (1) biological (tumors, physical

defects, pharmacological influences); (2) sociological (outside influences, peer pressure,

bullying); and (3) psychological (mental illness, depression, suicidal thoughts), is most helpful

for the purpose of this thesis. However, it should be noted that gender, suicidal thoughts and

fantasies, along with depression, are the only known common predictors of these types of crimes.

One of the earliest school shootings to generate media headlines was committed by

Charles Whitman, in Austin, Texas, on August, 1, 1966. Whitman’s crime took place before the

24-hours television news cycle was invented, therefore headlines of his mass murder were

mainly newspaper and magazine related. Peter Stearns (2008) supplies the following summary

of the events of that fateful day. Whitman, a former Marine and former student of architectural

engineering, at the University of Texas, killed his mother and his wife, before going to the

school. Once there, he clubbed a receptionist, who later died, killed two people and wounded

two others before reaching the top of the University of Texas Tower (Stearns, 2008). Once he

reached the observation deck, Whitman rained 150 rounds of ammunition upon an unsuspecting

combination of faculty, student body and bystanders. In his ninety minute killing spree, Charles

Whitman murdered a total of sixteen people, and wounded another thirty-two. He was

eventually stopped by two policemen, who shot him to death when they reached the observation

deck (Stearns, 2008).

School Shooters

3

The case of Charles Whitman is remarkable because a brain tumor was discovered during

his autopsy. There has been a long standing dispute in the scientific community over the effects

of the tumor, if any (Stearns, 208). It is known that Whitman knew that something was wrong

with his brain. Whitman himself requested his autopsy in his own suicide notes. The knowledge

of a potentially fatal illness, combined with the actual effects of the illness, might have been

enough by themselves to trigger this event. This would seem support a hypothesis of a

combination of biological (tumor) and psychological factors (suicidal thoughts) as a predictor for

this type of crime.

Another possible biological contribution might have been Whitman’s consumption, and

over-consumption, of the amphetamine Dexedrine (Stearns, 2008). This amphetamine is known

to induce stress and paranoia. This pharmacological contribution would certainly be a negative

addition to the stress and paranoia already caused by his brain tumor.

These factors, biological including pharmacological, as well as psychological, apparently

point to a case of nature over nurture in the case of Charles Joseph Whitman. However,

Whitman did have sociological and psychological problems relating to the separation of his

parents, his time as a U.S. Marine, and the possible knowledge of his biological factor (brain

tumor). All of these combined motivations show a ‘perfect storm’ of factors, or predictors. This

perfect storm supports both biological and psychological roots as the source of crime, and also

validates both positivist and the individual trait theories in criminology.

One of the most memorable school shootings took place on April 20, 1999, at Columbine

High School, in Littleton, Colorado. This particular event was described in a report by Rachel

Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010), as so traumatic to American society that it has become

synonymous with rampage school shootings in general (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010).

School Shooters

4

The mass murder at Columbine was different than most other school shootings because

there were two killers working together to commit the crime. The only other occasion of two

school shooters planning and carrying out such a crime together, prior to Columbine, was

perpetrated by Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson of Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998. The

crime, described in detail in a report by Richard E. Redding and Sarah M. Shalf (2001), was

technically a school shooting. Golden and Johnson hid among trees outside the school and

waited for faculty and students to come outside before shooting them, therefore never physically

entering the school (Redding & Shalf, 2001), making this event quite different from Columbine.

At 11 and 13 years of age, Golden and Johnson were also among the youngest of the recent

school shooters.

Using guns taken from their own homes, Golden and Johnson killed five students and

wounded eleven others (Redding & Shalf, 2001). Even after their adjudication in juvenile court,

it is still unknown why they committed mass murder at their school. Both Golden and Johnson

have been released from incarceration. In his study concerning the link between school

shootings and video games, Christopher J. Ferguson (2008) noted that Johnson was rearrested for

several non-violent charges after his release (Feguson, 2008). Based on the limited knowledge

of the motivations for their crimes, an assumption of a sociological predictor, due to their

collaboration, could be made in the case of Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson. However,

there may have been other unknown factors involved.

On April 20, 1999, a well prepared Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold joined forces and

entered Columbine High School, killing a total of fifteen people, wounding another twenty-one

(Ferguson, 2008). During the rampage killing, they barricaded themselves in the school. Due to

communications problems and lack of pre-planning for such a circumstance, it took the

School Shooters

5

authorities several hours to resolve the situation. By the time authorities were able to secure the

school, Harris and Klebold had both killed themselves in the library, where they took the lives of

most of their victims. The death toll of this school shooting might have been much higher had

the home-made bombs the killers brought with them actually worked. The cooperation among

rampage killers in this event would appear to point to mainly sociological factors as predictors.

The collaboration of Harris and Klebold also supports the social process theory of criminology.

Both Harris and Klebold were bullied mercilessly at school, and spoke of wanting to

commit ‘suicide by cop’ prior to the commission of their crimes. Kalish and Kimmel (2010)

theorized that the culture of masculinity available to the young men in this country encourages

the use of violence to avenge a perceived challenge to their masculine identity (Kalish &

Kimmel, 2010). The only way to respond to this threat, in the eyes of Harris and Klebold, was to

prove their masculinity by eliminating the challenge, along with themselves. This sociological

factor (peer pressure, bullying, outside influences) would fit neatly into the social process theory

of criminology, and seem to make it a seemingly valuable predictor. However, one could also

consider their suicidal thoughts as a possible psychological predictor.

Many have blamed violent video games and media for the events at Columbine.

Numerous studies, including the one performed by Ferguson (2008), have discounted this

behavior as a reliable predictor. While both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were avid players of

the video game Doom, many other school shooters, including Seung-Hui Cho (discussed further

below) were not known to play violent video games (Ferguson, 2008).

Other studies, such as one performed by Regina G. Lawrence and Thomas A. Birkland

(2004), have tried to demonstrate that dramatic news events can drive particular issues to the top

of media and government agendas, thus making them famous historical events (Lawrence &

School Shooters

6

Birkland, 2004). This desire for fame by participation in a famous historical event, like a mass

murder, was expressed by both Harris and Klebold, prior to their rampage killings. An article by

C. Bradley Thompson (2014) noted that Eric Harris, in particular mentioned that he wanted to

leave a lasting impression, as Timothy McVeigh had with his bombing in Oklahoma City.

Harris also wrote in his journal the words, “ich bin Gott” which translates to “I am God”

(Thompson, 2014). The desire for fame would also explain why Harris and Klebold did not

simply commit suicide. Mass murderers almost always become famous, most suicidal teenagers

do not. This is another sociological factor (peer pressure, outside influences) as a predictor

which validates the social process theory of criminology.

Interestingly enough, the most reliable predictor for this terrible crime, had he spoken

sooner, would have been the father of Eric Harris. He actually did predict the crime, while it was

happening, when he called the Littleton police department and told them that he thought his son

might be one of the shooters. One cannot help but wonder if the parents, or other people close to

the school shooters, might not be the best predictors of all.

Seung-Hui Cho left a total of thirty-two victims when he committed his mass murder, and

eventual suicide on the campus of Virginia Tech University, on April 16, 2007. At 23, Cho was

older than the average school shooter, whose modal age is 15 (Kalish and Kimmel, 2010). He

immigrated to this country from the Republic of Korea, when he was eight years old. He was a

quiet, sullen child, and was bullied by other students in high school. In the case of Cho, his

family also voiced concern over his behavior prior to the crime.

A major predictor for Cho became apparent when he began attending Virginia Tech. As

Douglas Mossman (2009) noted in his report, the Virginia Tech Review Panel, in its official

summary of the event, stated that campus mental health professionals, and other faculty

School Shooters

7

members, either ignored or missed the warning signs apparent with Seung-Hui Cho (Mossman,

2009).

Cho posted violent messages to NBC News websites prior to his murderous rampage,

warning of his impending attack on the Virginia Tech campus. He also had a documented

history of mental illness, and had expressed menacing thoughts in several papers written while

attending the school. Although he was ordered to go to counseling, Cho ignored requirements to

seek therapeutic help (Stearns, 2008). These psychological predictors were not recognized for

what they were prior to Cho’s crimes. Many reports, such as the one written by Mossman (2009)

have pointed out the fact that these predictors are much clearer in hindsight. However, a lethal

combination of sociological (peer pressure, bullying) and psychological (mental illness) warning

factors were prevalent as predictors in the case of Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech

massacre (Mossman, 2009).

This analysis must therefore conclude that there is no singular predictor, whether

biological, sociological or psychological, for a school shooting. Even if a common predictor is

recognized in advance of the rampage, as was the case in the Virginia Tech massacre, this

predictor would possibly go unreported or not be acted upon in time to prevent such a disaster.

Although there were common known predictors, such as gender, suicidal thoughts and

depression, present amongst these killers, all displayed a myriad of other factors. In the case of

Whitman, biological and psychological factors came into play. In the context of the events at

Columbine and Virginia Tech, predictors have shown that they can be both sociological and

psychological. A ‘perfect storm’ of these factors was the most likely cause. This ‘perfect storm’

makes any one predictor unreliable because the only other commonality of these crimes was that

they were all unique crimes committed by very complex and troubled, male individuals.

References

Addington, Lynn A., “Students’ Fear after Columbine: Findings from a Randomized

Experiment.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19.4 (2003): 367-386

Ferguson, Christopher J., “The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship

or Moral Panic?” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 5 (2008):

25-37

Kalish, Rachel, & Kimmel, Michael, “Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved

entitlement, and rampage school shootings.” Health Sociology Review 19.4 (2010): 451-

464

Kleck, Gary, “There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton.” Criminal Justice Ethics,

18.1(1999): p2. 4 p.

Lawrence, Regina G., & Birkland, Thomas A., “Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining

the School-Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas.” Social Science Quarterly 85.5

(2004): 1193-1207

Mossman, M.D., Douglas, “The Imperfection of Protection Through Detection and Intervention

Lessons From Three Decades of Research on the Psychiatric Assessment of Violence

Risk” The Journal of Legal Medicine 30 (2009): 109-140

Redding, Richard E., & Shalf, Sarah M., “The Legal Context of School Violence: The

Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Reduce Gun

Violence in Schools.” Law & Policy, 23.3 (2001): 297-343

Stearns, Peter N., “Texas and Virginia: A Bloodied Window into Changes in American Public

Life.” Journal of Social History (Winter 2008): 299-318

Thompson, C. Bradley, “Our Killing Schools.” Soc 51 (2014): p 210-220