The Aurora Shooting has brought up many questions and thoughts. This paper is to deal with those thoughts as best as possible. While doing so, an attempt to create equations for the ideas shown will also be given. This is an attempt to understand. The first thing that we will study is how people have responded to the shooting and how likely their ideas would work. The second part is how an attacker chooses his location.
The first common statement is that if there had been some form of regulation on guns, or mentally ill then the tragedy wouldn’t have happened.
The thoughts of regulation come with the idea that somehow the person involved will cooperate. The Aurora Theater had a firearm ban in it[1]. As did Virginia Tech[2]. The killer simply ignored the laws.
The second thought on regulation is for those that are mentally ill. This doesn’t work because only 10% of serial killers or mass murderers are mentally ill[3]. This is more of an attempt by the media to explain what is happening. The reason why the idea continues is how hard it is to stop[4].
Regulations only work if the person involved believes it is in their best interest to continue to cooperate. Punishment is only a detriment if the person believes they will be punished or that being punished is a bad thing.
The next thought is in the other direction, if the gun free zone had been lifted there would have been less injured. This actually takes in a lot of information to properly assess it. To keep it basic the paper will assess what is considered the more important factors of a ‘hero’.
The first question is how distracted the hero is. The question goes into how immersed they are in another subject. Much as a person enjoying a book may not notice it is snowing. Or the famous video of a breakdancing bear[5]. The concentration and emotional self during the movie may be with the movie itself. The mind is not ready for an attack.
The next part is the ability to get a shot. This includes closeness to the attacker, the amount of chaos going on around them, and how well the attacker can take a shot.
If the person is carrying a handgun, the likelihood of needing to be close for the shot increases. The need for a specific shot also increases the difficulty. The Aurora shooter, “was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector. He wore a gas mask, goggles and black gloves[6].”
The gun would not harm the attacker, though it may distract him. The use of the gun may be most useful as a deterrent or distractor than fighting back. A common use of handguns when dealing with bears is to fire in the air or into the ground. The sound itself and the sight of the gun is enough to scare the bear away. However, this does not always work and may do the opposite of expected.
The Aurora Shooter was wearing armor, and thus, prepared to be shot and, likely would not have been scared off from hearing a gun.
The next part is the amount of chaos going on. A trained military or police person may be able to take a longer shot in a calm shooting range, but the amount of chaos around them will prove to be distracting. They must go from concentrating on the movie, realize what is happening, and then begin concentration on the shot being taken. The change of thought from one place to another may not give enough time for the person to respond and not be shot.
The killer themselves and their active mind is now part of the equation. The approximate time from beginning to fire to when they hit the hero. The time can be extended if the hero hides or ducks, but this increases the chances of more people being killed as the person prepares his or her shot. It is time of the hero to get the needed shot vs the time the attacker has already shot him.
So, lets set it up. For simplicity sake, we will be using the wikipedia page on what happened[7].
It took James Holmes around one minute to shoot 70 people. It’s unknown how many shots he took, but it is known that he used several weapons, and one had jammed around 30 shots. So, it took less than a second for each person to be shot.
The hero would need to be closer to the front for the best chances of taking the shot. James Holmes started at the front and began to shoot into the crowd, after throwing gas canisters into the theater. The chaos level would be high, and there would be a push to leave the room. It would take about five seconds to go from one row to the next, and not be shot.
So the first row contained a guessed at 10 people. It would take about 8 seconds to shoot a row. At about two rows in, the audience would realize what is happening and begin to move backwards. The attacker would shoot at the crowds and anyone looking menacing.
So if the hero was in the first or second row, they would have been down before even realizing what was happening. The next row would have moved to exit and thus created a higher injury amount at this point.
For every row back, we will say that it took 10 more seconds for the hero to realize what is happening and begin to concentrate on getting the proper shot.
The hero very likely is holding a concealed firearm or handgun. The best shot would be within 10 feet. As Holmes shoots away, the hero would need to maneuver through the crowd to get to a spot both hidden and easy to take the shot. So the second row.
It would still take another 20-30 seconds to get to the spot and stop Holmes. Holmes does not need to move forward because his weapons can cover the entire length of the room easier than the hero with the handgun. Holmes does not need the preciseness of the shot to take him down because the crowd is not armored.
By row three if the hero has realized what has happened it will take him five seconds to get in place, and about 25 seconds of getting out of the flow of the movie. By this point 30 people have been shot. Row four it is 34 seconds and then ten seconds to get into the shot spot. About 50 people have been shot. By row five it is too late, the amount shot will be about the same amount of time as if the armed person had never been there.
So, we look at the shot to amount of time ratio. 60 seconds to 70 hits or .86 hits a second. After 40 seconds it is too late to stop the attack and make a difference. For the hero to stop it right at the moment of the attack, would need prior knowledge of the attack.
To check the equation it is time of attack divided by number hit Ta/I. Then a comparison of time of realization to time for position. The knowledge of guns being used and amount of chaos help with assessing the time for position. Realization time will have to take testing and knowledge so for this paper a guess was made. So (R+P)*(Ta/I) will give you an approximate amount of how many people were hit as the hero worked to save the day.
Within 40 seconds is the amount of time for the hero to realize what needs to happen. Any later and it wouldn’t matter.
Adding more details about what if more than one person had a gun, would make the equation longer, but can be figured out slowly but surely. The big problem would be assessing if the heroes realized what the other heroes were doing or trying to stop them.
The comments from the progun sites make it seem simple and easy to get a shot like this done. In reality it would be difficult and after a certain point, not matter.
The next part is to understand why people would want more or less regulations on handguns. Neither of these ideas work to the amount they are promoting them. The answer lies within movies themselves. When a villain appears and does something dastardly, the viewer imagines a way that punishes the villain for what he has done. This narrative is part of the story within movies and also within our own minds.
We do not think of things without a narrative. So the villain is punished in our minds even before he is actually punished within the movies. The imagined situation within the pro and anti gun groups are attempts to create a narrative to what happened.
Within the mind of the pro gun lobbyist, the hero stops the villain and everyone praises him for his skill. The antigun lobbyist view that society itself will stop the thoughts of the attacker and this will save the day. It is an attempt to deal with the chaos of the shooting.
Society is built with reciprocity, and thus rules are placed to respond to unwanted actions. It seems insane to people that someone would ignore these rules of society completely and do something like this. Unable to handle these ideas, the reader finds another subject they know and apply it to the situation.
Now we finally can look at the mind of the attacker himself. This part will be an attempt to predict the mind of the average attacker and also why he chooses what he chooses.
Likewise the attacker is building up a narrative. He views himself as something above the law, and greater than those he is about to attack. There is a disconnect between himself and the average person. The narrative is for them to show their power over others. This is what the average psychologist can get from the various shootings[8]. It is very general and does not work if you try to write out an equation for it. Being by yourself a lot may mean you view yourself as more important, or you have a fear of crowds. Too much is unknown to make an educated guess.
However, this description does give us a good indicator of places that can be attacked, how, why, and sometimes when.
The first part is to find a place where people are cooperating but know there is an end to this cooperation. A movie theater, a school, or even a shopping center are likely places. For the betterment of everyone there are unsaid rules for how you should act in a movie theater, and how to respond when things happen. Any rule that needs to be shown over and over will be displayed on the screen, for instance what to do with your cellphone.
The entire point of this cooperation is to allow each individual the chance to enjoy the movie. Doing something against this idea will in fact be noticeable by all the participants. When the movie is over, everyone gets up to leave and will likely never see the other viewers again. So complete strangers walk in, cooperate, and walk out[9].
The same is with school, the knowledge of graduation and never having to deal with people again allows the student to cooperate for now, but knowing it won’t last forever. Once again, not following the cooperation standards that are constantly being stated to the students would be noticeable. These standards can be varied and odd. The need to wear a specific type of clothing, or like a sport are almost demanded of by the school. It is ok to not like the sport, but not to show major disdain for it.
The disconnect with the people involved can be done with groupings. For instance within the theater, people may go see a film with friends. They are connected or grouped together and believe it is important to sit next to each other and share popcorn. Unless there has already been a connection with some other viewers in the room, this group is the only unit that will stay intact after the movie. In fact, some may even give up a place they want to sit because the group wants to sit somewhere else.
In highschool and in college it is the same. The small group that connects will continue their friendship after college, but will likely forget anyone outside of the group. These groups interact with other groups and even form into larger formations. So a sports enthusiast group may happen to have runners for track, wrestlers, boxers, basketball players, and badminton players. Because of the length of time within highschool an individual may identify himself with many different groups, and work to be seen well in them.
Some groups may rival others and will attempt to one up or outdo another. So the chemistry team may place a super slick substance on the basketball court right before a game. They view the basketball team as rivals, and not a part of the chemistry team. However if a member of the chemistry team is playing, there is a less likelihood of the super slick substance.
Either way, they are caught up in the moment of where they are and what is happening. The rules are actually for them to enjoy being caught up in the situation. The rivalries and working within different groups is part of the situation and thus perfectly healthy for the environment.
The knowledge that they will not know each other after highschool is hidden from students as a way to keep the cooperation to continue. A place and time when all of the groups are together, and caught up in their own situation would likely be the spot of attack. This spot would have a mutual understanding between groups that it is a neutral area and should be left alone. So a cafeteria, or a library.
So the area is a place where people move around, but do not respond to others since they are caught up in their own worlds. It is a place designated neutral by any groups that frequent the area.
The attacker views this area as his place of power. He believes he is above these people and that for some reason he must assert himself over it. The idea of showing his power is part of the narrative he is giving to his actions.
The next part is deciding on a time. The area must be full of the groups or people, and it must have them in a fully distracted view. Eating Lunch, reading a book, and even watching a movie would allow the distraction.
The time must be when the groups are entering and most of them are distracted. So a shopping center in the middle of the lunch rush would fit this description. The attacker can walk in and place his needed items without being noticed.
The attacker will set up a way to control the area. So the initial response of the people will actually be to do what the attacker wants. For example, bombs were placed in the emergency meeting places at Littleton Highschool. There were also bombs placed in area that would have high amounts of students attempting to hide. Luckily the bombs were not built well and did not go off.
When James Holmes walked into the movie theater, he began to shoot in a way that would make people flee into an area that would be easier for him to fire at. This is part of his narrative, that he controls the people involved.
The Virginia Tech shooter locked the door in one building and said it would blow up if anyone tried to escape. Then he walked in and began to shoot those within the building.
So a place where the fear from the initial attack will cause the people in the area to act in the way the attacker desires. A closed in area that can be locked or make the responders unable to act against his will. He will live out his greatest desire to be seen as powerful by this group.
The reasons to seem powerful to this group are finally the part that helps decide the location. It must be a large group of people that the attacker wants to impress. This group fits into his own personal desire to seem powerful. Not only this, the view is that they are powerful and are in fact asserting their power over this group. In other words, it must be a group the attacker responds to either in a negative or even positive way. The strongly held belief that this will impress or state power is the narrative given.
The attacker then plans out the attack in a way that proves they have more power than the group. A gang member drives to the house of another gang and shoots it to prove their power. A terrorist blows up a marketplace to show they have power over the common man. Two kids shoot up their highschool to show they have power over the school.
Seeing this pattern of decision we can then take this and apply it to the attacker himself and see why he is doing it. The narrative can only be held if the attacker wants power over the group, and also views himself as separate from it. The attacker plans it out so that they assert this power. They plan out a time that they know will be busy and easily controllable. This mindset can be calculated to a certain extent.
The factors included are how much the person views the group with some form of connection. The next one is how much power he views himself over the group. We then compare this to how much the person is actually part of the group and his acceptance of it.
So, (C*P)/(Cn*A).
Because this article is not going into how to detail each number, the system will be arbitrary or guessed for this introduction.
A member of the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion goes to the market every day. She talks with everyone she meets and laughs about things. She feels a connection to this area and its people to a full scale or 5 (out of 5). However she feels comfortable but not powerful within the area. So a 2.5 out of 5. So together within the marketplace she feels a 12.5 of belonging to the area. Within this area is a Shia store that has gotten along well with everyone else. One day the Shia area begins to show preferential treatment to other Shia buyers, even having better items for sale that only go to Shia. This sudden change is disruptive in the mind of our Sunni. This disconnect is also a 5, however she understands that this is because of the mutual religious beliefs and nothing personal. She accepts it at a level of 3.5. It saddens her but she understands. So her disconnect is a 17.5. Her acceptance of the area is about .72. If she became friends with the Shia store owner and began to gain some items that only other Shia were able to buy, then her power would increase by one, but her disconnect lessons by one as well. Her sense of acceptance of the area also increases by .5. So she goes from 12.5 to 17.5 in connection, and then her disconnect is 18. This means she connects to the area at .97. The closer she reaches to 1, the more connection she has. Also, the higher the number goes, the more emotional value is being placed.
One day her husband goes to pick up an item at the store. He comes back with a story that the store owner treated him badly. Our friend goes to the place to find out what had happened. They tell her that he acted badly and obviously it comes from their religious beliefs. the disconnect to the area grows to a full 5 again, and the acceptance of this drops a great deal. It goes down to a 2 in disbelief of what had happened to this wonderful friendship.
She sees that the other stores treat her kindly, and she still has the strong connection to this marketplace. She feels she has been slighted and that somehow owner of the store slighted her. Her power grows to a 4 and her connection stays the same.
This begins to grow, and every chance she gets to stop this ends harshly. She is now at connection to the area at 20 and disconnect at 10 or a 2. The higher one gets from one, the more chance there is that the person will respond in a way to assert her power. Luckily for this story the Shia store owner and the Sunni woman come back to friendly terms before anything happens. Had it continued like this, the response would have come. Had every meeting with the shop owner and the buyer ended badly, but the buyer still has a large connection to the marketplace, then the shop owner would have suffered. Had it gone past 2 then a violent response would be likely.
For the majority of people a connection to an area is less than one. If it is a special spot like a hometown or a hang out it would have reached 1. Being disconnected from that area would have caused a strong emotional response and the decisions to respond would have been based on the comparing numbers. Likewise a new place is so small from one that it doesn’t really matter. It has no real connection for the person. The more a person feels an emotional connection or spends time around an area the higher the feelings of connection.
When dealing with nomadic peoples, you may find that at first they would be perfect for an attack. However, they do not feel a strong connection to the area, and are fairly accepting of this. So the likelihood of an attack is small since it would mean continued negative interactions with an area. They would sooner leave than stay and fight.
In conclusion, after looking at the information we find that the majority of things being talked about for school shootings are mostly false. They are built up to create a narrative or coping ability to deal with the chaos of the event. Had someone been able to stop the event, we created an equation to show the possibility of difference between action and inaction. Then we went into the why and how a place and people are chosen out. We even built an equation to show how the emotional self decides on such places. We find out that there is ways to understand the chaos and the attempt to respond to what had happened. Hopefully more work and better scientists can use this information for the better.
[1] As a means to speed things up, the link to the site is being placed. Simply clicking on the link will take you to the needed information.
[9] Unless it is a viewing of Rocky Horror Picture Show and then expect rowdiness and thrown rice.
No comments:
Post a Comment