Mark Stephenson

Jeremy, I'd like to see the research backing your claim that "post-shooting virtually all are diagnosed (whether alive or living) with the kind of behavior and traits indicative of mental illness". I see plenty of news reports that claim a mass shooter had mental illness, but these are not trustworthy. And I disagree with your statement, "the kind of mental break with reality that causes someone to think, "it's okay if I go kill 5, 10, 20, 40 people" is an evaluative factor in diagnosing someone with mental illness." There are many people today and throughout history who would say "It's okay to kill a bunch of people" who would not be diagnosed with a mental illness - heads of organized crime, drug lords, many other people with immense power and unquestioned authority (such as King Herod, as Ken Libolt mentions), and many others. Given the wrong conditions, a whole lot of us would be mass murderers. So once again, I firmly believe that instead of talking about "mental illness" it would be much more helpful for law makers and people in law enforcement to identify those wrong conditions, those behavior traits, societal mores, that have caused us to raise up so many mass shooters in American society today so that we can make new laws and law enforcement can watch for the "tells" that would suggest someone is about to commit mass murder. In addition, we need to engage in thinking and preparation for what any of us need to do to protect ourselves and our loved ones in the event of a mass shooting. (Many schools still practice fire drills, even though school children in the US are more likely to be injured or killed by a mass shooter than a fire.) Here's an example of the kind of thinking I have in mind. Notice that "mental illness" is not mentioned once in the article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kim-reynolds-says-holistic-approach-needed-to-prevent-mass-shootings/ar-AAG4WEg

Dan, we're searching for language to describe horrors that people commit, so I understand your desire to stick with the word "illness". I suggested several years ago that instead of trying to use the term "mental illness" maybe we need to start talking about a continuum of "moral illness". People with severe moral illness do things like commit mass murders and lead nations into genocide. I wrote: "I think of moral illness as a condition of the soul in which one has so abused his concept of right and wrong for so long, that his choices descend further and further from common mores into a dark world where people can commit mass murder or sexually abuse young boys." If you'd like to read the rest of that blog, it's called Mental Illness or Moral Illness. 

Hi Jeremy,
Once again, current analysis shows that only 25 percent of mass shooters have been diagnosed with mental illness. That's the reason I asserted that the news media are jumping on a band wagon that does not square with this fact.

Indeed, we need to agree to disagree with regard to attributing mass shootings to mental illness. However, as I responded to another, it may be most helpful if we cease talking about "mental illness" in the case of wanton destruction of human life and instead talk about "moral illness".  

Greg and Willemiena, Yes! Sometimes when I've spoken to groups, I challenge the common use of the word "normal", as a contrast to "disability" or "mental illness." I like to quote Whoopi Goldberg who is reported to have said, "'Normal' is just a cycle on a washing machine." No one is "normal" or "whole" or "independent", but all are broken and in need of support and care and encouragement from fellow human beings. And we live in hope and new life for the present time and for eternity through Jesus Christ (John 10:10). 

Doug, when you write, "In my mind, "doing justice" (public or otherwise) does not give the appearance of, nor is it, "love."" you seem to be distinguishing justice from love, which implies that one can engage in actions that are just but unloving. I can understand that some just actions might not appear loving, but if one is behaving justly, according to the biblical perspective of justice, isn't one also acting in love. One simple example of this would be disciplining a child. The child will not perceive the discipline as love, but if the parent is not acting justly toward his child out of love, then the discipline is only revenge. 

I'm not getting this idea of justice without love. Wouldn't God's justice without love simply be capriciousness? Wouldn't human justice without love simply be revenge?

Doug, I'm replying both to your and Dan's separation of justice from love. I don't see how justice can be so sharply separated from love. Focusing only on retributive justice, if one says that truly just laws reflect the just nature of our God, then those laws ultimately reflect the love of God. If those laws are applied impartially by law enforcement and courts, then the enforcement of those laws once again reflect the loving character of God. On the flip side, if an officer's and judge's motivation is not the good of society (which would be a reflection of God's love), then it becomes less and less likely those public officials will act justly, and more likely that they will use the criminal justice system to carry out their own prejudices.

Dan and Doug, I understand justice to be an aspect of love. So yes, love and justice must go together because justice is one of the ways that God's love is manifested. For example, these verses that conclude Psalm 62 guide that understanding of the relationship of justice to love for me:

One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard:
that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving.
Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done. 

I'm not enough of an anthropologist to know if individualism is stronger in the US than Canada, but other Canadian friends have told me the same, so I'm inclined to believe you. One Canadian friend suggested that the difference is already highlighted in our founding documents, with the US Declaration of Independence highlighting the individualistic pursuit of rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867 emphasizing the collective goals of "peace, order, and good goverment." 

That's a good point, Doug. Social isolation is bad for one's health, in general, and Junger makes that point eloquently. Your point raises a clarification I should add. When mass shootings happen, folks look for someone to blame. By suggesting that showing love to people who are socially isolated, and that if this were done widely it might reduce the number of rampage killings, I'm not saying that the people around all the mass shooters are to blame for their murderous behavior. For all I know, many of them may have tried reaching out, but had all their efforts rebuffed. Still, Scripture's teaching is that when someone in our own lives rejects us, we need to keep on loving anyway. 

For example, a CNN article quotes Sue Klebold, mother of a rampage killer, "I wish I had known then what I know now: that it was possible for everything to seem fine with him when it was not, and that behaviors I mistook as normal for a moody teenager were actually subtle signs of psychological deterioration. . . . I taught him how to protect himself from a host of dangers: lightning, snake bites, head injuries, skin cancer, smoking, drinking, sexually transmitted diseases, drug addiction, reckless driving, even carbon monoxide poisoning. It never occurred to me that the gravest danger -- to him and, as it turned out, to so many others -- might come from within. Most of us do not see suicidal thinking as the health threat that it is. We are not trained to identify it in others, to help others appropriately, or to respond in a healthy way if we have these feelings ourselves."