President Trump

[KYGTIGuy]

Guess whose in-laws came to the US via "chain-migration"?

Go on, guess

Look how much he doesn't care everybody. He cares so little.

I'm certianly impressed.

[Melon]

Just one red October.

Ah, the Shubmarine Captain Himshelf.

[KYGTIGuy]

Wonder what he thinks of #metoo

[troyguitar]

I'll take the rapist for $400, Alex.

[KYGTIGuy]

I encourage everyone to read the Mueller indictment against the Russians. You can start to see where he's going to go with this whole thing.

Work to get a moron elected(just happened to be trump because he was therr) then turn on him once elected. All to just cover the US in dog shit

You would hope that would bring Republicunts to see reality of Russian interference.

[KYGTIGuy]

Trump just said he is for taking guns from the mentally ill first and then worrying about due process later.


Is there a line?

[MexicanYarisTK]

If there's anything more intriguing for trump, it would be on how he claims that he can stop the attack even without a weapon, has the guy who dodges the draft, whether he talks big, cause he is a pussy or he is getting senile.

[KYGTIGuy]

Trump just said he is for taking guns from the mentally ill first and then worrying about due process later.


Is there a line?

Trump also stood up to the NRA a bit.

Maybe he has a spine?

I don't really know what to think anymore.

He said the exact opposite yesterday so my guess is that he just had no principles and he will say something else tomorrow.

The uncertainty is as damaging as anything

[wap]

Trump just said he is for taking guns from the mentally ill first and then worrying about due process later.


Is there a line?

Trump also stood up to the NRA a bit.

Maybe he has a spine?

I don't really know what to think anymore.

He's "for" whatever the last person to speak to him is for. The next time he talks to a 2nd Amendment per he'll swing the other way again.

[wap]

Mental illness isn't the problem though.

Mental illness occurs in 20-30% of the population
Mental illness occurs in......... 20-30% of attackers.

So what is the problem?

[wap]

So what is the problem?

I shall respond to this tomorrow. Too much to go into tonight but attacks are predicable and preventable with a few exceptions.

Looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

[troyguitar]

So what is the problem?

I shall respond to this tomorrow. Too much to go into tonight but attacks are predicable and preventable with a few exceptions.

[KYGTIGuy]

Good gravy

[goIftdibrad]

So what is the problem?

I shall respond to this tomorrow. Too much to go into tonight but attacks are predicable and preventable with a few exceptions.

[goIftdibrad]

So what is the problem?

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

5/7 post

also, TIL is a Grievance Collector

[ChrisoftheNorth]

So what is the problem?

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

This might be the most incredible bit of posting I've ever seen on any topic.

Wow.

[Calvinball]

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

This might be the most incredible bit of posting I've ever seen on any topic.

Wow.

Don’t worry, someone will find something wrong with it.


Sent from the Beer Depository

[KYGTIGuy]

I think the term "grievance collector" is a little on the nose.

[ChrisoftheNorth]

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

This might be the most incredible bit of posting I've ever seen on any topic.

Wow.

Well, yea. This is DFD.

[Tar]

So what is the problem?

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

Great post [user not found], interesting opinions which i think hold water.

[troyguitar]

So, you think we should require everyone get a hug when they walk into a building instead of go through a metal detector?

You described the problem, what's the solution?

[troyguitar]

It won't get fixed in our current political environment.

So how do you fix the political environment? Apparently that's step zero.

I'm not looking for a simple solution, I'm looking for a solution of any kind instead of the "It's complicated" cop-out.

[Clownshoobie]

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.

Man. Impressive.

I would have read the whole thing, but I started to phase out during the Grievance Collector part--I kept being reminded how many times I've been wronged, and how someday, I'm going to do something about it, for once and for all. You'll see.

Like other moral hot-button issues of late, I find the gun debate absurd and the arguments based upon lies (or at least false premises).

First, I'm not a gun guy: I'm a suburban middle class kid who spent half of his childhood living in Scandinavia: there were no guns in my sphere. As an adult I have target shot a great variety of guns (AR-15, Desert Eagle, semi pistols, revolvers). It was pretty fun. I've never hunted: I'd rather get my land meat from Styrofoam trays with cellophane covers. Basically I don't want to see the cute, furry creature killed before I eat it. (BTW, I'm an avid fisherman, and catch, kill and cook dozens of fish per year--go figure).

I know, love and respect a few gun guys, but I think that the collective gun guys' justification for wanting guns is silly. Just silly. 1) The second amendment is obsolete (so is, for that matter the constitution). Not even the 100-round-clipped, bump-stocked, tactical AR-15 could ever defend against the tyranny of a motivated government. You preppers can bunker up in your buried school bus, and you wouldn't have a chance. It's a false premise. 2) Guns as a home defense tool is a bad idea, statistically putting you and your family at greater risk of being killed. You're better off with a CO2 fire extinguisher for close quarters home combat. But all that nonsense is just fantasies. It's a construct to justify wanting to have cool guns, because they're cool, and they make you feel powerful. That's it. Just be honest.

I have too many cars. I remove the cats, soup 'em up, and drive like a maniac. I realize that it's dangerous to myself, my surroundings, and the environment. I can't justify it, I just like fast cars. They're cool and they make me feel powerful.

[troyguitar]

So how do you fix the political environment? Apparently that's step zero.

I'm not looking for a simple solution, I'm looking for a instead of the "It's complicated" cop-out.

It's complicated isnt a cop- out, it means it's complicated and I don't know.

All of your experience and luck, yet you don't have some grand fantasy plan that could work?

[troyguitar]

All of your experience and luck, yet you don't have some grand fantasy plan that could work?

The world is too complicated for that.

I have a very effective program here at work (and we don't use metal detectors for what it's worth) but a single grand fantasy plan from one person would be wrong in more ways than right. What I do here isn't scalable.

You're boring.

This is also why we will NEVER see any real improvements. The combo of smart people who do nothing plus dumb people who don't listen to smart people anyway ==