MetaChat - Definition of "shooting rampage"?

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

20 April 2007

Definition of "shooting rampage"? Virginia Tech is "deadliest shooting rampage."→[More:] It's certainly not the deadliest massacre in American history. Is it a shooting rampage because there was only one guy doing all the shooting? Can a rampage have multiple shooters? Was Columbine a rampage?

post by: small_ruminant at: 16:01 | 28 comments

S_R, this was one of the subjects on Talk of the Nation today. I was only half listening, so I can't really repeat what they said. One of the psychologists on the show has done a big study of mass murderers. Sounded interesting, and sort of like what you're getting at..

Here's the link.

posted by mudpuppie 20 April | 16:08

Thinking on it further, I'd define "rampage" as a wanton, ongoing string of violence, regardless of the number of perpetrators. In my mind, a group of rioters smashing store windows or looting or attacking people could be considered to be on a rampage.

And I'd definitely count Columbine among them. But not 9/11 or the OKC bombings, because they were single events with a high death toll, not attacks carried out over time.

posted by mudpuppie 20 April | 16:11

Thanks- I'll check it out at home. I'm more curious about the definition of "shooting rampage."

Saying this is the worse in the US is discounting the truly horrific violence that makes up a lot of American history. I don't know about the east coast, but California had some brutal Indian slaughters, and not THAT long ago. Is it a difference in definition or a short memory?

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 16:13

I think that they automatically "shooting rampage," like they always use "bus plunge," or "temblor."

posted by danf 20 April | 16:18

I suspect "shooting rampage," like "murder," is a term from which government-sponsored actions (wars, assassinations) are exempt. (Though I'm not sure which Indian massacres you're talking about, so this could be irrelevant.)

posted by occhiblu 20 April | 16:21

Also, if it's "worst in US history," that might confine it to post-1776 for the east coast and post - dates of statehood elsewhere? I tend to hear "worst on American soil" if someone wants to include colonial history, I think.

Or possibly if they just want to use overly dramatic language.

posted by occhiblu 20 April | 16:23

Well, they weren't all government sponsored, but they were mostly whites killing Indians, so maybe that was close enough, given the era (through 1890s). I think there were some significant killings after that, but smaller numbers.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 16:24

Though I was mostly thinking of the Indian Island massacre which was around the 1860s.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 16:29

Interesting question, looks like it'll take some research.

To rule out some of the Indian battles, the single shooter would have to be an important parameter.

Also, the Indian battles probably wouldn't be classed with massacres of Americans by Americans. They were thought of as wars between nations, an occupying force in newly-claimed territoty fighting to exterminate or expel a resident force.

posted by Miko 20 April | 16:33

Miko: except the occupying force wasn't governmental- no authorization, no uniforms, etc. I would think that would make a difference.

I don't have good resources-I heard about these from teachers and friends growing up as local history.

But if you DO have some resources, and some time on your hands, check out the Indian Island massacre. That was definitely civilians. (They waited until all the men were out... shopping or something... and killed all the women, kids, and old people.)

There was another one before that, called the Bloody Island Massacre, but I don't know anything about it. Maybe it was government sponsored.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 16:46

Actually, my point is, there were probably thousands of those, and their grandkids/ great grandkids are still around, listening and reading about this "worst rampage in history". Ugh. Well, I guess if you're Indian you're used to it, but I'd guess it'd irritate.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 16:55

FWIW, the US Department of Justice defines a rampage/spree killing as "a series of closely connected events."

posted by mudpuppie 20 April | 16:57

I think, too, "rampage" gives the sense of someone being unhinged, and killing out of rage rather than for gain. To me there's a sense of randomness that's necessary; I feel like killing people to take over their property, while obviously heinously excessive, does at least serve some sort of logical purpose; their deaths create real gain for the killers.

Whereas when I think of a shooting rampage, I think of someone just psychologically snapping and killing random people for no reason at all; that is, the killings don't in and of themselves create the solution the killer is looking for.

posted by occhiblu 20 April | 16:59

When I have a bit more time, s_r, I would be interested to read about that. I was thinking you meant the U.S. Cavalry wars with the Plains Indians, which were somewhat official, though still very messed up. Anyway, the gym beckoneth, hope to learn more later.

posted by Miko 20 April | 17:00

occhiblu- that works for me. Though you sort of wonder what the solution the Virginia Tech guy was going for. I bet he did have one.

On second thought, this has probably been discussed all over the place, and I've just avoided it, along with most of the articles about it, so nevermind.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 17:04

Heh. Yeah, I've been doing my best not to get sucked into the whole thing, too.

posted by occhiblu 20 April | 17:05

Wikipedia constantly has edit wars between "school shooting" and "school massacre". There was an Indian raid on a schoolhouse in the 1700s that is on the list, but it doesn't seem right to include that or white massacres of Indians. If you limit the classification to "shooting" you don't have a place for the Bath School bombing, which killed more people than Cho.

I'm not averse to listing settler-on-Indian massacres somewhere, but I just don't think they're the same thing.

posted by stilicho 20 April | 17:25

ok, might be the wrong thread for this, but I'm not wrapping my head around the 'single shooter snapped' thing. My brain prefers the kid to have been 'slowly brainwashed/drugged/hypnotized/carrying brain implant that turns man into killer at the flick of a switch' or something/insert conspiracy here - before becoming this random killig machine. I just don't want to believe kyoot little baby boys can grow up to be 'worst killer i U.S. history' like that, I guess.

it's just so damned tragic.

posted by dabitch 20 April | 17:36

Well, "snapped" was an oversimplification. I just meant it as shorthand for "senseless act of violence" -- though, granted, they're almost all senseless ....

Sigh.

But yeah, I'm behind the lifetime of badness idea...

posted by occhiblu 20 April | 17:50

What makes we puke is the apparent need of the media to always rank these events. "This was the worst rampage ever!" "It is the worst terror attack since 9/11!" Why can't the news be reported without the hysteric rating.

posted by birdherder 20 April | 18:07

dabitch: that's odd, because I always leave the house fully expecting to be murdered in some bizarre fashion,since it's what I've had pummeled at me by the news and culturein general since birth. When i eat a meal I often cath myself thinking 'if you're murdered today, you will be autopsied and this is what they will find in your stomach.' It dosen't affect my behavior at all, but I still always realize that it's possibility.

posted by jonmc 20 April | 18:11

I wouldn't describe this as a 'rampage'. As an (amateur) student of criminology for the past 30 years, I'd say this was a spree, a term which I believe was first used in respect of Charles Whitman's killing spree when he shot at random people from a bell tower.

A killing spree is usually begun by the killer murdering someone close to him, such as a parent or spouse, and that seems to trigger the 'fuck it' switch which then results in the killing of numerous random strangers over a relatively short period of time.

posted by essexjan 20 April | 18:20

birdherder - I have never been so thankful for Canadian news anchors as I have been in the last few days (well, except for 9/11). The vocal exclamation points and hysteria and OMG!! title graphics are kept to a bare minimum. Once in a while I'll run across a US news report and even when nothing crazy is going on, they're still shrill. You can practically hear the "dun dun dunnnn!" in the reporters voices. Everything is just so Damned IMPORTANT!!

posted by deborah 20 April | 21:15

birdherder, I agree completely! What a weird sort of competition.

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 22:16

essexjan- a spree sounds better. Plus, a spree is always just one or two people (as far as I can remember).

posted by small_ruminant 20 April | 22:17

When i eat a meal I often cath myself

Owwy.

posted by ROU Xenophobe 20 April | 23:57

I'm always weirded out by the terminology "killing spree." I actually prefer rampage. But I think that's just because Spree is a bright-colored sweet-tart candy while Rampage is not.

posted by Miko 21 April | 14:13

"Spree" does make it sound enticing.

posted by small_ruminant 21 April | 15:06

← I can see you again! || You lose your grip, and then you slip, into the masterpiece →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN