Well, this is disturbing

[catsittingstill]

Report on NPR this morning (summary available but for the full thing you'll have to download the mp3.)

The parts that interested me: 
1) Big clips like the one that let Giffords' would-be assassin get off 31 shots before he had to reload are flying off the shelves in at least one gun store.
2) Owners of 9 mm pistols are flocking to gun ranges to shoot them.  Apparently there is a lot of interest in seeing if they can better the killer's reload time.

Interesting.

Comments

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Well, but all the political assassins I can think of believe they are the heroes. Probably even Loughner.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually apparently some assassins of public figures (don't know what happens if we sort them into "political only") are very ambivalent about it. They make no bones about the fact that they're seeking fame, rather than doing it for heroic reasons, and some of them start out several times and turn back several times minus one.

Check it out here (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132909487/fame-through-assassination-a-secret-service-study)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I did some quick homework on the Fein and Vossekuil Exceptional Case Study Project, and I think the NPR report distorts it. You can read the reports and articles here. See in particular the Journal of Forensic Sciences paper, "Assassination in the United States: An Operational Study of Recent Assassins, Attackers, and Near Lethal Approaches." I note in particular Table 2 from the paper, "Goals for the Principle Incident," which cites harm to the target as the primary goal in 68% of the cases, attention/notoriety as a goal in 38% of the cases, and suicide as a goal in 22% of the cases. (Table 5, which includes weapons use and interest is also, I think, relevant.)

I think I will here quote a chunk of the paper, since it is so strongly at variance with the NPR report:

Assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers had a range of reasons for action, with a subject often having more than one motive. Motives for attacks and near-lethal approaches included: to achieve notoriety/fame; to avenge a perceived wrong; to end personal pain—to be killed by law enforcement; to bring national attention to a perceived problem; to save the country or the world; to achieve a special relationship with the target; to make money; to bring about political change. Some subjects are known to have had more than one motive.

Some subjects are known to have had more than one motive. JD for example, wanted to kill the president (whom he believed to be "leading the country in the wrong direction"), to be killed in the attempt, and to gain notoriety (no longer be a "nonentity"). Sirhan Sirhan longed for notoriety and to change United States policy regarding the Palestinians. Lynette Fromme, who tried to shoot President Ford in Sacremento, CA. in 1975, wanted to retaliate against a government she believed had wrongly convicted and incarcerated Charles Manson and to call attention to corporate and government activities that she believed threatened the environment.

"Avenge a perceived wrong" and "save the country or the world" are heroic motivations.

Notice also the political motivations cited as primary in all cases of attacks on political figures. Later in the paper, F&V write, "Only one person whose primary target was a public official considered attacking a celebrity. One subject whose primary target was a celebrity is known to have considered attacking a public official. It may be that attackers and near-attackers of public officials and those who select celebrity targets are fundamentally different sets of persons." This is journanimalism in action: the NPR reporter has trouble conceiving that politics is a motivation here, or perhaps is badly wants the politics to go away.

I wish more people would pay attention to the sense of powerless that became part of the motivations of the politicals F&V cite. The current economic situation feeds that: people suddenly impoverished, out of work, losing their homes, yeah, that makes people feel powerless. Even people not directly affected know people who are affected. The huge gap between the political will of the people and the politics of our elected officials is actual powerlessness; even the modicum of political power promised every citizen seems to have been taken. And, finally, there are the right-wing propagandists stirring the pot: actually telling people they are powerless and suggesting that violence is an appropriate response to that situation.

Are the political issues of these criminals really so different than those of the wider public?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It is interesting to know that NPR's interpretation differs from that of the original study--I should check this out.