If you think about it game theoretic understanding it's a never ending game of one person or group trying to outdo the other, that is, until someone figures how to end the entire world; but, then who would be left to ponder about such a crime?

It's a surreal perspective, which makes me want to invest (if I had any money) in such visionary ideas such as those proposed by Elon Musk and his company, Tesla of moving away from Earth, to Mars.

Maybe the loonies won't get the same amount of kick if their wickedness won't have an effect on everyone in the world.

There is an inquest going on here in Sydney, into the Lindt Cafe Siege which ended in the deaths of two hostages and the gunman, Man Haron Monis. During this week's hearings, the police commander in charge at the scene compared the situation he was facing (he thought the offender had a bomb) to a 'high stakes game'.

The parents of one of the hostages were in the court, and were extremely offended by this analogy, which I understand. These aren't games, they end in actual death. Not like the computer-generated versions of the same, although we do wonder whether the proliferation of the latter contributes to the former.

It's a pity society doesn't believe in hell any more. As it is, these people believe, among other things, that as they will take themselves out with their final, despicable act, they will never have to suffer the consequences. So I can't see any way to prevent these acts from regularly occuring from now on. I think it is an extreme manifestation of the attitude that nothing matters, and that everything is simply a spectacle - a complete disassociation from reality. — Wayfarer

And yet it does resemble the wave of anarchist terrorism in the late 19th century. There were real conspiracies who committed atrocities and killings; and there were also loners like McKinley's assassin, who were 'inspired' by other events to create an event of their own. It doesn't take many men to take this path, for fear and panic, understandably, to grip populations. Two Conrad novels powerfully evoke the times, albeit from a conservative perspective, 'Under western eyes' and 'The secret agent'.

I don't see the link with the idea of hell. Did hell really put people off committing foul murders? Some Islamists believe in heaven, and it is the corollary of hell that justifies their act: that they themselves will go to heaven, having left the earth behind as a better place. Belief in divine imaginary places beyond our human span seems to help fuel such things, rather than deter them.

This is same as the copycat suicide effect.

The question is how do we limit such news events without interfering with freedom of the press.

I don't think a belief in hell deters criminal acts in the absence of a valued peer group that promotes such a belief. Anyone who is pushing hellfire and damnation is not a part of my peer group. Not being recognized or valued, as part of a social unit, is also part of the problem.

The United States suicide belt is explained as comprising mostly 'lonely white men with access to guns'.

It's a pity society doesn't believe in hell any more. — Wayfarer

Quite, but it's also a pity God created anything or anyone at all, such that he also created a hell to house his disobedient creatures. A tangent, but I couldn't help but saying it.

And yet it does resemble the wave of anarchist terrorism in the late 19th century. — mcdoodle

None of this is exculpatory, but it is important to remember that Europe hasn't been all sweetness and light since the death of Hitler in 1945.

Let's not forget the Baader-Meinhof Gang, AKA the Red Army Faction and the Revolutionary Cells of the late 20th century.

[edited text from Wikipedia following] They engaged in a series of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, bank robberies, and shoot-outs with police over the course of three decades. Their activity peaked in late 1977, which led to a national crisis that became known as the "German Autumn." The RAF has been held responsible for thirty-four deaths as well as many injuries throughout its almost thirty years of activity. Although better-known, the RAF conducted fewer attacks than the Revolutionary Cells (German: Revolutionäre Zellen, RZ), which is held responsible for 296 bomb attacks, arson and other attacks between 1973 and 1995.

The Revolutionary Cells is perhaps most famous internationally for hijacking an Air France flight in cooperation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations and diverting it to Uganda's Entebbe Airport, where they were granted temporary asylum until their deaths during Operation Entebbe, a hostage rescue mission carried out by commandos of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) at Entebbe Airport in Uganda on 4 July 1976.[4]

There were also a few bombs set off in Great Britain over the course of 30 years.

"According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster,[6] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people during the Troubles up to 2001. This figure includes 'republican' killings not attributed to any group. It is just under half of the total deaths in the conflict. Of that figure..." [Wikipedia]'

France was at war with Algeria:

"Though exact death tolls don’t exist, there are estimates that hundreds of thousands to more than a million Algerian Muslims died in the war, with tens of thousands of French military and civilians perishing in the conflict" before the ceasefire in 1962. (Life Magazine)

I'm reminded of the war games atmosphere created by the two Bush presidents in the "Highway of Death" and "Shock & Awe". I never expected more of Dubya, but I was quite disconcerted by the elder Bush's actions.

Actually today's news is that the Munich killer had a fixation with mass murders and the Norwegian Brevik in particular, which kind of confirms what I am saying, not that this gives me any joy whatever.

The aside about 'hell' is that in the case, at least, of ideologically-motivated jihadis - and this latest atrocity was not one of them - they often claim to be 'going to paradise' as a consequence of martyrdom. So if the sheiks and mullahs really managed to convince them that, no, they're actually going to hell instead, then I don't see why, for people with those belief systems, that ought not to be a disincentive. (Obviously, for those who don't believe in hell it's an empty threat. And I don't believe that religion causes more evil than good, that is another meme I haven't bought into.)

Anyway, my point here is more about the fact that some acts of mass murder are not motivated by political ideology, but carried out by crazed individuals who are copying what they've seen in the media. The behaviour is becoming normalised; it's like a 'life choice' for a particular kind of disturbed mentality, simply because it is happening so often. A truly vicious cycle.

Access to guns is surely a factor. I noticed that there have been some mass murder outbreaks in China in the last couple of years but always involving weapons other than guns. That is a whole other issue, though.

my point here is more about the fact that some acts of mass murder are not motivated by political ideology, but carried out by crazed individuals who are copying what they've seen in the media. The behaviour is becoming normalised; it's like a 'life choice' for a particular — Wayfarer

I think you are right: Some mass murderers are not motivated by any ideology at all, but are the result of rationally disordered thinking. The murder of children at Sandy Hook Elementary falls into this category. Various other violent outbreaks were of similar origin. (It seems like these are more common in the US. I suspect this is owning to Americans being less ideological, not crazier. Europeans are at least as crazy as everybody else.

Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) however, seems to have been an ideologically motivated bomber.

As to whether mass killing is becoming normalized, no. An aberration in behavior that appears more often than we would like is still abnormal. The action of a disordered mind isn't "normalized".

A better example of normalization would be politically oriented bombing such as the IRA conducted in Great Britain. Bombs weren't the only weapons the IRA used, but they used then a lot for 30 years. Bombs have the advantage of separating the bomber safely from the explosion (if all goes according to plan) and even of warning the occupants of a bomb about to blow up. Gunman can't shoot and not be present, and so far as I know at least, no gunman has warned a city that 10 to 100 people will be shot later that day, or in 15 minutes. Surprise is a critical component

Of course, people can mix disordered thinking and ideology. Sometimes that seems like a given.

I don't mean 'normalized' in the sense of 'made acceptable'. What I mean is that, for those deranged minds that are pre-disposed to dreadful violence, the frequency of the events means that it presents itself as a possibility for them. It is easily incorporated into their overall life plan, never mind how warped and futile that is. And because there's no conception, in modern culture, of an afterlife, then there is no possibility in their minds that they will face any consequences. Part of the attraction is that they cease to exist, but will go out knowing that they've become famous, even if they're dead by the time that happens.

Obama he lamented at a press conference after a mass shooting, the fact of how routine it was for him to be addressing the media about yet another atrocity, about how it had become almost 'business as usual'.

I think the moral is: one has to be careful what thoughts are entertained or 'played host to'.

A meme (as Dawkins envisioned it) is a sort of cultural unit that survives by virtue of being selected. At first glance, it looks like the mass-killing meme kills its host and so should disappear quickly like Ebola does.

I think this signals to us that it's not mass killing that is meme-like. It's our endless fascination with such stuff. A question in keeping with Dawkins' adaptationist leanings would be: how is this fascination with death serving us? What's it doing for us?

Yeah maybe not a 'meme' in the technical sense (if there is one).

This recalls the grand drama of GOT with its horrendous acts like the Red Wedding and the Sept of Balor.

House of Cards is also another, where a brutal Machiavellian agent is lauded in someway as an an immoral antihero. By virtue of being free of moral constraints, accepting whatever the consequence may be, such elite figures move forward, conquer and reshape the world via cunning acts of murder.

"History is a bath of blood." William James

Some of us harbor re-sentiment against the performative power of knowing as it is expressed via elite figures here. It's comparable to the performative power of being rich, or having functioning kidneys.

If that resentment is akin to a flame and it happens to exist next to a powder keg, then an explosion may occur.

Events of mass killings as reported through the news remind us of our own resentment, however irrational, absurd or unfounded that resentment might be.

Yeah maybe not a 'meme' in the technical sense (if there is one). — Wayfarer

Hmm. So a more vague sense (if there is one).

also because of alliteration :)

I think the kinds of acts I'm referring to aren't Machivellian, because they don't serve any end. They're surely an expression of id, in the Freudian sense - purely destructive expressions of hatred, rage and frustration. Frank Underwood is evil but in a different way - to achieve his ends, in the search of power.

Again, politically-motivated terrorism is not quite the same, although ISIS comes close - I recall it said that Al Queda split from ISIS because it thought they were too violent! (and that's saying something.)

Overall, I think the media has to moderate its coverage of these atrocities. Of course they have to be reported but I think their coverage ought to be more quotidian and less sensationalist.

The media won't do much. Have you ever considered that instilling fear in a population makes the ruling of them all that much easier. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Fortunately, not the entire world shares the US' view of governance.

A Columbine-style mass killing is a side-effect of the existence of firearms. As one of our lawyer buddies explained, it takes less aggression to kill with a gun than with a machete.

The fact that we're shocked and appalled by it is excellent news. It means we aren't in the Soviet Union during the 1950's. Historians tell us that during that period everybody in Russia must have known somebody who had disappeared to a death/labor camp. We enjoy a fabulous naivete.

That movie Baader-Meinhof Complex was so good.

Fortunately, not the entire world shares the US' view of governance.

or gun ownership.

'Robert Heimberger, president of the Bavarian state crime office, said material found at the [Munich] gunman's home suggested he was an avid player of violent video games who purchased his weapon – a reactivated Glock 17 pistol – on the so-called dark net.'

Nice truck-murderer — Wayfarer

Didn't seem very nice to me.

or gun ownership. — Wayfarer

I don't fully understand this comment. We are seeing terrorist acts in the US where there are limited gun restrictions and in Germany where there is significant gun restriction.

The "meme" theory of politics, mass murder, etc. doesn't really explain anything, and it doesn't open any avenues towards the solution to what you or I identify as problematic behavior.

Is Pokemon Go a meme, a fad, a commercially successful game, a conspiracy, or an illusion? I don't know. Haven't played it. But if it were to be identified as a meme, what could you do about it?

Since when do guns cause violence? They don't; but, make it all the more easier to conduct murders on a mass scale.

Would one want TNT to be made available OTC? I mean TNT is inherently not violent...

Here are some facts about 'domestic' gun deaths in the USA, vs death because of other causes including terrorism.

The "meme" theory of politics, mass murder, etc. doesn't really explain anything, and it doesn't open any avenues towards the solution to what you or I identify as problematic behavior. — BitterCrank

I didn't really pose it as a theory, except for to point out that there is definitely an element of imitation involved in many of these events. The Munich killer, for instance, was obsessed with violent video games, and also with the Anders Brehvik killings. So it wasn't difficult for him to act out those fantasies, I would think, because he had been rehearsing them for a long while, and even practising online.

What can you do about it? It's very difficult. I think it's a symptom of a degenerate phase in human history. You can guard your own mind and try and educate your own children as far as possible, but there are many violent images, games, means of violence, and so on, and its extremely hard to tackle that problem at the root, I would think.

Explosives are inherently violent -- that's what explosives are for -- to produce a violent release of energy, to blow things up. Guns and bullets are also inherently violent. Pulling the trigger causes the rapid release of energy which drives a metal object down the barrel and out, more or less in a straight line, which is a convenient way of killing somebody.

Being violent doesn't make TNT and guns/ammo bad things; it just means they are violent, and not neutral objects. If you carve a small gun shape out of a bar of ivory soap -- that's not a violent object. It's a carved bar of soap.

Products are messages. Handing out condoms in a bar conveys several messages to a patron: you are a sexual person; you might have sex tonight (or soon); you should use condoms. Handing out guns before a riot would convey a much different message: people threaten you; you need to defend yourself (or you need to go on the offensive); guns are effective methods of defense or attack (whether they are or not...). Shoot, shoot to kill. Condoms and guns, as objects, convey very specific messages. Most products carry some sort of message.

We buy stuff because, among other reasons, the objects carry messages about us, the buyers, that we wish to associate ourselves with. A very small gun that fits nicely in a woman's purse carries a different message than a double barreled shotgun. An expensive electronic gadget (instead of an economical model) usually says something about how we value ourselves. "Oh, no; I really need the function and pizzazz of a really fine mobile phone. Pulling out a cheap phone at a conference just doesn't cut it."

You're talking about endowing inherently inanimate objects with meaning. That's a human thing to do.

But, I would have to agree that guns don't kill people, people do. So, if people are the problem then remove the tools that would enhance their killing capacity (if they're in such a state of mind). Obviously, we're talking about a perfect world; but, not impossible.

'People with guns' can, and do, kill many more people, than guns without people, or people without guns. Anyone who says anything different has bought the gun industry hype.

Since when do guns cause violence? They don't; but, make it all the more easier to conduct murders on a mass scale.

Would one want TNT to be made available OTC? I mean TNT is inherently not violent... — Question

My point only was that you can't blame the rash of terrorist violence we're now seeing on the lenient gun control laws in the US, considering Munich isn't in the US.