What do you think?
Rate this book
Kouluampujat: miksi nuori tappaa?
Yli kaksikymmentä vuotta terapeuttina toiminut ja koulusurmatapauksia hoitanut Peter Langman profi loi kymmenen kouluampujaa. Käänteentekevä analyysi löytää kolme potentiaalisen koulusurmaajan tyyppiä: narsistis-sadistinen, vainoharhainen ja hallusinoiva sekä hyväksikäytetty ja traumatisoitunut.
Langman vastaa kysymykseen, millaisia persoonallisuuksia ovat viattomien nuorten ampujat, ja missä kasvattajat ovat menneet kohtalokkaasti vikaan. Kirja antaa ohjeet potentiaalisen koulusurmaajan tunnistamiseksi ja vaaratilanteiden ennaltaehkäisemiseksi - vanhemmille, kasvattajille, opettajille, koulutovereille.
Langman vastaa kysymykseen, millaisia persoonallisuuksia ovat viattomien nuorten ampujat, ja missä kasvattajat ovat menneet kohtalokkaasti vikaan. Kirja antaa ohjeet potentiaalisen koulusurmaajan tunnistamiseksi ja vaaratilanteiden ennaltaehkäisemiseksi - vanhemmille, kasvattajille, opettajille, koulutovereille.
321 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
155 people are currently reading
3274 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews
April 23, 2009
I honestly am not sure where to begin with this book. In books of this nature, the authors too often fall prey to "cherry-picking" their quotes in order to prove whatever points they wish to push. Columbine Shooter Eric Harris left a wealth of essays, journal entries, and other writings, and it's easy to pull out a few "psycho-like" quotes and "prove" that the reason Harris killed was that he's a psychopath. Nice and easy for the world, since that takes everyone off the hook: his parents, his friends, his school, and society in general. If he's a psychopath, than no one is in any way responsible for "creating" him, and isn't that just a comfortable thought?
But the fact is, that for every Harris-quote that demonstrates a cold-blooded, unsympathetic killer who only hates and doesn't care about anyone but himself, I can show a quote showing a more complex side. This is a boy who plotted to blow up his school, but he's also a boy who cried when he thought of what his actions would do to his parents. This is a boy who killed humans, but couldn't stand the thought of anyone abusing an animal. This is a boy who listed "compassion" as the trait he thought most valuable - hardly what a psychopath would say. This is a boy who could kill because he thought all of mankind - including himself - were useless, weak, and evil. You have to wonder (if you aren't convinced by the only semi-rational arguments of "experts" such as the author of this book) how Harris' life could have ended differently if someone had paid attention to what was really going wrong in his world.
And on the issue of bullying:
In the opening chapter of this book, the author states that, contrary to "myth", the shooters were not bullied. He then goes on to clarify that bullying, as he "uses the term" does not mean anything but actual repeated physical violence, accompanied by a real threat to the victim's life. Excuse me? This psychologist is actually redefining bullying? There are many, many established ways a child can be bullied, and physical violence is only one of them. Experts have proven, over and over, the effect name-calling has on children. For example, people are becoming more aware of how girls' lives are ruined by the bullying of other girls; bullying that rarely includes physical violence, yet can lead to suicide by the victims. Throughout the book, this author continually repeats that the shooters were not bullied. It in only in the final chapters, that the author mentions the shooters were "teased". Teased...such a friendly word, compared with "bullied". He says that Eric Harris (who had a chest defect) was "teased in gym class". A couple of pages over, he mentions other shooters being "teased" and states:
"If you already feel like a reject and a failure, any experiences that support those feelings will be magnified in your mind. Thus, the issue is not simply that the shooters were sometimes teased or rejected but that they were highly vulnerable, and therefore highly reactive, to these experiences."
A few pages over, he had this to say: "Being teased caused the shooters shame and humiliation....they felt the shame of it deeply. In response to this shame, they became full of rage at their peers."
Okay, so apparently he does believe that the "teasing" and "rejection" had profound effect on the shooters - even going so far as to implicate it as a cause of the shooters' rage - but he still won't admit it was bullying?
This book has some interesting material/ideas in it, but with its biased nature and serious defects, it should not taken as the final "truth" on Columbine or any of the other school shootings.
But the fact is, that for every Harris-quote that demonstrates a cold-blooded, unsympathetic killer who only hates and doesn't care about anyone but himself, I can show a quote showing a more complex side. This is a boy who plotted to blow up his school, but he's also a boy who cried when he thought of what his actions would do to his parents. This is a boy who killed humans, but couldn't stand the thought of anyone abusing an animal. This is a boy who listed "compassion" as the trait he thought most valuable - hardly what a psychopath would say. This is a boy who could kill because he thought all of mankind - including himself - were useless, weak, and evil. You have to wonder (if you aren't convinced by the only semi-rational arguments of "experts" such as the author of this book) how Harris' life could have ended differently if someone had paid attention to what was really going wrong in his world.
And on the issue of bullying:
In the opening chapter of this book, the author states that, contrary to "myth", the shooters were not bullied. He then goes on to clarify that bullying, as he "uses the term" does not mean anything but actual repeated physical violence, accompanied by a real threat to the victim's life. Excuse me? This psychologist is actually redefining bullying? There are many, many established ways a child can be bullied, and physical violence is only one of them. Experts have proven, over and over, the effect name-calling has on children. For example, people are becoming more aware of how girls' lives are ruined by the bullying of other girls; bullying that rarely includes physical violence, yet can lead to suicide by the victims. Throughout the book, this author continually repeats that the shooters were not bullied. It in only in the final chapters, that the author mentions the shooters were "teased". Teased...such a friendly word, compared with "bullied". He says that Eric Harris (who had a chest defect) was "teased in gym class". A couple of pages over, he mentions other shooters being "teased" and states:
"If you already feel like a reject and a failure, any experiences that support those feelings will be magnified in your mind. Thus, the issue is not simply that the shooters were sometimes teased or rejected but that they were highly vulnerable, and therefore highly reactive, to these experiences."
A few pages over, he had this to say: "Being teased caused the shooters shame and humiliation....they felt the shame of it deeply. In response to this shame, they became full of rage at their peers."
Okay, so apparently he does believe that the "teasing" and "rejection" had profound effect on the shooters - even going so far as to implicate it as a cause of the shooters' rage - but he still won't admit it was bullying?
This book has some interesting material/ideas in it, but with its biased nature and serious defects, it should not taken as the final "truth" on Columbine or any of the other school shootings.
August 3, 2016
I found this book to be utterly fascinating. I think that in order to benefit from reading this book, you have to be aware of what the author is trying to do. He seems to be getting a lot of heat for not focusing on bullying as a cause of the school rampages, but he is very clear from the first chapter that his focus will be on the psychological aspects of the shooters and not on the sociological. This isn’t really surprising since he is a trained psychologist, and he is speaking from his experience as having studied the school shooters as a psychologist. This dismissal of commonly held beliefs can seem cursory, because he doesn’t put much effort in explaining or defending his dismissal, and I can see how that could rub some people the wrong way. However, the view he does provide into the psychological makeup of shooters is invaluable.
The book is well-organized. The first half is spent on a comprehensive examination of the eight children and two young adults (Eric Harris and Seung-Hui Cho had both reached the age of majority) who were school shooters. They are put into 3 subtypes that are admittedly not mutually exclusive, so Langman makes some fine distinctions to justify why he categorized some as belonging in one subset or the other. One of the things that I find so educational about this book is that he takes us along on this thought process. This book is written for laymen in order to help them understand the process of looking at information about school shooters as a proactive step to preventing the creation (or at least consummation) of more.
There was one outlier in the bunch: Dylan Klebold, who cannot be categorized as full-on psychotic although he is put in the psychotic subset. He gets an entire chapter to himself. I think it’s a good reminder that psychology is not an exact science where people will fall neatly into their categories. However, the one mistake I caught in the book had to do with Klebold. Langman claims that all five psychotic shooters had higher functioning siblings who were the “golden children” of the families. Having read Sue Klebold’s book A Mother's Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy this year, I know that Dylan’s brother was not the golden child in the family. Dylan was the golden child. Of course, this information may not have been available to Langman at the time of publication. It doesn’t change my view of his efficacy as an expert, it’s just another asterisk which will have to put into place to fit Klebold in.
I enjoyed reading the psychological profiles. Looking at what makes these children different from their peers (sadism, anger, being highly reactive, injustice collecting, looking for power) is important information to disseminate. As a former teacher, I was often stumped by the behavior of students, and our training in psychological warning signs was non-existent. (My training was post-Columbine.) I found chapter seven to be most helpful in that Langman evaluates several potential school shooters and explains what signs are truly worrisome. Chapter eight is a practical guide for parents, schools, and peers.
This is a very important book which provides a lot of insight into psychology that can be easily understood by laymen. His examples are very helpful and the inclusion of his thinking processes are what makes this book so worthwhile.
The book is well-organized. The first half is spent on a comprehensive examination of the eight children and two young adults (Eric Harris and Seung-Hui Cho had both reached the age of majority) who were school shooters. They are put into 3 subtypes that are admittedly not mutually exclusive, so Langman makes some fine distinctions to justify why he categorized some as belonging in one subset or the other. One of the things that I find so educational about this book is that he takes us along on this thought process. This book is written for laymen in order to help them understand the process of looking at information about school shooters as a proactive step to preventing the creation (or at least consummation) of more.
There was one outlier in the bunch: Dylan Klebold, who cannot be categorized as full-on psychotic although he is put in the psychotic subset. He gets an entire chapter to himself. I think it’s a good reminder that psychology is not an exact science where people will fall neatly into their categories. However, the one mistake I caught in the book had to do with Klebold. Langman claims that all five psychotic shooters had higher functioning siblings who were the “golden children” of the families. Having read Sue Klebold’s book A Mother's Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy this year, I know that Dylan’s brother was not the golden child in the family. Dylan was the golden child. Of course, this information may not have been available to Langman at the time of publication. It doesn’t change my view of his efficacy as an expert, it’s just another asterisk which will have to put into place to fit Klebold in.
I enjoyed reading the psychological profiles. Looking at what makes these children different from their peers (sadism, anger, being highly reactive, injustice collecting, looking for power) is important information to disseminate. As a former teacher, I was often stumped by the behavior of students, and our training in psychological warning signs was non-existent. (My training was post-Columbine.) I found chapter seven to be most helpful in that Langman evaluates several potential school shooters and explains what signs are truly worrisome. Chapter eight is a practical guide for parents, schools, and peers.
This is a very important book which provides a lot of insight into psychology that can be easily understood by laymen. His examples are very helpful and the inclusion of his thinking processes are what makes this book so worthwhile.
August 10, 2010
Why Kids Kill is a useful and informative book on the psychological foundations of rampage school shooters, but I would hesitate to categorize it as "a breakthrough analysis of the psychological causes of school shootings." Beyond the obvious fact that no objective observer can truly know what young mass murderers like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, or Seung Hui Cho were thinking, Dr. Langman's investigative resources are rather limited. For one thing, he chooses to examine only a small sub-set of school shooters (ten in all, varying in age from 11 to 23), of whom only a few left behind personal writings that helped reveal the depths of their psychological torment. Furthermore, most of the ten shooters took their own lives and could not be psychologically analyzed after the fact, and the author has not interviewed any of those surviving shooters personally. That being said, Langman does succeed quite well in extrapolating useful insights from his study and does a convincing job of classifying the shooters under three different typologies. This information is then enhanced by his own personal experience working with (and needing to identify) potential school shooters sent to him for professional analysis. Finally, although it doesn't fall under the main scope of his study, he lays out a number of useful suggestions for teachers, administrators, parents, students, and others to assist them in looking for the warning signs of potential shooters in need of psychological help.
I must admit I was a little disappointed in Langman's analysis of the ten school shooters he chose to examine in this study. Some of this material seemed repetitive, as Langman's summaries tend to just repeat the disparate information he had assembled on each individual (which, I must admit, is largely due to the fact that he oftentimes had to rely on secondhand information). That being said, Langman does do an impressive job of classifying these various shooters into three different typologies: the psychopathic, the psychotic, and the traumatized. He lays out his definition of these three groupings quite clearly and does a good job of demonstrating the differences between them, particularly in terms of how they see themselves, their peers, and the world. Perhaps ironically, the Columbine killers serve as the best examples of the psychopathic (Eric Harris) and the psychotic (Klebold), largely because they left behind a lot of revealing videos, journals, short stories, and other writings. The traumatized school shooters would seem to be the most understandable of the three types, given the kinds of long-term abuse that defined their young lives, but there are some rather strange complexities at play here, as well.
One of the first points that Langman makes is that we must look beyond the sound bite to understand the psychology of school shooters. Much of what the media report at the time of a shooting is speculative and wrong. Not only is it overly simplistic to describe these school shooters as lonely boys who were bullied, it is oftentimes simply incorrect. Langman points out the fact that many of the shooters in his study did have an active social life; even a Dylan Klebold had friends, and some of the shooters were active in sports. In the same vein, there was little evidence that some of them were bullied or made fun of to any significant degree - although some of them may have felt that way due to psychological problems such as paranoia, hyper-sensitivity, and a horrible self-image. A few of these shooters were, in fact, bullies themselves who enjoyed exercising power over others.
One of the saddest facts about most if not all of the cases Langman examines is the fact that most of the shootings could have been prevented if individuals in the young mens' lives would have seen the many warning signs and acted on them properly. In several cases, other students knew that something was going to happen - and in a couple of cases, friends and relatives actually egged the boys on, essentially convincing one boy to kill others rather than simply kill himself. In one case, school policies were ignored because the kid who brought a loaded gun to school one day was the son of a teacher - that boy went home and killed his parents, then came back to school the next day and shot four people, killing the principal and a teacher. These sorts of tragedies can be avoided, according to Langman (even the psychopath is not a lost cause) - but only if society knows how to recognize the warning signs of the potential shooter and follows through in getting that individual the psychological help he needs. His suggestions on how to go about doing that make this book a particularly important read.
I must admit I was a little disappointed in Langman's analysis of the ten school shooters he chose to examine in this study. Some of this material seemed repetitive, as Langman's summaries tend to just repeat the disparate information he had assembled on each individual (which, I must admit, is largely due to the fact that he oftentimes had to rely on secondhand information). That being said, Langman does do an impressive job of classifying these various shooters into three different typologies: the psychopathic, the psychotic, and the traumatized. He lays out his definition of these three groupings quite clearly and does a good job of demonstrating the differences between them, particularly in terms of how they see themselves, their peers, and the world. Perhaps ironically, the Columbine killers serve as the best examples of the psychopathic (Eric Harris) and the psychotic (Klebold), largely because they left behind a lot of revealing videos, journals, short stories, and other writings. The traumatized school shooters would seem to be the most understandable of the three types, given the kinds of long-term abuse that defined their young lives, but there are some rather strange complexities at play here, as well.
One of the first points that Langman makes is that we must look beyond the sound bite to understand the psychology of school shooters. Much of what the media report at the time of a shooting is speculative and wrong. Not only is it overly simplistic to describe these school shooters as lonely boys who were bullied, it is oftentimes simply incorrect. Langman points out the fact that many of the shooters in his study did have an active social life; even a Dylan Klebold had friends, and some of the shooters were active in sports. In the same vein, there was little evidence that some of them were bullied or made fun of to any significant degree - although some of them may have felt that way due to psychological problems such as paranoia, hyper-sensitivity, and a horrible self-image. A few of these shooters were, in fact, bullies themselves who enjoyed exercising power over others.
One of the saddest facts about most if not all of the cases Langman examines is the fact that most of the shootings could have been prevented if individuals in the young mens' lives would have seen the many warning signs and acted on them properly. In several cases, other students knew that something was going to happen - and in a couple of cases, friends and relatives actually egged the boys on, essentially convincing one boy to kill others rather than simply kill himself. In one case, school policies were ignored because the kid who brought a loaded gun to school one day was the son of a teacher - that boy went home and killed his parents, then came back to school the next day and shot four people, killing the principal and a teacher. These sorts of tragedies can be avoided, according to Langman (even the psychopath is not a lost cause) - but only if society knows how to recognize the warning signs of the potential shooter and follows through in getting that individual the psychological help he needs. His suggestions on how to go about doing that make this book a particularly important read.
March 15, 2020
It is hard to imagine why Peter Langman would (or should) be considered an “expert” on school shootings based on this book. Langman’s career as a Counselling Psychologist, as opposed to a Behavioural Psychologist or a Forensic Psychiatrist, might go some lengths to explain the lack of genuine insight displayed here. Instead, Langman is all too happy to speculate repeatedly, casting his own judgments on the writings/behaviours of the shooters profiled here without sufficiently providing any comparative analysis, precedent or external opinion to back up his speculations. Furthermore, Langman is troublingly judgmental given his career vocation, describing interests in ‘bondage’ and a ‘foot fetish’ as a “disturbed sexuality”, when in reality this is regressive, hysteric point of view.
Ultimately, as myself a sociologist who has studied mass shooters, this work leaves so much to be desired and I’m ashamed that Langman’s content here might ever be considered definitive insight in to anything, let alone the topic at hand. Avoid if at all possible.
Ultimately, as myself a sociologist who has studied mass shooters, this work leaves so much to be desired and I’m ashamed that Langman’s content here might ever be considered definitive insight in to anything, let alone the topic at hand. Avoid if at all possible.
September 2, 2016
Fascinating insight into the minds of 10 school shooters ranging from 11 to 23 years of age, and 5 potential school shooters that the author has solid reasons to assume he deterred from going on with their plans. The research is sound, the information is, as much as possible, very accurate, and the book doesn't lose itself in speculations about the shooters' lives. The insight of the author - a psychiatrist himself - is very valuable to a criminology/sychology student such as myself, especially through the discussion of preventive behaviours/actions. I thoroughly enjoyed this work and hope to find more, written as cursively as this.
July 2, 2022
Джоди Пиколт с книгой «19 минут» пробудила интерес пощупать тему более подробно.
Книга несомненно дает более подробный экскурс в самые громкие кейсы стрелко��. Частично отвечает на вопрос «что же происходит с этими детьми», но для меня все равно внутри томится вопрос/убеждение - что иногда на это повлиять очень сложно.
Есть внутренняя данность, генетика в том числе, плюс внешняя среда, которая ложится на эту психику. И там коктейль Молотова рождается(((.
Важно строить близкие отношения с детьми, слушать, внимать, замечать. Ну и лечить тоже во время если это нужно.
Книга несомненно дает более подробный экскурс в самые громкие кейсы стрелко��. Частично отвечает на вопрос «что же происходит с этими детьми», но для меня все равно внутри томится вопрос/убеждение - что иногда на это повлиять очень сложно.
Есть внутренняя данность, генетика в том числе, плюс внешняя среда, которая ложится на эту психику. И там коктейль Молотова рождается(((.
Важно строить близкие отношения с детьми, слушать, внимать, замечать. Ну и лечить тоже во время если это нужно.
May 31, 2020
Tämä oli mielenkiintoinen katsaus psyyken pimeälle puolelle. Kouluampumiset ovat suuria ja poikkeuksellisia tragedioita, joten on tärkeää pyrkiä ymmärtämään, mikä ajaa nuoren tällaiseen tekoon. Langman on aiheeseen erikoistunut psykologi, joka pyrkii valottamaan näitä tekijöitä. Teoksessa käsitellään kymmenen tapausta, jotka on jaettu kolmeen eri luokkaan: psykopaattiset, psykoottiset ja traumatisoituneet kouluampujat.
Opin, että harvoin syynä on kosto kiusaajille. Ja että ampumiset tapahtuvat usein pienillä paikkakunnilla, joissa on tiukat sosiaaliset normit. Ja että ampujat eivät ole aina huonoista oloista, vaan monesti jopa täysin normaaleista perheistä - harvoin ampujat ovat myöskään täysin eristäytyneitä. Sen sijaan harhaluuloisuus, minäkuvan sirpaleisuus, toivottomuus tulevaisuudesta ja empatian (ajoittainenkin) puute vaikuttavat merkittävästi.
Teos korostaa, että kaikki psykopaatit, psykoottiset tai traumatisoituneet nuoret eivät ole kouluampujia: nämä eivät siis ole selittäviä tekijöitä. Esimerkiksi skitsofreniaa sairastavat eivät ole tilastollisesti yhtään väkivaltaisempia kuin muutkaan. Tällaiseen tekoon vaaditaan useita erilaisia tekijöitä, jotka yhdistyessään saavat aikaan karmeita seurauksia.
Lukiessa häiritsi kirjoittajan rajoittunut suhtautuminen seksuaalisuuteen (viattomatkin fetissit olivat hänestä häiriintynyttä seksuaalisuutta) ja puolusteleva suhtautuminen Amerikan aselakeihin (vaikka hän myöntääkin, että ilman aseita tällaista ei tapahtuisi - eikä aseiden vapaa saatavuus ole selittäjä, vaan mahdollistaja). Paikoin koin myös, että analyysit olivat melko spekulatiivisella pohjalla. Sen sijaan mielenkiintoisena yllätyksenä itselleni tuli, kuinka paljon esim. päiväkirjoissa käytetystä kielestä voi päätellä tekijän psyykestä.
Tämä ei ollut kovin kevyttä luettavaa, mutta äärimmäisen mielenkiintoista. Suosittelen, jos tosielämän mörkötarinat ja ihmisyyden pimeä puoli kiinnostaa.
Opin, että harvoin syynä on kosto kiusaajille. Ja että ampumiset tapahtuvat usein pienillä paikkakunnilla, joissa on tiukat sosiaaliset normit. Ja että ampujat eivät ole aina huonoista oloista, vaan monesti jopa täysin normaaleista perheistä - harvoin ampujat ovat myöskään täysin eristäytyneitä. Sen sijaan harhaluuloisuus, minäkuvan sirpaleisuus, toivottomuus tulevaisuudesta ja empatian (ajoittainenkin) puute vaikuttavat merkittävästi.
Teos korostaa, että kaikki psykopaatit, psykoottiset tai traumatisoituneet nuoret eivät ole kouluampujia: nämä eivät siis ole selittäviä tekijöitä. Esimerkiksi skitsofreniaa sairastavat eivät ole tilastollisesti yhtään väkivaltaisempia kuin muutkaan. Tällaiseen tekoon vaaditaan useita erilaisia tekijöitä, jotka yhdistyessään saavat aikaan karmeita seurauksia.
Lukiessa häiritsi kirjoittajan rajoittunut suhtautuminen seksuaalisuuteen (viattomatkin fetissit olivat hänestä häiriintynyttä seksuaalisuutta) ja puolusteleva suhtautuminen Amerikan aselakeihin (vaikka hän myöntääkin, että ilman aseita tällaista ei tapahtuisi - eikä aseiden vapaa saatavuus ole selittäjä, vaan mahdollistaja). Paikoin koin myös, että analyysit olivat melko spekulatiivisella pohjalla. Sen sijaan mielenkiintoisena yllätyksenä itselleni tuli, kuinka paljon esim. päiväkirjoissa käytetystä kielestä voi päätellä tekijän psyykestä.
Tämä ei ollut kovin kevyttä luettavaa, mutta äärimmäisen mielenkiintoista. Suosittelen, jos tosielämän mörkötarinat ja ihmisyyden pimeä puoli kiinnostaa.
September 25, 2020
I feel like this book leaves a lot unsaid.
It’s well-researched, don’t get me wrong, and it’s quite a chilling experience, but… with ten “case studies”, I felt roughly 200 pages (discounting the introduction, roughly 10-15 short pages each) simply wasn’t enough to present a comprehensive picture. I can’t really phrase it in a way any clearer than this: the book felt both like a collection of true crime snippets AND a serious psychological profile, and due to the prevalence of elements of both, I felt it wasn’t entirely successful in becoming either.
I think the three categories into which the author so neatly divided his very small sample group (which he too admitted in the text wasn’t exhaustive) were somewhat reductive, and it sounds morbid, but I couldn’t help but feel like both the categories and the people (or quotes, instances, thoughts) picked to discuss were almost designed to fit. No exceptions, no real overlaps, and with how varied these shooters tend to be, I simply could not be convinced in such a short summary that in this regard, they are uniform.
I know the book never claimed to be a definitive guide, but mostly due to the diminutive length of it, I wasn’t entirely certain what it WAS trying to accomplish. It was an enjoyable read, it provided some insight, and it did a lot of things right (I especially enjoyed the first portion which emphasized that there is no recipe to a school shooter as some tend to believe, but that a great number of factors all work in tandem to contribute in unequal parts to the forming of a killer- which point it almost seemed to try to contradict to a degree later on, when discussing traumatized shooters), but I don’t think I’ll be referring back to it in the future very much.
It’s well-researched, don’t get me wrong, and it’s quite a chilling experience, but… with ten “case studies”, I felt roughly 200 pages (discounting the introduction, roughly 10-15 short pages each) simply wasn’t enough to present a comprehensive picture. I can’t really phrase it in a way any clearer than this: the book felt both like a collection of true crime snippets AND a serious psychological profile, and due to the prevalence of elements of both, I felt it wasn’t entirely successful in becoming either.
I think the three categories into which the author so neatly divided his very small sample group (which he too admitted in the text wasn’t exhaustive) were somewhat reductive, and it sounds morbid, but I couldn’t help but feel like both the categories and the people (or quotes, instances, thoughts) picked to discuss were almost designed to fit. No exceptions, no real overlaps, and with how varied these shooters tend to be, I simply could not be convinced in such a short summary that in this regard, they are uniform.
I know the book never claimed to be a definitive guide, but mostly due to the diminutive length of it, I wasn’t entirely certain what it WAS trying to accomplish. It was an enjoyable read, it provided some insight, and it did a lot of things right (I especially enjoyed the first portion which emphasized that there is no recipe to a school shooter as some tend to believe, but that a great number of factors all work in tandem to contribute in unequal parts to the forming of a killer- which point it almost seemed to try to contradict to a degree later on, when discussing traumatized shooters), but I don’t think I’ll be referring back to it in the future very much.
September 23, 2023
Messy and a incredibly bad narrator
August 15, 2025
WHY KIDS KILL looks at the hearts and minds of young adult school shooters including Dylan Keilbold and Kip Kinkle. Dr Peter Langman, who evaluates adolescents, identifies three subtypes of there shooters—psychotic, suicidal and psychopathalogical.
Eric Harris who spearheaded the Columbine murders is identified as a psychopath, able to mimic the emotions of others without feeling them. He never felt remorse, but could fake it as evidenced by the experiences of adults in authority and his journals mocking how he fooled them. Dylan, was suicidal for years before the crimes. His journals showed vulnerability and a desire to fit in. Without Harris’s influence he’d likely never have killed others when he decided to kill himself. Eric, on the other hand, likely still would have without a partner.
Kip Kinkle had auditory hallucinations. He exhibited signs of paranoia and Langman identified him as psychotic. Had Kip received adequate treatment, he may never have killed. Decades after his murders, he shows remorse and maintains a relationship with his sister despite having killed their parents too.
Langman never excuses the killers or offers mental illness of abuse as justification for murder. The purpose of WHY KIDS KILL is to evoke discussion as to prevention, not by controlling guns or more security, but by identifying teens who are potential shooters to help them. He doesn’t believe punishment by suspending kids who make threats protects kids. Instead Langman believes this further isolates the potential threat. He argues that suspended kids, like Kinkle, have still perpetrated mass shootings.
Eric Harris who spearheaded the Columbine murders is identified as a psychopath, able to mimic the emotions of others without feeling them. He never felt remorse, but could fake it as evidenced by the experiences of adults in authority and his journals mocking how he fooled them. Dylan, was suicidal for years before the crimes. His journals showed vulnerability and a desire to fit in. Without Harris’s influence he’d likely never have killed others when he decided to kill himself. Eric, on the other hand, likely still would have without a partner.
Kip Kinkle had auditory hallucinations. He exhibited signs of paranoia and Langman identified him as psychotic. Had Kip received adequate treatment, he may never have killed. Decades after his murders, he shows remorse and maintains a relationship with his sister despite having killed their parents too.
Langman never excuses the killers or offers mental illness of abuse as justification for murder. The purpose of WHY KIDS KILL is to evoke discussion as to prevention, not by controlling guns or more security, but by identifying teens who are potential shooters to help them. He doesn’t believe punishment by suspending kids who make threats protects kids. Instead Langman believes this further isolates the potential threat. He argues that suspended kids, like Kinkle, have still perpetrated mass shootings.
March 3, 2023
School shootings, and mass shootings in general, have been on the rise in recent years. I was in sixth grade when the shooting at Columbine happened. That was the first mention of a school shooting that I had ever heard of, and now there are so many people just seem to shrug the news off. The actual events are traumatic and heartbreaking, but it is equally heartbreaking that people are not even shocked by it. It is really just a matter of time before it happens in every single community throughout the country. People debate the reasons and motivations behind these shootings, and immediately jump to mental illness. Very clearly something has disturbed these people to the point that they think this particular action is the way to go. There is certainly some level of mental disturbance here. Bullying is also offered up as a reason people do these things, and I am sure that in at least some of the cases, that does play a part. People reach a breaking point. (We could all be a little more educated about things and kinder as well.) This book offers some insight into the psychological reasons that school shooters get to the point of shooting up the schools, as well as the warning signs to look for.
There is a desperate need for gun reform in the United States, but people hear that and start screaming about the government wanting to take guns away. There should be wait periods. There should be background checks. There should be licensing required. There should be age limits. There are a lot of small changes that could be made or improved upon to help combat this situation. One of the main issues is irresponsibility. I live in the South. I have lived in a house with guns every day of my life. They were kept up. We were taught about guns and gun safety. (I have never used one, but I knew early on that they were dangerous.) A lot of people leave them laying out and there are so many gun injuries beyond school shooting because people are irresponsible with them. The ease of access is a problem. We should be more vigilant. We should be more aware of our surroundings and the people in them. We should be saying something when we see something questionable, and when we do say something, authority figures and peers need to take it seriously!!
This was a short book, less than 200 pages. It was also a fairly short listen on Audible, and is currently available on Audible Plus for those of you who are Audible members. The reviews on this book are full of hot takes, which I expected. This is a hot button issue. I appreciated the warning signs to look out for. I think that this book offers up some really good talking points about this topic that can be discussed with your children. This was not my favorite book of the year, or even on this topic, but I think that it has some face value that can be used for education and to start conversations that may be difficult. It is such a short read, that it is worth reading just for that alone.
There is a desperate need for gun reform in the United States, but people hear that and start screaming about the government wanting to take guns away. There should be wait periods. There should be background checks. There should be licensing required. There should be age limits. There are a lot of small changes that could be made or improved upon to help combat this situation. One of the main issues is irresponsibility. I live in the South. I have lived in a house with guns every day of my life. They were kept up. We were taught about guns and gun safety. (I have never used one, but I knew early on that they were dangerous.) A lot of people leave them laying out and there are so many gun injuries beyond school shooting because people are irresponsible with them. The ease of access is a problem. We should be more vigilant. We should be more aware of our surroundings and the people in them. We should be saying something when we see something questionable, and when we do say something, authority figures and peers need to take it seriously!!
This was a short book, less than 200 pages. It was also a fairly short listen on Audible, and is currently available on Audible Plus for those of you who are Audible members. The reviews on this book are full of hot takes, which I expected. This is a hot button issue. I appreciated the warning signs to look out for. I think that this book offers up some really good talking points about this topic that can be discussed with your children. This was not my favorite book of the year, or even on this topic, but I think that it has some face value that can be used for education and to start conversations that may be difficult. It is such a short read, that it is worth reading just for that alone.
June 10, 2018
As you can see, I started reading this book on March 22 and I did not finish it until June 2. It was quite a struggle to read for me. I felt like it was just a lot to mentally process as I was reading.
I began reading this book because I saw it on a bookshelf in my English classroom. I immediately wanted to read it because it sounded so intriguing to me. As I began reading I quickly realized how difficult this book was going to be. I personally found it to be very drawn out. I enjoyed the message behind the book along with the learning the details about all of these stories, but it was just way too long. Once I started reading though I did not want to leave the book unfinished. I knew that this was a topic that I found very interesting and it is a topic that needed to be talked about, but I had a very hard time finishing it.
This book begins with talking about how there are different types of school shooters. All of these kids do the same things, but they have many different reasons for why they did it. It goes into detail about these types of shooters and how they all differ. It was really eye-opening to me that all of these kids had different goals, but they ended up doing the same thing with the same outcome in the end. The book then goes on to talk about the similarities and differences between these kids, and a lot of them had things in common, such as home life situations and feeling like outcasts. It ends with advice on how to deal with these kids, and how to do everything very safely.
The one part I really enjoyed about this book was the advice on the end about potential school shooters. I liked this part about the book because I feel like it was a call to action. It made it made it seem like there was really something that people could do to help in these situations. A lot of people feel like there is nothing that they could do in these situations, but they want to help. In a way, it is comforting to know that there is something that you can do in these situations when it feels like someone is hopeless. All in all, I really wanted to like this book, but I just didn’t.
I began reading this book because I saw it on a bookshelf in my English classroom. I immediately wanted to read it because it sounded so intriguing to me. As I began reading I quickly realized how difficult this book was going to be. I personally found it to be very drawn out. I enjoyed the message behind the book along with the learning the details about all of these stories, but it was just way too long. Once I started reading though I did not want to leave the book unfinished. I knew that this was a topic that I found very interesting and it is a topic that needed to be talked about, but I had a very hard time finishing it.
This book begins with talking about how there are different types of school shooters. All of these kids do the same things, but they have many different reasons for why they did it. It goes into detail about these types of shooters and how they all differ. It was really eye-opening to me that all of these kids had different goals, but they ended up doing the same thing with the same outcome in the end. The book then goes on to talk about the similarities and differences between these kids, and a lot of them had things in common, such as home life situations and feeling like outcasts. It ends with advice on how to deal with these kids, and how to do everything very safely.
The one part I really enjoyed about this book was the advice on the end about potential school shooters. I liked this part about the book because I feel like it was a call to action. It made it made it seem like there was really something that people could do to help in these situations. A lot of people feel like there is nothing that they could do in these situations, but they want to help. In a way, it is comforting to know that there is something that you can do in these situations when it feels like someone is hopeless. All in all, I really wanted to like this book, but I just didn’t.
February 20, 2023
This was an interesting read.
Langman does case study examinations of 10 school shooters, dividing them into subtypes: psychotic, psychopathic, and traumatized. His focus is on the psychology of their thought process, and he uses their writings, statements by people close to them, and the facts of their actions to dig into what their internal life was like.
External factors that are usually part of the school shooter discussion (family life, bullying, violent media, etc.) take a backseat in this book. Langman goes so far as to redefine bullying as physical abuse or threats of physical abuse. "This means that being teased about one's clothes is not bullying," he says, which is straight up not true. What about all the kids that commit suicide over bullying that takes place 100% online? This would be a bigger problem except, like I said, the external factors of the shooters' lives are tertiary concerns in the book anyway.
I appreciated Langman's survey of the shooters and attempt to break them down by various similarities. The categories are hardly watertight, which he admits, and especially with shooters that didn't leave tons of written journals behind, the word "speculation" is used uncomfortably often.
Overall, this feels like a valuable work, but not a definitive one. Where is the Mindhunter team going to prisons and interviewing all the shooters that survive?
Langman does case study examinations of 10 school shooters, dividing them into subtypes: psychotic, psychopathic, and traumatized. His focus is on the psychology of their thought process, and he uses their writings, statements by people close to them, and the facts of their actions to dig into what their internal life was like.
External factors that are usually part of the school shooter discussion (family life, bullying, violent media, etc.) take a backseat in this book. Langman goes so far as to redefine bullying as physical abuse or threats of physical abuse. "This means that being teased about one's clothes is not bullying," he says, which is straight up not true. What about all the kids that commit suicide over bullying that takes place 100% online? This would be a bigger problem except, like I said, the external factors of the shooters' lives are tertiary concerns in the book anyway.
I appreciated Langman's survey of the shooters and attempt to break them down by various similarities. The categories are hardly watertight, which he admits, and especially with shooters that didn't leave tons of written journals behind, the word "speculation" is used uncomfortably often.
Overall, this feels like a valuable work, but not a definitive one. Where is the Mindhunter team going to prisons and interviewing all the shooters that survive?
July 8, 2024
More like 3.5.
Overall, it is an interesting and insightful book.
I wish the advices from the last part would be more widely used by schools and parents.
There were also a few things I didn't like about this book:
- a lot of repetition, we looked at the same stories from different perspectives, but for that things were repeated over and over again.
- in one part of the book, the diaries of the teenagers were analyzed as if they were fully aware of what they were writing, and what words they were choosing. So, nitpicking quotes from those diaries seemed strange to me.
Overall, it is an interesting and insightful book.
I wish the advices from the last part would be more widely used by schools and parents.
There were also a few things I didn't like about this book:
- a lot of repetition, we looked at the same stories from different perspectives, but for that things were repeated over and over again.
- in one part of the book, the diaries of the teenagers were analyzed as if they were fully aware of what they were writing, and what words they were choosing. So, nitpicking quotes from those diaries seemed strange to me.
July 7, 2021
Brilliant side-by-side comparisons of major school shooters. The mental illness is the most causal--but like psychopathy, not just depression. I've been depressed all my life and I haven't killed anyone.
Read
July 6, 2022No rating bc how does one rate facts, but this was so informative and interesting! Also loved the way it was written in a really engaging way!
May 3, 2023
Psykopaatti, psykoosi tai trauma. Siinäpä ne. Kuitenkin turhan spekulatiivinen ja tirkistelevä. Mutta toki tirkistely on aina kivaa.
January 20, 2023
An oddly composed book that seemed to jump to conclusions or jumble up various shooters into categories. I think it’s a starting point—I would have liked more on warning signs and mitigation strategies, but that may be asking a lot.
July 1, 2024
Sadly, this topic is again extremely relevant. Finland was shocked very recently by a school shooting close to where I currently live. In times of tragedy, you want to understand how something this horrible can happen. I think this book gave some insight into the minds of the perpetrators.
July 11, 2025
This book looks at the psychology of school shooters in the US from well known cases such as Columbine to his assessment of potential school shooters. There's a focus on similarities between them and the differences.
It was definitely a fascinating but troubling read at times on a problem that is definitely an issue and one I'm glad isn't an issue here in Australia.
It was definitely a fascinating but troubling read at times on a problem that is definitely an issue and one I'm glad isn't an issue here in Australia.
Read
March 4, 2024Finished for classes
Read
October 13, 2016Angel Stinnett
October 12,2016
English 10-5
1. Author’s Background
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is a sought-after expert on the psychology of school shooters. He conducts trainings on understanding the psychology of school shooters and identifying potential school shooters for professionals in mental health, education, and law enforcement.
2. Literary Time Period
This book was originally published in 2009. In 2009 there were 7 school shootings in the U.S. Multiple school shootings in previous years dating back to 1764.
3. Setting
Not really a set setting in this book considering it’s a book explaining why people get involved with school shootings. But some of the places they talk about are Columbine, Arkansas, Texas.
4. Characters
There’s no specific characters, the author just tells us and explains to us why would a kid kill in the first place. He also has stories from high school students. The people you’d never expect to even be as crazy as they are to do a school shooting in the first place.
5. Theme
The theme in this book is reasoning and explanation.
In this book Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters goes beyond disrespectful labels and simplistic explanations, providing an understanding psychological analysis of school shooters. Oppose to the trend of looking at school shooters as a homogeneous group, Dr. Langman’s groundbreaking work demonstrates that there are three distinct categories of school shooters. His insightful exploration identifies multiple factors that converge to turn kids into killers.
6. Plot Summary
Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters classifies ten school shooters within a three-part typology: psychopathic, psychotic, or traumatized. The ten shooters are Evan Ramsey, Michael Carneal, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Wurst, Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jeffrey Weise, and Seung Hui Cho. The book also presents five adolescents who were hospitalized and evaluated by Dr. Langman because they were at risk for committing rampage school shootings. The five potential shooters are compared to the ten actual shooters and placed within the typology. The book ends with a chapter addressing the prevention of school shootings and the early identification of potential shooters.
7. Literary Devices
Point of View- The book is told through the point of view of the author and he gives his opinions and explanation to why kids kill.
Imagery- When reading the quotes of these students that have dark and twisted minds, you can just imagine how crazy they are and what could have drove them to be this way.
8. Memorable Quotes
“Despite all the media attention on school attentions, little attention has been paid to the issue of psychosis.” (page 49)
-This is memorable because school shootings are getting a lot of attention, and we don’t really focus on the real issue here. People don’t just wake up one day and decide to go shoot innocent people, there has to be something wrong with them.
“This quote was not written by a member of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. It was written by a junior in Columbine High School- a boy who came from a stable family, got good grades, and wanted to destroy the world. His name was Eric Harris.” (page 1)
This quote was memorable because this just goes to show you even if someone has it good, doesn’t mean that they’re intentions in this world are always the best.
October 12,2016
English 10-5
1. Author’s Background
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is a sought-after expert on the psychology of school shooters. He conducts trainings on understanding the psychology of school shooters and identifying potential school shooters for professionals in mental health, education, and law enforcement.
2. Literary Time Period
This book was originally published in 2009. In 2009 there were 7 school shootings in the U.S. Multiple school shootings in previous years dating back to 1764.
3. Setting
Not really a set setting in this book considering it’s a book explaining why people get involved with school shootings. But some of the places they talk about are Columbine, Arkansas, Texas.
4. Characters
There’s no specific characters, the author just tells us and explains to us why would a kid kill in the first place. He also has stories from high school students. The people you’d never expect to even be as crazy as they are to do a school shooting in the first place.
5. Theme
The theme in this book is reasoning and explanation.
In this book Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters goes beyond disrespectful labels and simplistic explanations, providing an understanding psychological analysis of school shooters. Oppose to the trend of looking at school shooters as a homogeneous group, Dr. Langman’s groundbreaking work demonstrates that there are three distinct categories of school shooters. His insightful exploration identifies multiple factors that converge to turn kids into killers.
6. Plot Summary
Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters classifies ten school shooters within a three-part typology: psychopathic, psychotic, or traumatized. The ten shooters are Evan Ramsey, Michael Carneal, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Wurst, Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jeffrey Weise, and Seung Hui Cho. The book also presents five adolescents who were hospitalized and evaluated by Dr. Langman because they were at risk for committing rampage school shootings. The five potential shooters are compared to the ten actual shooters and placed within the typology. The book ends with a chapter addressing the prevention of school shootings and the early identification of potential shooters.
7. Literary Devices
Point of View- The book is told through the point of view of the author and he gives his opinions and explanation to why kids kill.
Imagery- When reading the quotes of these students that have dark and twisted minds, you can just imagine how crazy they are and what could have drove them to be this way.
8. Memorable Quotes
“Despite all the media attention on school attentions, little attention has been paid to the issue of psychosis.” (page 49)
-This is memorable because school shootings are getting a lot of attention, and we don’t really focus on the real issue here. People don’t just wake up one day and decide to go shoot innocent people, there has to be something wrong with them.
“This quote was not written by a member of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. It was written by a junior in Columbine High School- a boy who came from a stable family, got good grades, and wanted to destroy the world. His name was Eric Harris.” (page 1)
This quote was memorable because this just goes to show you even if someone has it good, doesn’t mean that they’re intentions in this world are always the best.
December 2, 2016
1) The author Peter Langman said himself in the preface, “I did not want to write this book.” He wanted to believe shootings in the 1990s were over. But, they weren’t. Many shootings came along after that. So he wrote the book mainly to describe the minds of the shooters, and try to figure out why they would do something so sadistic.
2) This book is telling the stories of shootings that happened in between the time frame of early 1990s to the late 2000s, that happened in the United States. The author wrote this book long after the shootings occurred, so just everyday life was going on as this book was written.
3) The time takes place in the 1990s through the 2000s in America.
4)There are many shooters stories told in this book. One of the main ones was Eric Harris, one of the Columbine school shooters. Another one was Dylan Klebold. Eric was a narcissistic, sadistic, evil, troubled young man. Dylan was described by his classmates as shy, loving, and stand-offish. He didn’t seem like the cold-bloody-murderer type. Drew Golden (the Jonesboro shooter) had a personality like Eric’s and took a strange liking-obsession to guns.
5) The theme is inside the mind of a school shooter. It is meant to show you why the shooter may have done what she or he did, and what was going on with their lives before they created a huge massacre.
6)This book isn’t like a regular one. It doesn’t have rising action, exposition, or solution, or anything like that. It simply tells the stories of the shooters lives to explain why they did what they did. (I can fix this if you want, I just didn’t know what else to put!)
7)It’s really hard to find a symbol in this book, but there is some irony. Dylan Klebolds actions really surprised people. They never even dreamed of him participating in something like a mass murder. He was thought of as quiet, painfully shy, and peace-loving. Some people believed that Eric did what he did because (partly) from his medication. But they found references to the attack months before Eric and Dylan attacked Columbine.
8) “If we have figured out the art of time bombs before hand, we will set hundreds of them around houses, roads, bridges, buildings and gas stations, anything that will cause damage and chaos. It’ll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWll, Vietnam… all mixed together. Maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to (expletive) things up as much as we can… If by some weird (expletive) luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe Mexico, New Zealand, or soe exotic place where Americans can’t get us. If there isn’t such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us firing away as we go down. Just something to cause more devastation.” The speaker was 11th grader Eric Harris writing in his journal, ranting about the attack.
I’m sorry it’s really hard to find stuff in this book.
“NATURAL SELECTION. KIll all retards, people with brain (expletive) ups… Geeeawd! People spend millions of dollars on saving lives of retards and why? I don’t buy that (expletive) like ‘oh, he’s my son, though!’ so the (expletive) what, he ain’t normal, kill him. Put him out of his misery. He is only a waste of time and money.” Eric Harris (again) wrote this in his journal, speaking his mind.
2) This book is telling the stories of shootings that happened in between the time frame of early 1990s to the late 2000s, that happened in the United States. The author wrote this book long after the shootings occurred, so just everyday life was going on as this book was written.
3) The time takes place in the 1990s through the 2000s in America.
4)There are many shooters stories told in this book. One of the main ones was Eric Harris, one of the Columbine school shooters. Another one was Dylan Klebold. Eric was a narcissistic, sadistic, evil, troubled young man. Dylan was described by his classmates as shy, loving, and stand-offish. He didn’t seem like the cold-bloody-murderer type. Drew Golden (the Jonesboro shooter) had a personality like Eric’s and took a strange liking-obsession to guns.
5) The theme is inside the mind of a school shooter. It is meant to show you why the shooter may have done what she or he did, and what was going on with their lives before they created a huge massacre.
6)This book isn’t like a regular one. It doesn’t have rising action, exposition, or solution, or anything like that. It simply tells the stories of the shooters lives to explain why they did what they did. (I can fix this if you want, I just didn’t know what else to put!)
7)It’s really hard to find a symbol in this book, but there is some irony. Dylan Klebolds actions really surprised people. They never even dreamed of him participating in something like a mass murder. He was thought of as quiet, painfully shy, and peace-loving. Some people believed that Eric did what he did because (partly) from his medication. But they found references to the attack months before Eric and Dylan attacked Columbine.
8) “If we have figured out the art of time bombs before hand, we will set hundreds of them around houses, roads, bridges, buildings and gas stations, anything that will cause damage and chaos. It’ll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWll, Vietnam… all mixed together. Maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to (expletive) things up as much as we can… If by some weird (expletive) luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe Mexico, New Zealand, or soe exotic place where Americans can’t get us. If there isn’t such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us firing away as we go down. Just something to cause more devastation.” The speaker was 11th grader Eric Harris writing in his journal, ranting about the attack.
I’m sorry it’s really hard to find stuff in this book.
“NATURAL SELECTION. KIll all retards, people with brain (expletive) ups… Geeeawd! People spend millions of dollars on saving lives of retards and why? I don’t buy that (expletive) like ‘oh, he’s my son, though!’ so the (expletive) what, he ain’t normal, kill him. Put him out of his misery. He is only a waste of time and money.” Eric Harris (again) wrote this in his journal, speaking his mind.
November 9, 2025
Oh man this is gonna be LONGGG, I have so much to say about this book.
Peter Langman believes that bullying that isn't being physically beaten up is not real bullying, states multiple times that being bullied is the victims' fault for being 'weird'—"Some brought the harrassment on themselves", and also that the shooters who got bullied were 'too fragile' and overexaggerated and overreacted to simple 'teasing' (the word the author uses instead of bullying throughout the book). If this doesn't deter you from reading the book, I don't know what will.
Eric and Dylan had trash thrown at them and have been pushed into lockers, Eric allegedly also used to get physically bullied at gym class. The author ignores all of this, claiming that "the harrassment was more in their minds than in reality". So, yeah. The author believes that kids who were extremely depressed to the point of committing murder and suicide were exaggerating their suffering, and that it was all in their heads.
Langman completely ignores the fact that Eric and Dylan shared most of their traits, leaving only the 'psychopathic' ones to Eric, and giving Dylan the all the 'shy and depressed' traits. He does this as a way to paint Eric as an evil psychopathic monster, and Dylan as a poor depressed follower. He cherry picks quotes that prove his point while ignoring the ones that would contradict him.
You can see this when Langman writes about Eric's 'rape fantasies'—this is the only point in Eric's chapter where Langman doesn't insert any quotes. That's because Eric did not have rape fantasies. He wrote about "telling a girl what she wants to hear, taking her to his bedroom, eating her pussy and then fucking her hard"—this is the only quote about sex Eric had written, and it does not resemble a rape fantasy at all. But Langman didn't put the quote in his book, because it would show us that he was bullshitting 🙄
Eric doesn't even show half of psychopathic traits (that are necessary to be labeled a psychopath). I have taken this list of psychopathic traits from wikipedia:
- boldness ❌ (eric was painfully shy and socially awkward),
- superficial charm ✅,
- antisocial behavior ✅ (with the exception of animal cruelty, which is a crucial part of psychopathy),
- lack of empathy or remorse ❌ (Eric talked about not wanting to hurt his parents because he loved them, about how much he loved his dog, talked about how he needs to "turn his feelings off" to do what he was about to do),
- inclination to violence and psychological manipulation ✅,
- narcissism ❌ (he hated every single thing about himself).
^ Peter Langman in this book claims Eric was a narcissist, yet ignores the same thing about Dylan. Both of them wrote about being 'godlike', Langman used this as a way to classify Eric as a psychopath, completely ignoring it in Dylan's case.
Here is how Langman described the boys: "[...] Eric in his lack of empathy, his preoccuparion with weapons and violence, his fascination with the Nazis, his sensitivity to status, his dehumanizing of others as inferior, and his sadistic pleasure in fantasizing about mutilating human bodies."
"[...] Dylan in his depression and profound insecurity, the malleability of his identity, his recurrent suicidal thoughts, his devastation at rejection by girls, and his sense of himself as a failure".
^ I put the shared traits of the boys in bold, because they actually DO share most of their traits, yet again, Langman completely ignored Eric's depression, suicidal thoughts, insecurity and self-hate, and also ignored Dylan's obsession with status and with being better than "zombies" (how he described normal people).
Eric's quote about feelings: "I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, [...] I have to turn off my feelings". This is proof of him not being a psychopath; psychopaths do not feel remorse and sympathy.
There are actual psychopathic shooters in this book—Andrew Golden—animal cruelty, feeling no remorse or guilt for his actions, smiling in court. Eric is not one of them.
– – – – –
Now, let's move on to the next topic. Dylan Klebold being classified as schizophrenic. How Langman came up with this—I have no idea. But for his reasoning, he uses typical symptoms of social anxiety...?
Peter Langman believes that to have social anxiety you need to be harrassed and rejected, because otherwise you have no reason to have it, and it's all in your head. No way genius, it's a mental illness.
The reason for Dylan being schizophrenic was stated to be because he believed that everybody hated him. "Dylan Klebold sometimes felt that everybody hated him. This was a form of paranoia." No bro that is a form of social anxiety 💔
"Dylan clearly struck many people as a bit strange. These are common reactions to schizotypal personalities". Those are literally common reactions to socially anxious, awkward people?
Again, this book has chapters on actual schizophrenics—Michael Carneal believed a man with a chainsaw lived under his house and wanted to cut his legs off, Kip Kinkel heard voices telling him to murder people, and Andrew Wurst thought everyone except him was dead. Dylan Klebold doesn't represent any schizophrenic traits.
– – – – –
And now, my last problem with this book: ignoring the reasons the shooters have personally stated to be why they did what they did, instead claiming it can't be true because other kids who go through the same things don't murder people, and using this awesome phrase "the statistics show-" shhhh, they are INDIVIDUALS with their OWN reasons, statistics have no meaning when talking about the reason for an individual committing a crime.
"X does not explain murder." TO YOU. But we're not talking about what explains murder to you, we're talking about what explains murder to PEOPLE WHO COMMIT IT. This is THEIR explanation. This is NOT that hard to understand, I swear??
Ignoring what the shooters say and stating it's "inaccurate" because of statistics is one of the dumbest things I've seen. I'm pretty sure a murderer knows their reason for murder better than you do, they tell it to you clearly and you decide to ignore it because "the numbers-" stop, just stop!!! Y'all would rather top a twink than stop and think 🙄🙏
Peter Langman believes that bullying that isn't being physically beaten up is not real bullying, states multiple times that being bullied is the victims' fault for being 'weird'—"Some brought the harrassment on themselves", and also that the shooters who got bullied were 'too fragile' and overexaggerated and overreacted to simple 'teasing' (the word the author uses instead of bullying throughout the book). If this doesn't deter you from reading the book, I don't know what will.
Eric and Dylan had trash thrown at them and have been pushed into lockers, Eric allegedly also used to get physically bullied at gym class. The author ignores all of this, claiming that "the harrassment was more in their minds than in reality". So, yeah. The author believes that kids who were extremely depressed to the point of committing murder and suicide were exaggerating their suffering, and that it was all in their heads.
Langman completely ignores the fact that Eric and Dylan shared most of their traits, leaving only the 'psychopathic' ones to Eric, and giving Dylan the all the 'shy and depressed' traits. He does this as a way to paint Eric as an evil psychopathic monster, and Dylan as a poor depressed follower. He cherry picks quotes that prove his point while ignoring the ones that would contradict him.
You can see this when Langman writes about Eric's 'rape fantasies'—this is the only point in Eric's chapter where Langman doesn't insert any quotes. That's because Eric did not have rape fantasies. He wrote about "telling a girl what she wants to hear, taking her to his bedroom, eating her pussy and then fucking her hard"—this is the only quote about sex Eric had written, and it does not resemble a rape fantasy at all. But Langman didn't put the quote in his book, because it would show us that he was bullshitting 🙄
Eric doesn't even show half of psychopathic traits (that are necessary to be labeled a psychopath). I have taken this list of psychopathic traits from wikipedia:
- boldness ❌ (eric was painfully shy and socially awkward),
- superficial charm ✅,
- antisocial behavior ✅ (with the exception of animal cruelty, which is a crucial part of psychopathy),
- lack of empathy or remorse ❌ (Eric talked about not wanting to hurt his parents because he loved them, about how much he loved his dog, talked about how he needs to "turn his feelings off" to do what he was about to do),
- inclination to violence and psychological manipulation ✅,
- narcissism ❌ (he hated every single thing about himself).
^ Peter Langman in this book claims Eric was a narcissist, yet ignores the same thing about Dylan. Both of them wrote about being 'godlike', Langman used this as a way to classify Eric as a psychopath, completely ignoring it in Dylan's case.
Here is how Langman described the boys: "[...] Eric in his lack of empathy, his preoccuparion with weapons and violence, his fascination with the Nazis, his sensitivity to status, his dehumanizing of others as inferior, and his sadistic pleasure in fantasizing about mutilating human bodies."
"[...] Dylan in his depression and profound insecurity, the malleability of his identity, his recurrent suicidal thoughts, his devastation at rejection by girls, and his sense of himself as a failure".
^ I put the shared traits of the boys in bold, because they actually DO share most of their traits, yet again, Langman completely ignored Eric's depression, suicidal thoughts, insecurity and self-hate, and also ignored Dylan's obsession with status and with being better than "zombies" (how he described normal people).
Eric's quote about feelings: "I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, [...] I have to turn off my feelings". This is proof of him not being a psychopath; psychopaths do not feel remorse and sympathy.
There are actual psychopathic shooters in this book—Andrew Golden—animal cruelty, feeling no remorse or guilt for his actions, smiling in court. Eric is not one of them.
– – – – –
Now, let's move on to the next topic. Dylan Klebold being classified as schizophrenic. How Langman came up with this—I have no idea. But for his reasoning, he uses typical symptoms of social anxiety...?
Peter Langman believes that to have social anxiety you need to be harrassed and rejected, because otherwise you have no reason to have it, and it's all in your head. No way genius, it's a mental illness.
The reason for Dylan being schizophrenic was stated to be because he believed that everybody hated him. "Dylan Klebold sometimes felt that everybody hated him. This was a form of paranoia." No bro that is a form of social anxiety 💔
"Dylan clearly struck many people as a bit strange. These are common reactions to schizotypal personalities". Those are literally common reactions to socially anxious, awkward people?
Again, this book has chapters on actual schizophrenics—Michael Carneal believed a man with a chainsaw lived under his house and wanted to cut his legs off, Kip Kinkel heard voices telling him to murder people, and Andrew Wurst thought everyone except him was dead. Dylan Klebold doesn't represent any schizophrenic traits.
– – – – –
And now, my last problem with this book: ignoring the reasons the shooters have personally stated to be why they did what they did, instead claiming it can't be true because other kids who go through the same things don't murder people, and using this awesome phrase "the statistics show-" shhhh, they are INDIVIDUALS with their OWN reasons, statistics have no meaning when talking about the reason for an individual committing a crime.
"X does not explain murder." TO YOU. But we're not talking about what explains murder to you, we're talking about what explains murder to PEOPLE WHO COMMIT IT. This is THEIR explanation. This is NOT that hard to understand, I swear??
Ignoring what the shooters say and stating it's "inaccurate" because of statistics is one of the dumbest things I've seen. I'm pretty sure a murderer knows their reason for murder better than you do, they tell it to you clearly and you decide to ignore it because "the numbers-" stop, just stop!!! Y'all would rather top a twink than stop and think 🙄🙏
April 5, 2024
Peter Langman analyzes ten school shooters and tries to pull out common factors that may have led these kids to go over the edge.
Analyzing something like this is dreadfully hard. You have so few data points of shooters, often the shooters are no longer alive to interview, and teenagers commonly display all sorts of maladies common with school shooters just by virtue of being quickly changing hormonal beings thrust into a stressful, social world. Langman points out that the shooters often had self-image issues. Or they were bullied. Or they suffered from depression. That describes a good deal of the teenage population, but school shooters are extremely rare.
While it is interesting to peer into the minds of some of these shooters after the fact, from their journals and the things they said to others, it's difficult to figure out how this is helpful at all. He proposes three categories of shooters, and seems to cherry pick the data and cases that fit his categories. Langman's analysis at the end barely touches on what we can actually do. Instead he pumps himself up with a few teenagers he identified as potential school shooters.
I think a deeper look at peers and family of these shooters may have revealed more about what we can actually do on this issue. It does bring up a few good talking points, and gives you a better idea of what it was like in the minds of a few of these criminals, but it ultimately falls flat in suggesting a helpful course of action.
Analyzing something like this is dreadfully hard. You have so few data points of shooters, often the shooters are no longer alive to interview, and teenagers commonly display all sorts of maladies common with school shooters just by virtue of being quickly changing hormonal beings thrust into a stressful, social world. Langman points out that the shooters often had self-image issues. Or they were bullied. Or they suffered from depression. That describes a good deal of the teenage population, but school shooters are extremely rare.
While it is interesting to peer into the minds of some of these shooters after the fact, from their journals and the things they said to others, it's difficult to figure out how this is helpful at all. He proposes three categories of shooters, and seems to cherry pick the data and cases that fit his categories. Langman's analysis at the end barely touches on what we can actually do. Instead he pumps himself up with a few teenagers he identified as potential school shooters.
I think a deeper look at peers and family of these shooters may have revealed more about what we can actually do on this issue. It does bring up a few good talking points, and gives you a better idea of what it was like in the minds of a few of these criminals, but it ultimately falls flat in suggesting a helpful course of action.
March 16, 2018
2.5 Stars
Dr. Peter Langman is a professional psychologist who specializes in violent youth. His professional opinion is so well regarded, in fact, that Susan Klebold, Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold's mother, considers his diagnosis of her son (whom he's never treated) as certainly correct. Where he felt out of the realm of his own expertise, he sourced other highly acclaimed psychological and crime prevention professionals, such as John Douglas, of FBI profiling fame.
Why Kids Kill is divided into three sections. Section 1 introduces Langman's psychology background and discusses, and debunks, a lot of the motives the general public assumes are behind most mass killings (bullying gets particularly chastised here). Section 2, the meat and bones of this book, divides the sample of 10 school shooters Langman included in his book into three typologies based on a combination of mental health and behavior. These three categories are psychopathic, psychotic, and traumatized. And section 3 wraps the book up neatly with five profiles of his own clients who were considered high risk but did not ultimately commit their plans of school shootings, and ends with a top ten list of things parents, communities, and schools can do to prevent school gun violence. A formulaic layout for this nonfiction psychology book that works well.
Langman is a respected professional, and he included other well rounded, expert opinions. His profiles of the typologies are clear, concise, and easy for laypeople to digest and comprehend. He provides sound guidance on top of his expertise. I closed the book feeling like I learned something new about prevention, motivation, and details on cases that I feel familiar with and some that were brand new to me. So why such a low rating?
Dominantly, because this book is boring. A small complaint, all things considered. But I love nonfiction, and vouch for more people to read entertaining nonfiction. However, this book is as dry as a textbook, despite emotionally charged and often fascinating subject matter included. It just reads like the voice from the Clear Eyes commercials. Because of that, I wouldn't recommend this book to say, a college student with a heavy textbook workload.
Following that, the other complaints about Why Kids Kill are even smaller. Granted, Langman never treated any of the ten killers this book discusses, so understandably the book has a lot of speculation. The way this speculation is written, however, irked me. Langman would often times list potential motives or potential outcomes, but would not lend his own personal beliefs as to what he felt was most likely to be true. Without that weighty input, this litany of speculation momentarily makes one doubt the credibility of all that's been said in the section. If so much of what is being discussed is open to interpretation, and no likelihood as to how accurate these things are to occur by the psychological professional, I couldn't help but doubt that professional opinion overall. Why Kids Kill would've been stronger, in my opinion, if Langman acknowledged the unknowable variations, but also gave his insight based on comparative cases or his other experiences in the field. He is, after all, a psychologist, not a common man making conspiracy theories.
Overwhelmingly, Langman's voice and suggestions are firm and can be trusted. However, there was one instance of, for lack of a better word, cherry picking, or misrepresenting information. For what purpose, I can't imagine. But at the end of the book, Dr. Langman suggests openly that if Eric Harris had simply gotten a girlfriend, Columbine may have been prevented. This section and suggestion in particular are intended to give hope to concerned parents (mostly) that an at-risk youth is not at risk for life and there's always hope for rehabilitation. However, what Langman conveniently left out was that Eric had been seeing a young woman he really liked, even spending his prom night with her the WEEK of the shooting. In the Basement Tapes, Eric goes on to address this young lady and say "I'm sorry, if we met under different circumstances, things would've been so different." Given the extensive sources and bibliography listed in the back of this book, I find it difficult to believe (although its not impossible) that Dr. Langman didn't know this about one of his sample cases, so to deliberately make such a brazen suggestion (and by extension potentially inadvertently insulting the young woman involved) felt incredibly disrespectful, unprofessional, and irresponsible to me. I could not ignore this. His intentions were good, but by suggesting that very little things (like having sex 1 time or getting into a relationship) can be life-saving diversions for these people who he's spent the entire book building up as complex results of a difficult blend of genetics, environment, peer relationships, and self-esteem issues makes it hard for me to completely accept his perspective without question. Again, I acknowledge his well-meaning intent to give hope to concerned parents (who are much more likely to be his target audience than a true crime junkie who also loves psychology), but I would've enjoyed this section, and had much more respect for Dr. Langman's stances, if he had simply omitted that statement. The same point could've been made without being overly reductive and purposefully ignorant.
I did enjoy how the killers themselves were not as much the focus of this book as one might think. This book has a strong emphasis on the psychological makeup of these troubled boys, and it was very refreshing and informative to look at these crimes from that angle. Very little focus was paid to the details of what was done, except for behavioral analysis, and instead concentrated on personal motivations, psychological issues, and background plans, experiences, or traumas. This was great to see as its very easy to come across play-by-plays of gruesome details, but to presented with the psychological pieces of the puzzle offers a much more complete, well-rounded picture.
So I do like Why Kids Kill and would recommend it to people who are interested in psychology, true crime, and violence prevention. But be warned, it's incredibly dry-you might want to have a second book to read on the side to satisfy the pleasurable aspect of reading.
Dr. Peter Langman is a professional psychologist who specializes in violent youth. His professional opinion is so well regarded, in fact, that Susan Klebold, Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold's mother, considers his diagnosis of her son (whom he's never treated) as certainly correct. Where he felt out of the realm of his own expertise, he sourced other highly acclaimed psychological and crime prevention professionals, such as John Douglas, of FBI profiling fame.
Why Kids Kill is divided into three sections. Section 1 introduces Langman's psychology background and discusses, and debunks, a lot of the motives the general public assumes are behind most mass killings (bullying gets particularly chastised here). Section 2, the meat and bones of this book, divides the sample of 10 school shooters Langman included in his book into three typologies based on a combination of mental health and behavior. These three categories are psychopathic, psychotic, and traumatized. And section 3 wraps the book up neatly with five profiles of his own clients who were considered high risk but did not ultimately commit their plans of school shootings, and ends with a top ten list of things parents, communities, and schools can do to prevent school gun violence. A formulaic layout for this nonfiction psychology book that works well.
Langman is a respected professional, and he included other well rounded, expert opinions. His profiles of the typologies are clear, concise, and easy for laypeople to digest and comprehend. He provides sound guidance on top of his expertise. I closed the book feeling like I learned something new about prevention, motivation, and details on cases that I feel familiar with and some that were brand new to me. So why such a low rating?
Dominantly, because this book is boring. A small complaint, all things considered. But I love nonfiction, and vouch for more people to read entertaining nonfiction. However, this book is as dry as a textbook, despite emotionally charged and often fascinating subject matter included. It just reads like the voice from the Clear Eyes commercials. Because of that, I wouldn't recommend this book to say, a college student with a heavy textbook workload.
Following that, the other complaints about Why Kids Kill are even smaller. Granted, Langman never treated any of the ten killers this book discusses, so understandably the book has a lot of speculation. The way this speculation is written, however, irked me. Langman would often times list potential motives or potential outcomes, but would not lend his own personal beliefs as to what he felt was most likely to be true. Without that weighty input, this litany of speculation momentarily makes one doubt the credibility of all that's been said in the section. If so much of what is being discussed is open to interpretation, and no likelihood as to how accurate these things are to occur by the psychological professional, I couldn't help but doubt that professional opinion overall. Why Kids Kill would've been stronger, in my opinion, if Langman acknowledged the unknowable variations, but also gave his insight based on comparative cases or his other experiences in the field. He is, after all, a psychologist, not a common man making conspiracy theories.
Overwhelmingly, Langman's voice and suggestions are firm and can be trusted. However, there was one instance of, for lack of a better word, cherry picking, or misrepresenting information. For what purpose, I can't imagine. But at the end of the book, Dr. Langman suggests openly that if Eric Harris had simply gotten a girlfriend, Columbine may have been prevented. This section and suggestion in particular are intended to give hope to concerned parents (mostly) that an at-risk youth is not at risk for life and there's always hope for rehabilitation. However, what Langman conveniently left out was that Eric had been seeing a young woman he really liked, even spending his prom night with her the WEEK of the shooting. In the Basement Tapes, Eric goes on to address this young lady and say "I'm sorry, if we met under different circumstances, things would've been so different." Given the extensive sources and bibliography listed in the back of this book, I find it difficult to believe (although its not impossible) that Dr. Langman didn't know this about one of his sample cases, so to deliberately make such a brazen suggestion (and by extension potentially inadvertently insulting the young woman involved) felt incredibly disrespectful, unprofessional, and irresponsible to me. I could not ignore this. His intentions were good, but by suggesting that very little things (like having sex 1 time or getting into a relationship) can be life-saving diversions for these people who he's spent the entire book building up as complex results of a difficult blend of genetics, environment, peer relationships, and self-esteem issues makes it hard for me to completely accept his perspective without question. Again, I acknowledge his well-meaning intent to give hope to concerned parents (who are much more likely to be his target audience than a true crime junkie who also loves psychology), but I would've enjoyed this section, and had much more respect for Dr. Langman's stances, if he had simply omitted that statement. The same point could've been made without being overly reductive and purposefully ignorant.
I did enjoy how the killers themselves were not as much the focus of this book as one might think. This book has a strong emphasis on the psychological makeup of these troubled boys, and it was very refreshing and informative to look at these crimes from that angle. Very little focus was paid to the details of what was done, except for behavioral analysis, and instead concentrated on personal motivations, psychological issues, and background plans, experiences, or traumas. This was great to see as its very easy to come across play-by-plays of gruesome details, but to presented with the psychological pieces of the puzzle offers a much more complete, well-rounded picture.
So I do like Why Kids Kill and would recommend it to people who are interested in psychology, true crime, and violence prevention. But be warned, it's incredibly dry-you might want to have a second book to read on the side to satisfy the pleasurable aspect of reading.
January 12, 2024
I do recommend reading this book in spite of its flaws, especially if you work with children or have children. There are so many signs in this book to look out for.
After reading the memoir from Sue Klebold (which you should read BTW), I was interested in reading this book. However, I was rather let down. While this book was intriguing and difficult to put down, I also felt it missed the mark.
This book did an excellent job at giving you a glimpse into the minds of young individuals that committed horrific acts. However, at the same time, it also discounted the experiences of these individuals. Each of the shooters experienced bullying and were ostracized by their peers (sometimes with good reason, but nonetheless). This author claimed that these shooters were not bullied but then went on to state they were bullied. He'd state they had no issues with obtaining girlfriends but then went on to state they did. This pattern continued throughout the book.
Reading this book, I do wonder how none of these attacks were thwarted. Each of them had signs that were rather visible... And to end the book in a way that claimed security measures at schools don't prevent attacks was... Odd to say the least. While they may not completely stop shootings, deterrants save lives.
After reading the memoir from Sue Klebold (which you should read BTW), I was interested in reading this book. However, I was rather let down. While this book was intriguing and difficult to put down, I also felt it missed the mark.
This book did an excellent job at giving you a glimpse into the minds of young individuals that committed horrific acts. However, at the same time, it also discounted the experiences of these individuals. Each of the shooters experienced bullying and were ostracized by their peers (sometimes with good reason, but nonetheless). This author claimed that these shooters were not bullied but then went on to state they were bullied. He'd state they had no issues with obtaining girlfriends but then went on to state they did. This pattern continued throughout the book.
Reading this book, I do wonder how none of these attacks were thwarted. Each of them had signs that were rather visible... And to end the book in a way that claimed security measures at schools don't prevent attacks was... Odd to say the least. While they may not completely stop shootings, deterrants save lives.
November 4, 2012
The authors purpose is to teach kids not to kill inside schools or anywhere.He shows what we can do to make schools safe and homes friendly and child focused.
The theme of this book is to help everyone understand why some kids urge to kill innocent people.
The style of the story is the exposition because the author is explaining how people want to kill because they are stressed out and don't want to be in school or have any thing to do with those people.I don't think there is a argument because the author is just saying why kids shouldn't shoot others for attention.
Based on this novel I thought that it was a good story telling what not to do when you want attention.
My opinion on the book is that it is a good book and I really recommend it to someone who likes to read stories that have suspense and don't know what will happen.
What I have learned from this story is to not kill anyone and do whats right and don't do anything bad for attention.
The theme of this book is to help everyone understand why some kids urge to kill innocent people.
The style of the story is the exposition because the author is explaining how people want to kill because they are stressed out and don't want to be in school or have any thing to do with those people.I don't think there is a argument because the author is just saying why kids shouldn't shoot others for attention.
Based on this novel I thought that it was a good story telling what not to do when you want attention.
My opinion on the book is that it is a good book and I really recommend it to someone who likes to read stories that have suspense and don't know what will happen.
What I have learned from this story is to not kill anyone and do whats right and don't do anything bad for attention.
August 17, 2017
Why Kids Kill is a fascinating book in which Langman provides the reader with an insight into the minds of kids so disturbed that they're able to murder their peers and teachers in cold-blood, without the slightest bit of empathy towards their victims. Langman's method of evaluating the shooters is primarily done by categorising them into three types: Psychotic, Psychopathic, and Traumatised shooters.
One thing that irked me with this book was that Langman's choice of shooters seemed less than arbitrary, and I believe the individuals were chosen intentionally in order to support his personal method of evaluation, because there are plenty of school shooters I can name off the top of my head who don't fit snugly into these three types, despite how vague the labels are.
Overall though, this was a book that I couldn't put down. It's clear that Langman is well-versed with what he's writing, which made the experience of absorbing the information he shared a comfortable one.
One thing that irked me with this book was that Langman's choice of shooters seemed less than arbitrary, and I believe the individuals were chosen intentionally in order to support his personal method of evaluation, because there are plenty of school shooters I can name off the top of my head who don't fit snugly into these three types, despite how vague the labels are.
Overall though, this was a book that I couldn't put down. It's clear that Langman is well-versed with what he's writing, which made the experience of absorbing the information he shared a comfortable one.
December 31, 2019
A book i as looking forward to reading but that. I was mildly disappointed by.
It almost seemed like the author cherry picked which shooters would meet the criteria he had set up to explain “why”.
For me this issue starts earlier, I wonder WHY do kids feel killing is a solution?
WHAT has changed from the past?
Is it related in any way to our “glorification” of shooters, murderers, and killers?
Has it become better to be a dead celebrity than a living person with no fame?
Has the preoccupation with selfies, posting every minute, every thought, every emotion become so huge that it creates mental illness to the point of murder?
Psychopath, psychotic or traumatized, seems to be too narrow. How are these impulses formed?
It almost seemed like the author cherry picked which shooters would meet the criteria he had set up to explain “why”.
For me this issue starts earlier, I wonder WHY do kids feel killing is a solution?
WHAT has changed from the past?
Is it related in any way to our “glorification” of shooters, murderers, and killers?
Has it become better to be a dead celebrity than a living person with no fame?
Has the preoccupation with selfies, posting every minute, every thought, every emotion become so huge that it creates mental illness to the point of murder?
Psychopath, psychotic or traumatized, seems to be too narrow. How are these impulses formed?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews