Elliot Rodger's True Motive

David Berkowitz did not kill six people because his neighbor's dog told him to "kill pretty young girls."

Kyle Huff did not kill six people in Seattle because of the drug use and sexually permissive lifestyles of the "rave" culture.

Jared Laughner did not shoot Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tuscon because the "government used language to control peoples' minds."

Seung-Hui Cho did not commit the Virginia Tech Massacre because of "rich kids, debauchery, and charlatans."

Finally, Elliot Rodger did not go on a killing spree in Isla Vista because he was rejected by women, or because he was a privileged white male (whose mother happens to be Asian), or because he was influenced by misogynistic movies, or because he managed to purchase a firearm, or because of a culture of entitlement.

The motives given by the mass murderers are only justifications imagined into existence by profoundly disturbed minds. They are excuses, and they are ultimately meaningless. Searching through a killer's ravings for some kernel of truth has always been a fruitless endeavor.

There has been quite a lot of research done on mass murderers, and the consensus is generally that their stated motive is meaningless. If you are curious, here are some articles and books about the topic, written by people who are much more educated than I am:

• There Is No Such Thing as a Motive for Mass Killings by Ari Schulman
• When It Comes to Mass Murder, Think Method and Means, Not Motive by Allen Frances
• Columbine by Dave Cullen
• The autogenic (self-generated) massacre by Paul E. Mullen

After Seung-Hui Cho went on his killing spree, did we blame media portrayals of wealth for the attack? Did we blame Jodie Foster's appearance in Taxi Driver after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate the president? Did we blame David Berkowitz's neighbor's dog for enticing him to kill?

No. Of course not.

Elliot Rodger is no different, and his justification is just as flimsy. Yes, he blamed his rage on attractive women, his virginity, happy couples, and his feelings of isolation, loneliness, and inadequacy (especially as perceived by the opposite sex). He wrote a lengthy document detailing the history of his rage where he painstakingly recounted each negative encounter that led him down his dark path.

But Elliot Rodger was sick, demonstrated by the fact that he had extensive contact with multiple mental health professionals and law enforcement. He was described by his mother as "special needs," and it was known that he had "high-functioning autism" since at least 1999. Elliot Rodger had serious mental diseases, and we will probably never learn the true extent of his illness.

But if you asked Elliot Rodger, the true cause of his suffering was women. He shared this hatred with previous mass murderers George Sodini and Marc Lépine. But Elliot Rodger's obsession could just have easily been a neighbor's dog, or the government, or jocks in white hats, or Jodie Foster, or rich kids.

If he had not been obsessed with women he would have had the same murderous instinct, but with a different justification.

Now I shouldn't have to do this, but I figure I should. I am not in any way excusing his actions or his justifications. In addition, violence against women is an epidemic, and conversations about misogyny, feminism, entitlement, privilege, and media depictions of violence are invaluable. The more conversations we have about these topics, the better off we are as a society. And I have no problem with the #YesEveryWoman hashtag. If anything valuable were to come out of this tragedy, it would be for us to continue to bring attention to the dangers that women face on a daily basis, based entirely on their gender.

Having said that, can we please stop invoking Elliot Rodger when we discuss these things? It is not productive to associate an opposing point of view with the actions of a mass murder.

Yes, some men get frustrated when they are unable to find a girlfriend. They invent somewhat offensive terms like "Friend Zone" to characterize that frustration. People like Seth Rogen write movies where some of the characters are sexually frustrated men. Men who think they are "nice guys" are often dismayed when women are attracted to what they perceive are inferior men.

But linking those relatively banal cultural touchstones to the actions of a mass murderer is, frankly, incredibly insulting. Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow were right to be pissed off.

Further, I believe making that association is a disservice to the actual victims of Elliot Rodger's violent spree, and it fulfills the dead killer's overwhelming narcissism. This is exactly what he wanted. He wanted the world to talk about his actions, and they gleefully obliged. That is why he published the now-famous YouTube videos as well as his "manifesto."

Unfortunately, we've now found ourselves firmly locked into the timeline that follows every mass shooting in the United States. In the days following the tragedy, people will blame things that fit their own agendas and belief systems. Some will rail against congress and demand better gun control laws. Some will demand that Congress do more to strengthen mental health programs and leave guns alone. Some will blame pharmaceutical companies, and demand that Congress investigate. Congress will pay lip service to all of those demands, but ultimately they will do nothing (as they have done dozens of times before). Memorials will be held. Victims will be buried. Families will mourn, and eventually the news cycle will turn. The next mention of this horrible killing will be the one year anniversary, where we will bemoan the fact that nothing has changed. Or maybe we'll be subjected to another mass shooting before the anniversary arrives, and the Isla Vista attack will be listed in a long line of avoidable and unacceptable tragedies.

Yes. Avoidable.

And here's the part where I talk about gun control.

Here's why: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's mostly true. But the only way to prevent a bad guy with a gun from shooting a bunch of people is to make sure the bad guy never gets a gun in the first place.

Before you start, I realize he killed three people with a knife and hit several people with his car. That's irrelevant. He shot eleven people. Three of those gunshot victims died. Those deaths were made possible only because of the presence of a firearm. Without the firearm all you'd have is a criminal who murdered his roommates and injured a bunch of people on the street. Sad, of course, but not the national tragedy it is now.

Having said that, I should tell you that I am a gun owner. I enjoy the peace of mind I get from having a firearm in my house. I enjoy going to the range and shooting my gun. But I would gladly give up my firearm if the US began enacting gun laws similar to what you see in every other industrialized country in the world.

Gun laws that are responsible for this map:

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

But it will never happen. If a man bringing an assault rifle to an elementary school and gunning down a room full of kindergarteners did not entice lawmakers into introducing more restrictive guns laws, then there is literally nothing that will change their minds.

So we wait until the next time, when we will trot out the same scapegoats and rage against the same government who is too inept to make meaningful change.

I don't look forward to it.