And the winner of today's murder publicity is...

...someone who is already in Broadmoor. Oh.

There are about 750 murders in the UK every year. 2 a day. 1 every 12 hours. One killed deliberately (more or less) for every four killed accidentally (more or less) by motorists.

Of these 750, the media pick up maybe 2 or 3 and pump them up into a major news story. We have to presume that it helps to sell newspapers, which puts advertising under peoples' noses, which makes the go out and buy things, thus keeping the consumptive economy running. I don't know, I'm speculating. Like proper journalists when they don't know any facts.

So murder stories are what people want. "I'm going to make your flesh creep", as the Fat Boy in Pickwick used to say. This is in the field of rubbernecking at road accidents, the crowds who used to turn out for a hanging, and of course, the crowds who went to see the gladiators at the Coliseum.

Of course, people should know what is going on; but let's have the whole truth. Let's put the story into its context.

We get to hear about this one murder, but that is one of 750 a year. And in the Land of the Freedom to Carry Hand Guns, that figure is 16,000.

Which means that when you meet an American (by which I mean North American But Not Canadian) you are meeting someone who is four times more likely to kill you than a Brit.

Or, if you prefer, someone who is just as likely to kill you as a motorist.

Now there's a fact that will not make the headlines.

Keeping Paedophiles out of Prison

I see in the news that the prisons are not big enough to accept all the paedophiles. Time to put forward once more the strategy of Treating Paedophilia with hormones and neuroleptic medication in the community. Effectively, that is. As part of a whole package, rectifying the paedophile's own childhood trauma, as well as correcting the hormonal imbalances that drive this life-destroying behaviour.

When I last wrote, Government rejected this approach, preferring to stick with counselling, while at the same time agreeming that it was ineffective and failed to reach more than a tiny minority of sex offenders.

SNAFU

Bye bye, American Pie...

More emerges about Cho Seung-Hui: his isolated personality, marked by very strong projection, the possibility of paranoid psychosis, his posturing with guns, and evidence of modelling himself on a violent South Korean film. The film blogs are reacting with denial, some parodying the suggestion that he really modelled himself on that film.

Well look. Our actions are a resultant of a number of forces, including
genetics, social environment, especially early family dynamics, our physical environment (including reactions to food and chemicals), our cognitive structuring and our imaginal life.
OK so far? Lots of factors.

One of the factors is the images we see in films. I wrote in detail about this for Bills of Health .
There was a classical psychological experiment by Bandura in 1965 which modelled the effect of film on behaviour, and many experiments since then that bear out his findings. The problem is, no-one wants to believe it because they think that would entail censorship. Not so. It could just entail the Producer Responsibility Principle. (see above)

Film makers set out to affect their audiences' life experience; so they have to accept that they also affect their behaviour. Which is not to say that the film OldBoy is 100% responsible for what happened, but it has to be a factor. A little factor in the mass audience: maybe a big factor in someone who happens to become fixated with a film. How much of a factor in percentage terms is a matter for debate.

What is not up for debate is the fact that someone with Cho's history of mental illness should not have been able to buy guns. He was able to do so. Well - so much the worse for the American Way, and so much the worse for those who lost loved ones.

Virginia Tech Massacre Psychology

What is the psychology of the mass murderer like Cho Seung-hui, the Virginia Tech killer? As a psychiatrist, I ought to know, but I don't. Like anyone else, qualified or otherwise, I can pundificate about social isolation, a sense of grievance, the desire for meaning through notoriety and a desire to control, especially to control the process of death - all of these can be applied, but like all the media commentators and politicians, I am guessing.

What is needed to move from pundification to knowledge is a systematic study of all the spree killers in modern history. There is no lack of data. Virginia 2007, Columbine 1999, Dunblane 1996, Port Arthur 1996, Hungerford 1987, University of Texas 1966, Luby's 1991, South Korea 1982, going back to Bath School 1927, these are just a few samples of the phenomenon of spree killings which is primarily, but not exclusively an American cultural event. Here is a full list of massacres.

To everyone except Americans who allow themselves to be influenced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) it is clear that the easy availability of guns is a factor in these killings. They simply and incontrovertibly provide the opportunity for mass killings, just as carbon monoxide "town" gas provided the opportunity for suicides to gas themselves to death in the days before domestic natural gas. It is of course possible to kill more than one person with a knife, sword, or even a frying pan, but guns give range and efficiency.

However, the NRA seems to have carried the day with its slogan "Guns don't kill, people kill". Actually, it is true that in 99.999% of cases, guns do not kill. It is the bullet that kills, except in those cases where the gun is used as a club. Whatever. If the NRA wants to shift the debate to the people, let's look at the people. As a psychiatrist, I am not aware of any formal studies of spree killers, although that does not mean they are not there. Here is one book: Pan Pantziarka 2000, Lone Wolf, Virgin Publishing ISBN 0-7535-0437-5. This book looks at individual cases, including Thomas Hamilton, Martin Bryant and Mark Barton. It also discusses the wider social context, psychological factors and political fall-out from spree killing. {Wikipedia}

I have not read it, but the title, Lone Wolf, suggests one prominent factor in these killings: their social isolation. A quick check of a sample of the killers mentioned in Wikipedia shows that some, but not all of them were "loners". Some of the others were obsessives, and others were clearly delusional psychotics. Others had personality disorders.

We need an authoritative study, and I will propose this to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Meanwhile, we need to start thinking about changes to the gun laws - not in America, which is clearly a basket case well beyond the reach of reason, but here in the UK.

A British applicant for a gun licence needs to show the police that (s)he has a good reason to own a gun, and to provide two referees. As a GP I used to be asked, but it no longer has to be a GP. I think the BMA decided it was too risky - what if we OK'd someone, and then they went on to kill? We could be sued.

The referee requirement should be extended to getting signatures of, say, 10 neighbours (defined as living within say 400 yards of the applicant's residence in a town, and five miles or so in the country) in who have no objection to your having a gun (and can certify that they are not being coerced at gunpoint to sign). This requirement would go some way to meet the problem of the "loner" who never speaks to his neighbours.

The other requirement that I suggest would be a psychological profile from a clinical psychologist, designed to screen for psychosis, obsessionality, and personality disorder.

I will put these ideas forward to the Home Office and let you know how I get on.

They are already Green Party policy :

a)Applicants should also be required to obtain the signature of, say, ten citizens (just as a prospective electoral candidate) who will vouch for the good character of the licence holder. This will discourage the 'loners' and socially isolated individuals who are most at risk of committing the horror that occurred at Dunblane and Hungerford.

b)The cost of medical and psychological tests must be borne by the applicant, together with a new annual fee which is sufficient to repay the economic damage - to police, court and NHS - inflicted on it by the abuse of guns generally. When licences are awarded the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate his or her suitability to handle firearms rather than on the authorities to prove the applicant's unsuitability. Licence holders will be required to renew their applications on an annual basis individuals whose licence application is rejected will be required to wait at least two years before re-applying.

Green Party - Manifesto for a sustainable society - gun control