警方最新发现：赵承熙尸体留有神秘红字（ZT）

• 

  丹意 组长 楼主 2007-04-19 08:11:38

  万维编译报道：冷血杀手的共性-复仇心理 透社文章指出，象佛州理工大学冷血杀手赵乘熙这样的人通常是很不合群，对外界充满仇恨，把自己的失败归于他人的罪过。 一位波士顿西北大学的犯罪学教授Alan Fox说，1966年在德克萨斯大学Charles Whitman枪杀了十三人，掀起了美国冷血大屠杀的时代。从那时起，美国每年大约有十几起屠杀案件，每个案件中伤亡至少四人。四十年来，这些案件的发生频率一直保持不变，但是由于武器的杀伤力越来越大，死伤人数不断上升。 本星期一发生在佛吉尼亚理工大学的枪杀案，现在官方已经公布了作案人，就是南韩裔的赵乘熙，他有合法的美国居民身份。在这次案件中他先杀死了32位学生和教师，最后自杀。 Fox教授说：“很多冷血大屠杀的杀手都有同样的一个动机，就是复仇的欲望。他们觉得身边发生的一切都不公平，必须采取暴力方法解决。他们将自己的失败归罪于他人，觉得不值得活下去。这些人通常会自杀，但是在自杀之前一定要杀死一些无辜的人方觉得满意，而且他们觉得是那些人被杀是其应得的惩罚。” 与大屠杀杀手(在同一时间内杀很多人)不同的还有连环杀手(就是在一段时间之内分期杀人) 。心理学家说，连环杀手通常的动机是为了证实他有能力控制别人的生命，他们选择牺牲品时通常是随机的。 冷血大屠杀杀手通常有以下的几个特点： -长期处于焦虑中，有一段失败的历史； -总是将自己的失败归罪于别人，不承认自己的缺点； -不喜欢社交，常常是扮演孤独者的角色； -最后的致命的一击往往是被女朋友甩掉或者被公司开除； -喜欢玩武器，特别是杀伤性大的武器。 Fox教授和另一位专家合作的一本书中还专门列出了三种容易导致大屠杀的复仇心理： -有针对性的复仇：比如2000年软件工程师Michael McDermott杀死了七位公司的同事，他主要针对的是公司的人事部门工作人员。 -分类复仇：这类人选择的复仇对象是某一群体，比如女性，黑人或者亚裔人。1989年，在蒙特利尔Marc Lepine一次杀死了14位女性，因为他认为女权主义者毁坏了他的生活。 -无目标性的复仇：这里杀手在选择牺牲品时没有什么针对性，任何一个人都有可能成为目标。比如1991年在德克萨斯的一家饭店里，George Hennard杀死了20几名顾客。 专家指出，在无目标性的屠杀里，凶手很多时候是神经有问题。 Fox教授说，现在炸弹也是一种大屠杀的武器。比如在1995年在俄克拉荷马Timothy McVeigh炸毁了联邦政府的一座大楼。 不过，一般杀手多选择用枪做凶器。这些杀手都把用枪射击牺牲品当做一种享受。

  删除 |

  赞 回应
• 

  丹意 组长 楼主 2007-04-19 08:14:38

  Guns in America 　　 　　After the massacre 　　Apr 17th 2007 | NEW YORK 　　From Economist.com 　　 　　Despite the shootings in Virginia, Americans don't seem to want more gun control 　　 　　IT IS surely an American oddity that, after the worst mass shooting in the country’s history, some are already saying that such horrors would be less likely if only guns were easier to own and carry. Americans love firearms. The second item in the constitution’s bill of rights, just after freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press, is the right to bear arms. It is part of the national religion. 　　 　　Mass killings remain rare events, whatever outsiders might think, and they also happen in other countries, including those with tight rules on gun ownership. But life in modern America is punctuated frighteningly often by such attacks. Making any sort of accurate international comparison is tricky, but some attempts have been tried. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an activist group, counts 41 school shootings in America since 1996, which have claimed 110 lives, including those in Virginia this week. IANSA also looks at school shootings in 80 other countries. Culling from media reports, they count only 14 school gun killings outside America in the same period. Putting aside the Beslan massacre in Russia—committed by an organised terrorist group—school shootings in all those countries claimed just 59 victims. 　　 　　 As striking are the overall rates of violent death by handguns in America. The country is filled with 200m guns, half the world’s privately-owned total. Residents of other countries may fret that criminals, gang-members and insane individuals are increasingly likely to use guns and knives. But in comparison with America, few other developed countries have much to worry about. The gun-murder rate in America is more than 30 times that of England and Wales, for example. Canada—like America, a “frontier” country with high rates of gun ownership—sees far fewer victims shot down: the firearm murder-rate south of the Canadian border is vastly higher than the rate north of it. America may not quite lead the world in gun murders (South Africa probably holds that dubious title) but it has a dismally prominent position. 　　 　　What might be done to improve matters in America? The intuitive answer, at least for Europeans and those who live in countries where guns are less easily available, is that laws must be tightened to make it harder to obtain and use such weapons. Not only might that reduce the frequency of criminal acts, goes the argument, but it may also cut the number of accidental deaths and suicides. 　　 　　Yet some in America are reaching the opposite conclusion. Within hours of the shootings in Virginia on Monday April 16th, a conservative blogger was quoting a Roman military historian, suggesting that “if you want peace, prepare for war” (“si vis pacem, para bellum”). Others put it more bluntly: “an armed society is a polite society”. Virginia’s gun laws are generally permissive. Any adult can buy a handgun after a brief background check (as required by federal law), and anyone who legally owns a handgun and who asks for a permit to carry a concealed weapon must be granted such a permit. Yet Virginia Tech, like many schools and universities, is a gun-free zone. Gun advocates are daring to say that if Virginia Tech allowed concealed weapons, someone might have stopped the rampaging killer. To gun-control advocates, this is self-evident madness. 　　 　　The issue remains one of America’s many culture wars, dominated by an uncompromising dialogue between two extreme camps. Western and southern states, libertarians and American exceptionalists believe that guns are part of the national fabric. They say the second amendment is plain: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun-control advocates note the introductory clause to that amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, and say that the framers of the constitution never intended America to be packed with citizens bearing private weapons. 　　 　　In recent years the right-to-arms camp have been getting stronger. Even Democrats are shifting in favour. The Democratic presidential candidates carried only one state in the south or mountain West in 2000 and 2004, so the party has decided that, to win at the national level again, it must drop support for gun control. That strategy seemed to work in the congressional elections of 2006, when pro-gun Democrats did well. The likes of Jon Tester, a new senator in Montana, and Heath Shuler, a North Carolina congressional freshman, did much bragging about their lifelong gun ownership and support for the second amendment. 　　 　　This suggests that, though gun laws may be tweaked after the Virginia massacre, there will be little significant change to come. The Columbine killings of 1999 failed to provoke any shift in Americans’ attitudes to guns. There is no reason to believe that this massacre, or the next one, will do so either.

  删除 |

  赞 回应

你的回应

回应请先 登录 , 或 注册