This paper analyzes Ari Schulman's argument that mass shootings function as a form of theater in which perpetrators seek public attention and notoriety. By examining psychological studies and profiles of mass killers, the paper identifies common traits—including obsessive planning, personality disorders, and fascination with previous attacks—and explains how shooters construct narratives to justify their violence. The paper then evaluates Schulman's central proposal: that depriving mass shooters of media coverage and public attention could reduce the frequency of such attacks. It argues that media outlets bear significant responsibility for enabling this contagion through glorification and detailed coverage, and that restricting manifestos, identities, and visual documentation could disrupt the psychological reward cycle that motivates future perpetrators.
Ari Schulman, in her article "What Mass Killers Want and How to Stop Them," presents a compelling argument about the psychology and behavior of mass shooters. Schulman concludes that mass shooters crave public attention and notoriety, and that if we could deprive them of the spotlight and control how society responds to their actions, we might reduce the frequency of these horrific events. Schulman reaches this conclusion by examining research from psychological studies and by analyzing the patterns evident in documented cases of mass violence. Her work is driven by a legitimate fear that mass shootings—events comparable to Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown—will continue to occur with increasing frequency and severity. Throughout her analysis, Schulman identifies the psychological profile of mass killers, explains their motivations, documents the planning stages that precede these attacks, and proposes concrete interventions to prevent future tragedies.
The research that Schulman synthesizes reveals a consistent profile of rampage shooters. They are typically young men who adopt military aesthetics—wearing military dress or black commando-style clothing. Many display a pronounced fascination with weaponry, warfare, military culture, and survivalism. Contrary to public perception, these individuals do not simply "snap" and commit violence impulsively. Rather, they are highly organized and meticulously plan their attacks, obsessing over details for months in advance. Another common misconception is that mass shooters are mentally ill people acting out psychotic fantasies. In fact, rampage shooters typically do not suffer from mental illness in the clinical sense. Instead, they struggle with personality disorders characterized by resentment, self-righteousness, and a sense of entitlement. They view themselves as collectors of injustice, exaggerating and ruminating over humiliating events from their past. This grievance narrative fuels anger and frustration, which eventually crystallizes into a violent plan for revenge against what they perceive as an uncaring world. Ultimately, this desire for revenge culminates in a final, violent act intended to make a statement to society.
Mass shooters do not act randomly or without purpose; rather, they attempt to create a story through their violence. They construct a narrative explaining how the world has forced them to act, internalize that narrative as truth, and then communicate their story to the wider world. This communication takes multiple forms: spoken warnings before the violence, taunting of victims, and written manifestos meant to reach a global audience. Schulman observes that this narrative structure suggests mass shootings function as a form of theater—terrorism without an explicitly political agenda. By orchestrating a public spectacle and killing indiscriminate victims, shooters attack society in much the same way terrorists do. Their subsequent suicide denies society the opportunity for justice through the legal system, thereby allowing the shooter to retain ultimate control over the narrative and their legacy.
A particularly chilling pattern that Schulman documents is mass killers' obsessive focus on previous massacres. Perpetrators of rampage shootings frequently study past attacks—particularly the 1999 Columbine shooting—and sometimes use these historical precedents as inspiration. More disturbingly, many engage in a grim competition, attempting to surpass previous death tolls and secure their place as the most notorious mass shooter. Schulman reports evidence from Dr. Mullen, who interviewed the Newtown shooter, that the perpetrator "gleefully admitted that he was going for the record" and maintained a "score sheet" tracking previous mass killings. This documentation reveals that the shooter was deliberately attempting to achieve maximum notoriety and insert himself into a perverted hall of fame. Such evidence underscores that mass shooters are not driven primarily by mental illness or random impulse, but by a calculated desire for infamy and public recognition.
Schulman argues that society has misunderstood the nature of mass shootings. Rather than treating them purely as criminal or psychiatric phenomena, we should recognize them as a contagion or epidemic that spreads through a cycle of media amplification and imitation. The fundamental mechanism of this contagion is the public spotlight: shooters crave attention, media outlets provide it through extensive coverage, and this coverage both glorifies the perpetrator and provides a template for potential future attackers. Research on suicide contagion and copycat effects demonstrates that detailed media coverage of violent acts can inspire similar behavior in vulnerable individuals. In the context of mass shootings, this means that every time media outlets publish a shooter's manifesto, display their photograph prominently, show video of the event, or provide extensive biographical details, they are essentially delivering a how-to guide and a hall-of-fame nomination to the next would-be perpetrator.
The media's role in enabling this contagion is particularly significant because outlets would never publish detailed instructions for constructing explosives, yet they regularly provide comprehensive coverage that includes the shooter's background, grievances, ideology, methods, and motivations. They film and photograph the aftermath, create documentaries, and broadcast the shooter's own videos and statements. The iconic nature of this coverage—such as the widely-circulated footage from Columbine—ensures that images and narratives surrounding mass shootings become deeply embedded in public consciousness and available as reference material for future perpetrators. Schulman emphasizes that the media's power to prevent or enable this contagion is extraordinary: if outlets stop glorifying shooters and instead deprive them of notoriety, the fundamental motivation driving many perpetrators is removed.
Schulman proposes several concrete strategies to disrupt the contagion cycle by depriving shooters of the spotlight they crave. First, media outlets and law enforcement should never publish the shooter's manifesto or writings. Second, the perpetrator's identity should be withheld from public knowledge and news coverage. Third, details that glorify the violence—including photographs, video footage, and graphic descriptions—should be minimized or eliminated entirely. Outlets should avoid showing images that are likely to become iconic or viral, as such imagery perpetuates the shooter's desired legacy. Fourth, rather than focusing extensively on the grief of families or the shooter's background and ideology, media should center the narrative on the victims themselves. Fifth, media outlets should actively choose to deprioritize or omit coverage of mass shootings from the news cycle, thereby controlling the narrative and preventing the shooter from achieving the public spectacle they sought.
The underlying principle is clear: media ethics and editorial choices have measurable consequences for public safety. Schulman's argument is not that media coverage causes all mass shootings, but rather that it reinforces and accelerates the contagion cycle. If media outlets adopted restraint similar to their approach to bomb-making instructions—refusing to provide a template—they could significantly reduce the incentive structure motivating would-be perpetrators. This does not require censorship or government mandate; it requires media organizations to recognize their role in the contagion and exercise editorial responsibility accordingly.
Schulman has provided numerous compelling arguments throughout her article to support her thesis. She grounds her analysis in studies conducted by licensed psychologists, explains the psychological drivers behind mass shooter behavior, and proposes actionable measures to interrupt the cycle that produces these tragedies. What makes her argument particularly persuasive, however, is her emotional commitment to the subject. Her writing conveys genuine concern about the escalating frequency of mass shootings and a sense of moral urgency about preventing future attacks. This emotional dimension is not a weakness in her argument; rather, it demonstrates the gravity of the problem and motivates readers to take her recommendations seriously.
The logic of Schulman's position is compelling: if a mass shooter's primary motivation is to achieve a public spectacle—to demonstrate control and force society to acknowledge his grievances—then denying him that spectacle strikes at the heart of his motivation. By withholding manifestos and identities, by restricting visual documentation, and by shifting media narrative focus away from the perpetrator and toward the victims, society can reclaim control from these perpetrators. Schulman's central claim—that we must deprive shooters of the ability to transform their internal psychodrama into a shared public reality and alter our collective response—offers a pathway toward reducing these dreadful and all-too-frequent tragedies. Psychological research supports the connection between media representation and behavioral outcomes, lending scientific credibility to her media-focused prevention strategy. The time has come for media organizations and society to recognize their role in either perpetuating or interrupting the contagion of mass violence, and to exercise that responsibility with the seriousness the stakes demand.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.