+30
Why do people assume a mass shooter's manifesto is honest?
I mean, if somebody's willing to blast a bunch of innocent people, they're obviously not a "good person," so why do people assume they're being honest when they say why they did it? amirite?
Some of these shooters fully intend to die, the rest know their probability of survival is slim...and their manifesto may be their way of trying to have their say after the fact. Chances are that most are as honest as the author knows how to be. Few, if any, of us are able to be entirely unbiased about ourselves and our motives, though.
A perfect example is the manifesto of Elliott Rodger from Isla Vista back in 2014. He was lashing out at the girls/women who "rejected" him and the boys/men that got the girls. Rodger is a veritable hero among incels today, and indeed, he thought himself to be an incel. In reality, he was not. Incels are involuntarily celibate. And while he claimed to be, he was not. His celibacy was entirely voluntary, as per his own telling of his life story, he never even gave any female the opportunity to reject him. He'd never so much as even asked one out.
There is always the possibility that a manifesto might represent the author's ultimate "Fuck You!" to the world. There are those who just love messing with people...even from beyond. There is also the very real probability that shooters who leave manifestos aren't exactly of sound mind.
As always....JMHO
The El Paso guy said it was a suicide mission, but not only did he surrender to police, he wore hearing protection, so it's reasonable to assume he was lying about that. Also, at this point in history everybody knows how an event like that will be used, so it seems like fertile ground to sow a false narrative.
So the attack
A, won't do anything to solve illegal immigration
B, will be used to demonize the shooter's purported ideology (American nationalism)
C, will make it harder to criticize illegal immigration for fears of inspiring someone else to attack illegals.
So you have the stated goal, and you have what was actually accomplished, and they're diametric opposites. So the shooter is either absolutely clueless, or his stated objectives were not his actual objectives. Which makes me wonder why people assume his manifesto is what he thinks rather than what he merely wants everyone to think he thinks.
I wasn't speaking strictly to the El Paso shooting. Each is a unique situation, and must be viewed as such...IMHO.
Yes, I saw that he had hearing protection on. That's not the only anomaly, though. Interestingly, the Dayton shooter also used hearing protection.
In my opinion, the real target was the image of guns, and of conservatives. They were willing to take a bunch of innocent lives because in their minds the ends justify the means. It's more of a theory than a provable fact, but that's how I see it.
The El Paso shooter wore headset protection, the guy in Dayton wore ear plugs. While the Dayton shooter wore body armor, and the El Paso shooter wore cargo pants...but was arrested in khakis.
Hours after the El Paso shooting, the police were still saying there were multiple shooters, while the guy in Dayton was supposedly gunned down 30 seconds after opening fire.
Political insanity.. .
I think because those people are the type who never like to see a crisis or tragedy go to waste for their ideological, political expediency.
Outside of that, most people would have their doubts if the manifesto was all there was to go on without solid, historical, physical proof.