On an otherwise ordinary Thursday, a 14-year-old entered a middle school in the southern city of Kahramanmaras and opened fire on two classrooms, killing eight students and a teacher. The attack followed another school shooting two days earlier in Siverek in Turkey’s Sanliurfa province, in which the gunman wounded 16 people before killing himself in a showdown with police.
Such attacks can seem to come out of nowhere, but experts say that impression is misleading. Mass shootings rarely are spontaneous; they usually follow a recognizable trajectory of escalating grievance, planning, and missed chances to intervene.
What do we get wrong about mass shooters?
A shocking act of violence can appear to come out of nowhere, but researchers warn against the “snap” myth. John Horgan, director of the Violent Extremism Research Group at Georgia State University, says attackers almost never erupt without a long history of trauma, grievances that build over time, and major stressors—rejection, humiliation, loss—that become final straws in a turbulent life.
Mental illness not a primary factor
Another common misconception is that mental illness is the main cause. Forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy, an FBI consultant, says that explanation is often too simplistic. Only a minority of attackers have a diagnosed mental illness at the time of the attack. Instead, many targeted killings are driven by personal grievance—loss, humiliation, anger, and blame—or by grievance combined with extremist ideology.
James Densley, a criminology professor, suggests it’s less about diagnosable illness and more about a lack of mental wellness that precipitates a personal crisis. Crisis is not the same as illness, and conflating the two stigmatizes many people who pose no threat.
When a personal grievance explodes into public violence
For most people, rejection, failure, and humiliation fade. For some, though, such experiences become central to identity. Densley says the process often begins with a wound—real or perceived—that some people ruminate on until it defines them. The grievance externalizes: it’s not just that life hurt them, it’s that specific people or society caused the harm, and somebody must pay.
Horgan describes a similar trajectory that typically involves careful planning. Mass shooters “do their homework”: researching targets, tactics, and how to obtain weapons, sometimes seeking feedback online from like-minded people.
From violent fantasy to reality
Violent fantasies are not uncommon and can function as a coping mechanism. What distinguishes those who commit public violence is the commitment to make the fantasy real. Densley notes a further shift in moments of crisis: some attackers, often suicidal, begin to identify with previous perpetrators. If they have firearm access, that identification can cross a psychological threshold where dying and killing become intertwined.
Is it possible to prevent mass shootings?
The chain of events suggests prevention is possible. In almost every case studied, someone noticed changes in behavior: withdrawal from work or social life, unusual social media posts, or a sudden fascination with guns. These warning signs—what Horgan calls “leakage”—are ways attackers communicate intent in advance. Peers are often ideally placed to spot such behavior, but they may fail to act because they don’t believe threats are credible.
Meloy emphasizes a critical distinction: predicting targeted violence is difficult because it is rare, but it can be prevented when warning behaviors are recognized and acted upon.
What makes people kill strangers?
Not all mass violence follows the same pattern. While many violent acts target people known to the perpetrator, some are directed at strangers. Meloy notes that even attacks on strangers often involve a psychological or historical connection to the target or location.
Densley highlights a key difference between private and public violence. Family killings select victims for who they are; mass public attacks often treat victims as interchangeable. That interchangeability makes public mass violence performative—intended to send a message, to be seen and remembered. Psychologically, such acts are closer to terrorism than to domestic homicide, even when no formal ideology is present.
Recognizing the long arc—from wound to fixation, planning, and leakage—offers paths for intervention: taking warning signs seriously, offering support to those in crisis, and disrupting the networks and narratives that enable escalation.
Edited by Derrick Williams