While the motives of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old man who shot and injured former President Trump on Saturday July 13, are still unclear, the FBI is investigating the case as a possible act of domestic terrorism.
Targeting the former president at a high-profile campaign rally and leaving behind explosives in his vehicle in Butler, Pennsylvania suggests the shooter may have intended to use violence to send a broader political message.
If so, the would-be political assassin meets many definitions of a homegrown violent extremist and a mass shooter, as he killed one victim and injured three others, including the former President.
Recently, there has been a push by some terrorism and homeland security experts to focus less on the ideology of mass shooters, and instead focus more on the shared backgrounds and personal grievances of those who commit extreme acts of violence. Finding commonalities in the backgrounds and behaviors of persons committing extreme violence, regardless of their political ideology, can lead to more generalizable insights for informing violence prevention efforts.
The question remains, however, whether the ideology of mass shooters and other violent extremists can help us identify the constellations of factors driving them toward violence, as well as possible interdiction points as they plan, prepare, and execute their attacks.
In a recent analysis by Brynn Schuetter of the University of Arkansas’ Terrorism Research Center, several significant differences in ideological and other mass shooters, and the nature of their extreme violence, were uncovered. Specifically, Schuetter found that, ideological mass shooters are less likely to struggle with mental health issues, less likely to experience disruptive life events in the six months prior to their attacks, more likely to rely on semi-automatic firearms, and more likely to kill more victims during their attacks.
While mass shooters tend to be relatively young White males who have experienced various personal grievances, these findings suggest that ideological mass shooters are more committed to sending broader political messages by using more lethal weapons and killing more victims in their attacks.
Overlooking how patterned differences in the experiences of ideological mass shooters separate them from school shooters, workplace shooters, and other public mass shooters could hinder ongoing refinements of counter-extremism programs and public awareness campaigns aimed to prevent future acts of extreme violence.
For summary of Schuetter’s findings on ideologically motivated mass shooters, see the latest data snapshot in the TRC series.