Are people's actions influenced more by their nature, their predetermined heritable traits, or by nurture, the world and people around them? The debate has been ongoing for centuries,and although psychologists today agree that both nature and nurture play a role in human behavior, the question remains: which one plays more of a factor? Are our actions predetermined by our genes, with our environment contributing a limited role to our behavior? Or do our genes set a baseline on which our environment more heavily builds off of? While examining the motives of the perpetrators who committed the events presented on this website, I found that the nurture side of the debate can be suppored more strongly. 

     No one is disputing that nature plays a role in human behavior, because it does. Countless psychogical studies can attest to that very fact. Nature can predetermine a person's temperament, which may have in fact contributed to some of the tragedies discussed throughout this website. But the question here is not is nature or nurture correct, but rather, which is more influencial. The evidence and research of the perpetrators' motives show that, at least in the situations talked about on this website, their background and environmental influences contributed highly to their crimes. Nature and nurture are both relevant influences on behavior, but I believe that nurture plays a bigger role. People's genes may predetermine a person's temperament, but genes cannot tell a person how to act. People freely decide whether to act or not, and most of the time their current environment influences that decision greatly. For example, a person born with an angry temperament can learn to control their anger; just because they were born with a short fuse doesn't mean they automatically will act out their annoyance all the time. On the other hand, a person born with a generally patient temperament can just as easily snap and demonstrate bad behavior. It all depends on the current situation they are in; in other words, their environment.

     The five historical events that were included on this website provide evidence for the nurture side of the debate; all of the perpetrators had some kind of outside influence that helped contribute to their rash actions. Besides that, only three of the fifteen perpetrators discussed were reported to have a mental illness before they committed the crime, proving that biological influences were small factors when they decided to carry out the act. (Of course, some of the perpetrators may have had a mental illness no one was aware of, but investigators were unable to confirm that in any of the other cases). So if few perpetrators had mental illnesses, and it is possible for a person to control their temperament, that means that many of the assailants acted on environmental influences rather than innate ones. Besides that, it is not like any of the events occurred after a spur of the moment decision caused by a flash of anger; all of these events were thought out and planned, showing that short-term temperament did not play a role at all.

     Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber), Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) were all influenced by past historical events that their environment (the media, history classes, etc) had "glorified." These people were motivated to commit the acts they did not because of their genes, but because their environment said that if they did, they would be remembered for years to come. Additionally, McVeigh was influenced by his passion for guns, as well as his time in the military; he may have come to believe that using weapons against people was acceptable. Likewise, Harris and Klebold were constantly being bullied by their peers.This environmental factor may have influenced their decision to carry out the shooting. As you can see, outside influences played a role in both of these tragedies.

     Religion is important to many in our current society, and that is what influenced the remaining twelve perpetrators. In other words, their environment stressed the need to stand up for their religion. In the Paris attacks as well as the San Bernardino shooting, all of the culprits were radicalized by an Islamic group, which said that committing such violent acts was acceptable. These people were not born evil and murderous; they unfortunately stumbled upon a group that encouraged violence and hatred, which in turn influenced them to commit evil and murderous acts. In the case of San Bernardino, Syed Farook was described as a kind, quiet man before he met his wife. Investigators say that she (as a part of his environment) probably convinced him to carry out the acts. She, born in the Middle East, and constantly exposed to radical groups, was probably radicalized herself early on. The same goes for the Paris attacks; the shooters were radicalized by the extremist Islamist group, ISIS. This group says that violence is okay and stressed that the perpetrators would be remembered if they participated in the attacks. In both of these examples, outside influences (in this case, extremist Islamic groups) prompted normally innocent people to commit horrendous acts.

     Similar to the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, Chris Mercer (Umpqua Community College Shooting) also was obsessed was religion. Living in an environment that calls on people to stand up for what they believe in (especially when it comes to religion), he may have felt influenced by that. Also, similar to Timothy McVeigh, Mercer grew up with a passion for guns. Additionally, he was also interested in other historical shootings, that yet again, his environment had "glorified." Mercer's surroundings, which promote religion, guns, and historical tragedies, may have spurred his violent outburst.

    I am one who likes to see the good in people, I don't like the idea of people being born "evil," so I may be biased in that way. However, looking at this from an objective angle, anyone upon looking at the background of the perpetrators can see that outside influences in some way were acting on them before they committed the tragedy. Whether it was a violent past, being bullied, or a group pressuring them to commit a horrendous act for the sake of religion, all of the perpetrators were in some way influenced by the world around them. Nature and nurture both play a role in behavior, but in the case of the five tragedies discussed here, nurture played the bigger role.