Why are high-profile shooters writing on their ammo?

Audio By Carbonatix

Why are high-profile shooters writing on their ammo?

In several recent high-profile shootings, law enforcement has found inscriptions on the perpetrators’ weapons and ammunition — sometimes overt political cues, sometimes drawn from meme and gaming subcultures, sometimes both.

The man who, on September 24, killed one detainee and injured two others at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas reportedly scrawled “ANTI-ICE” on one of his rounds. In Utah, the assailant charged with the September 10 assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk covered his ammunition with references to memes, games, and politics.

Similar inscriptions surfaced on weapons or ammunition in the August mass shooting at Minneapolis’s Annunciation Catholic School, the December killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO in Manhattan, and the 2022 mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

The Trace spoke to Adam Lankford, a University of Alabama criminologist and an expert on mass shootings and targeted violence, to unpack what these inscriptions mean, how they interact with online subcultures, and how media coverage can avoid amplifying shooters’ self-branding. His interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How are you interpreting these inscriptions, and do you see a pattern?

I’d say these shooters are accessorizing — doing something to try to make their violence look cool. The idea that violent attackers or criminals try to make themselves look cool isn’t new. We’ve seen mass shooters wear a certain uniform like a trench coat, dark clothes, or fatigues. Sometimes they wear body armor, or something that gives the appearance of body armor. I see these inscriptions as an extension of that.

What do the inscriptions or writings do for the perpetrators? Are they a mini-manifesto or a trolling tactic?

It’s similar to people who put bumper stickers on their cars. For perpetrators, this is their way of taking an act of violence and putting their individual stamp on it. It’s a way to portray their personality or creativity.

The idea that inscriptions are replacing manifestos seems absurd. “Replacing” would suggest the same function. I have no reason to think manifestos are going away. For example, the Annunciation Catholic School shooter left behind long writings explaining his thoughts and trajectory toward violence.

Manifestos provide many more ideas and much more explanation of what a perpetrator did and why. The UnitedHealthcare CEO killer wrote a manifesto that was around 300 words and didn’t have a lot of original thought. He even acknowledged he didn’t know much about the health care system. There have been perpetrators, especially on the far right, who copied or even plagiarized each other’s manifestos. So just because someone commits an extreme act of violence doesn’t mean they have anything profound to say. That’s always been the case.

But there does seem to be some kind of political cue in what these shooters are writing on their weapons and ammunition. There are also meme and game references. How should we interpret that mix?

These attackers know they’re engaged in acts of defiance. They’re defying societal standards of right and wrong, and they’re defying the law. In that sense, there’s a political element to transgression. They’re speaking to a subculture they imagine will appreciate it. These things are intended for an audience. Perpetrators have often engaged in gaming communities like Discord and online extremist forums like 4chan. They often think of those people as their brotherhood or community. In some sense, they’re performing for that community.

You can think of it as an inside joke. It’s meant for the people who understand it. Whereas, classically, a manifesto is meant to win people over — to explain and convince a broader community or the public at large.

You’ve written about the “gamification” of mass violence. Can you explain what that means and how these inscriptions may fit into that framework?

Gamification is taking a task and giving it game-like features, largely to encourage participation. If you want your kids to clean their bedroom, you make it a game — it’s fun and less like work. With the gamification of violence, it’s the same premise: Attackers suggest that extreme violence is fun, encouraging others to participate.

We see this clearly in the Charlie Kirk case, where the alleged shooter acknowledged there wasn’t a lot of meaning to his inscriptions. Some perpetrators have studied previous attackers and may attempt to inspire copycats by portraying violence as fun and cool.

Do you think news coverage — or the virality of images on social media — could reinforce this behavior or create a feedback loop?

When perpetrators want attention and you give it to them, you’re rewarding them. We know that when people considering something look at their role models and see they were rewarded, they’re more likely to follow suit.

In the Charlie Kirk case, the perpetrator said in text messages to his roommate that he would find it amusing if the media covered the inscriptions. The media played into exactly what the perpetrator wanted.

There’s a risk any time we look at statements from people who engage in extreme violence and take them at their word. We assume they’re pouring out their soul — unfiltered and honest — and that this provides insight into their psychology without any deception. I’m always on guard when I interpret anything perpetrators leave behind.

Some of the inscriptions we’ve seen referenced online gaming subcultures. What role do these online communities sometimes play in the ramp-up to attacks?

The U.S. Surgeon General in 2023 released a report on the epidemic of loneliness in the United States, explicitly saying social connection is a need — almost like food and water. A high percentage of perpetrators are socially isolated. The easiest, least risky way to seek social connection is online. Often, that involves online gaming. Our work suggests online gaming is attractive because you’re playing with and against other people, teaming up on missions, talking over headsets. These are forms of social bonding.

But these online conversations often skew toward the outrageous or provocative, especially with young men. Young men gaming can bond by saying outrageous things and getting laughs. That can lead to more engagement with extreme ideas — people look them up and visit extremist forums and other places where extremist content is accessible.

Ultimately, that behavior often leaves the online realm. We found that many attackers had become bored with the online world and needed something more. That’s when they brought violence to the real world.

Typical gamers are more likely to play with people they know in the physical world, like classmates, siblings, or romantic partners. That means their gaming life interacts with their physical-world life — there’s a healthy balance.

We found that perpetrators of extreme violence were not playing with people they knew in the physical world, for the most part. The balance disappeared. Their lives became totally focused online. Worse, people whose lives are completely online sometimes opt out of trying offline. It’s like living on an oxygen substitute and deciding it’s better than nothing.

What does all of this say about how we could prevent things like this in the future, if anything?

To prevent mass and extreme violence at the core level, we can look at firearm access, mental health, media and social media coverage, and public health efforts to reduce social isolation.

But we can also think about the online radicalization problem specifically. We thought the problems were video games and extremist forums. There’s some truth to that. But another way to think about the problem is that online gaming and extremist forums weren’t compelling enough for these people. If they were satisfied being keyboard warriors — spewing hate and cyberbullying — ironically, that might prevent violence in the physical world.

With AI, social media, and video conferencing, can we close the gap between the benefits of face-to-face connection and the limited benefits of online connection? Maybe we can innovate. Right now, having Facebook, Instagram, 4chan, or Reddit “friends” isn’t good enough. We’ll always have socially awkward people, but maybe we’ll reach a point where we can offer a social substitute online that genuinely fills their needs. That could move us in a healthier direction.

This story was produced by The Trace and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.