Cho Sexually Abused…?

Do you think it’s possible Seung-Hui Cho was sexually abused early in his life? All the other deadliest school shooters had some sort of sexual molestation, or relationship with an older individual when they were very young. As well as other things. The two major factors I have noticed that make an extremely dangerous gunman, are bullying, and sexual abuse. Just being vague and using umbrella terms of course. The worst issues in life are always the most nuanced and unexplainable, but I think there is a basic correlation to be perceived in some of the deadliest school shooters in regards to the two factors mentioned. Examples: Adam Lanza once came home from school earlier on in his life covered in bruises, and was non-responsive and non-communicative when his mother Nancy asked him what happened. He also spoke of his pediatrician molesting him on multiple occasions. There are reports of Salvador Ramos supposedly being sexually involved with his uncle, or some other ambiguous family member at a very young age. He also experienced very heavily recorded amounts of bullying, including being intentionally tripped using his shoelaces and repeatedly humiliated for things like his clothing and hair and style of speech. Other more minor examples might include Mitchell Johnson, who experienced connotative sexual abuse from a “relative of a worker at a daycare center…?” This was around the age of 5-7 if my memory serves me correctly. Now, around to Seung-Hui Cho. He supposedly would come home from school and throw tantrums about how he never wanted to go back again. I believe this was at Poplar Trees Elementary, but I may be wrong. Yeah… I just tried to find the article again but I don’t feel like putting in more effort to it. I don’t wanna do that right now. My theory, is that he may have had unmentioned trauma from an early age, as he was already extremely quiet even back in Asan, but seeing as I’m too lazy to finish confirming the research I did earlier, I’m just going to presume this was at Poplar Trees (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Even more so than Lanza, he would suppress his feelings, and did so for most of his life up to the shootings at Virginia Tech. That is a lot of pent up aggression. I think the usual factors were at play, and I think they were, especially in his case, related to some kind of insecurity and issue with white people in particular. Perhaps extenuated by sexual abuse from a white teacher at an early age in addition to the extensive bullying he experienced from wealthy, catholic white children in Virginia…? I think it’s possible. He didn’t really say his feelings, because he knew they wouldn’t be heard. Which in the end ended up being the better decision for his post-death reputation, I think. Instead of saying things that would inevitably be misunderstood like they were misunderstood in the case of the other deadliest school shooters, he simply didn’t say anything at all. Nothing to correct if you didn’t make any mistakes. It’s very logical. There would be too many problems for him to complain about either way, so he just—very tactically and intelligently I might add—said nothing at all. While still just being the usual gunman, only portraying himself in a different manner.

I would like to use these points as a kick-off point to the real core of this opinion here. I don’t believe that the main issue with shootings (I should specify that I’m talking about extensively consistent trends I’ve noticed in American shootings, not foreign ones), is guns or mental health… I think it’s—justly or no—unfulfilled grudges. That’s what massacres are born of. Think of the mental process, okay? Just generally, when you’re mad, what is the mental process. You don’t give up at a certain point. You contain your energy, and think logistically on how you can take long-term vengeance. That’s all shootings are, at the end of the day. Things build and build from whatever age they start at. No matter the shooter, it’s really not all that complicated. And there are other factors in accurately portraying the individuals/perpetrators that carry out such simplistic actions that are perceived as so monstrous, but it’s not about the issues that they think are there. Be it government, average civilian, or bully of the perpetrator themself. I think it comes down to them being irreparably misperceived and estranged from the world—yes in all cases large and small—to the point where they feel the only option to sate their bloodlust after the world has wronged them, is to murder innocents indiscriminately in mass. Rob them of the potential the world has robbed of them. “Bad” people, are, historically speaking, born of small-time issues that build over time. Take a young boy, disputing with his brother over a broken toy. The parent takes the side of one boy over the other. This has added a point, a weight, onto the scale of the technically victimized in self-perception, boy, and done nothing to the other one, who has simply gotten what they want. Well, it does do something, it lifts the potential for a burden off of that child. These things escalate as a child gets older. Genetic and cultural factors and sexuality collide with trauma and self-perception, and the issue is no longer a broken toy, but general powerlessness in life. The person is now older, with less potential. They’ve been raped, or blackmailed, or misunderstood. Lied about, or abused in some way or another. This is no longer something that can be resolved by diplomacy. Just like in war, at a certain point there is no logical reason for a future school shooter to attempt to resolve and repair their trauma in a socially acceptable way. They’ll instead resort to slow, steady, self-destruction and reputation-work as they wait for their respective self-perceived days of retribution. So what’s the solution…? Simple… There is none… You can never balance peace in a world built by undeveloped creatures and truces. Humanity is an impure species. They really are. In a curious way, sure, but still vile and predictable. If someone put in laws to prevent calculated but still mentally unstable soon-to-be terrorists from purchasing guns, they’d buy fertilizer instead, and make a bomb. If you placed them in a cage, they’d either find a way to escape and retaliate, or the person who placed them in a cage will be corrupted by their own pride, ego, hypocrisy and… power. They’d be corrupted by the power they obtained, and traumatized by it simply for existing in a higher social position than the formerly innocent “monster,” that they have caged. This is the dilemma. So… is the solution to let a begrudged, tortured individual fulfill their grudge small-scale so it does not fester like a cyst and turn to the disease that eventually turns into large-scale bloodshed? No. That wouldn’t work either, because they’d simply be corrupted by a separate source. The issue is not in any legislature, it’s in the nature of mankind and civilization as a whole. And more than that, in the individual who has—in public perception—completely lost their minds. That’s a funny saying, isn’t it? “Lost,” one’s mind. But when is it found? Is it ever in their possession in the first place, or is that an illusion, founded on false principles and the generalized anger and hatred and disgust mentioned prior? I’d think the latter of my theories…

His selective mutism and sexual confusion have led me to wonder the same thing a few times. This article talks about it a bit, but nothing particularly in depth:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I also found some of the contents of this paper interesting, especially these 2 passages:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's a pretty significant change in a short time. He started art therapy the summer before 7th grade and the shift happened in march of 8th grade. Maybe it's a situation similar to Adam where a socially awkward kid with low self esteem got fondled examined by a doctor and it was just too much for him to bear?

I'm tired as hell so forgive this being incoherent, but I think you have a lot of compelling ideas here.