I don't need to remind everyone of the Orlando shooting. Everyone is shocked over the sheer number of casualties, and surprised about the targeting of the LGBT community by an undoubted Islamic terrorist. Those two things will make this atrocity linger in the public mind. The tragedy is taking us through another tour of the well-worn debate over the availability of military-grade guns under the Second Amendment. Never mind these are weapons that could kill fifty people in five minutes, argument always ends the same way. The gun lobbying and PR kills any action. Yet, both the shock of the massacre and the familiarity the aftermath ritual obscure a disturbing trend in mass shootings, one that should be getting more attention.
(Continued after the break.)
Mass shootings are no longer the work of a lone wolfs with mental health
issues. They've now become a weapon of political terror. The last four
high-profile mass shootings are all political. The Orlando shooting was
apparently a simultaneous attack against the US and the LGBT community
by an ISIS sympathizer; the Charleston, South Carolina massacre was a
white supremacist trying to start a race war with an attack on a black
church; the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting was part of the
long trend of terror against abortion clinics; the San Bernardino
Department of Health Shooting was an act of radical Islamic terror that
at first looked like an office shot up by a disgruntled employee.
Despite the fact that we have an excess of mass shootings, this overall trend toward political terror is new. Compare all these to a sample of prior shootings: the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Aurora Colorado theater shootings. (The dates are given in the link.) Those shooters were all addled by mental illness. Their motives were enigmas, and their actions appeared to spring from some drama in the shooters' mind.
The Colorado Springs shooting might be an exception. Abortion clinics
have long been targets for domestic terrorists. The shooters reasons
were identical to objections given by anti-choice groups, which are
considered mainstream. He said in court, when they were reading out his charges, "Could you add the babies that were supposed to be aborted that
day? Could you add that to the list?"
Yet, none of the people he killed worked at Planned Parenthood. Saving fetuses might as well have been his excuse to shoot anybody. If we had an academic class looking at The Art of Mass Killing, Colorado Springs would be called a “transitional work.”
Yet, none of the people he killed worked at Planned Parenthood. Saving fetuses might as well have been his excuse to shoot anybody. If we had an academic class looking at The Art of Mass Killing, Colorado Springs would be called a “transitional work.”
Now, eight months later, all of the worst mass shootings target some
group the shooter politically opposes. These perpetrators are either
right-wing Christians--such as with the Charleston shooting--or Islamic
terrorists, like Orlando and San Bernardino.
It's been noted in social media and discussion groups that Islamic and Christian fundamentalists share
many of the same social goals. When I first heard about the Orlando
shooting, I thought it had to be the work of a Christian domestic
terrorist. It could easily have been. I'm surprised there hasn't been a
mass shooting against the LGBT community before now. Right-wing
ministers had a few statements about the Orlando shooting. Let's just
say they weren't offering condolences:
These Christian ministers are too arrogant and cowardly to commit the act
they're advocating. However, they have plenty of loser congregants and
sympathizers who just need to hear that it's good to kill some people,
despite that commandment. The targeting and use of terror is almost
identical between the two fundamentalist religions. Therefore, I'd be
appalled, but not surprised, if more shooters don't target LGBT's.
The way mass shootings are being used for political terror reminds me
of another, less-serious crime of the postmodern age: hacking. At first
it was committed by mischievous individuals with nothing but pranks in
mind. Then it was done for prestige, then for petty theft or revenge.
Now it's a tool of organized crime. We've reached the
point where malware shuts down and threatens to erase whole networks unless the criminals are paid off.
The two crimes are similar not only in their evolution, but the
seriousness is driven by technical innovation available at the consumer
level. With hacking, it's the commonality of computers and software
tools. With mass shootings, it's the unprecedented pervasiveness of guns
capable of mass-producing corpses.
We might anticipate a similar outlaw renaissance with another
technology that's come of age, and which is becoming common: drones.
Even as terrorists use those, they will continue to take further
advantage of our gun-love.
As the problem gets worse, the NRA proposes more guns for citizens to stop mass shootings, but a citizen with a gun doesn't make a hero. In a perfect world, more guns in the hands of citizens would stop mass shootings.
As the problem gets worse, the NRA proposes more guns for citizens to stop mass shootings, but a citizen with a gun doesn't make a hero. In a perfect world, more guns in the hands of citizens would stop mass shootings.
Alas, the more likely real-world result would be similar to how more
personal computers put a complete stop to hacking. An armed citizen is
almost as helpless against a rampaging shooter as an unarmed one. It's
almost impossible stop a shooting in progress when the shooter has
chosen his ground, has surprise, has the better weapon (presumably a
military grade rifle), has the safety off, has the initiative, and has
the alertness of an adrenaline high. Stopping him requires not just
armaments and marksmanship, but a veteran soldier or off-duty police
officer, someone with prior experience of surviving under fire. It also
requires a lot of luck. If mass shootings are stopped by a civilian,
those are always the people who do it.
The real solution to this problem will require us to reconsider the
right to keep and bear arms. Yes, I'm saying the best way to stop mass
shootings is gun control. With our
reality-show-and-gun-marketing-educated public, this is not likely in
the near future. They have been led to believe the Founders meant
civilians to be armed and loaded to the teeth. That's not the more
perfect union cited in the Constitution's preamble. Continuing our
free-for-all gun availability with light regulation by the states is the
worst option. Yet, it fits with the dim view of government, and the
self-loathing cynicism toward any collective response. Along with those,
our electorate's and legislator's faith in the free market blocks every
attempt to limit the gun industry's right to more money. This is the mindset has gripped the country since the election of
Ronald Reagan. Until things get so bad that these fictions crack, mass
shootings will continue unabated. Ultimately, even gun supporters will
see that.
* I would be amiss if I didn't point out that few Evangelicals agree with the two ministers I cited.
No comments:
Post a Comment