Each time we have one of these horrific mass shootings, many people shake their heads and ask, "What on earth could make somebody want to do something like this?" In most cases, the perpetrator is dead and did not plan to survive the attack. This time we have a living perpetrator, so perhaps we will learn more.
I suspect that a strong desire to be in the headlines is part of the motivation. Too many young people place too much emphasis on being "famous" and have lost the distinction between being famous and being infamous. There is even a television series titled, "Murder Made Me Famous."In December 1941, President Roosevelt famously declared that the 7th was "a day that will live in infamy." He didn't say "fame," and everyone knew the difference. The perpetrators would go down in history, but as villains, and that was universally regarded as a bad outcome for them.
Social media is part of the problem, to be sure. We see our youth huddled over their gadgets checking how many "likes" they have gotten, whether they have more than someone else, and considering that to be a big deal. That is not the whole problem, though. Fame-obsessed culture and "stars" remaining popular despite the grossest misbehavior go back further.
Acknowledging that culture is the real problem is unsettling because there is so little that government policy can do about it. It is easier and more comfortable to focus on a law we can change, money we can spend, or a policy we can adopt. Then we can campaign for that and denounce anyone who opposes it. If we win and the change doesn't really help, well, that's okay because our hearts were in the right place, right?
I heard someone on television call for an armed guard in every school. That might help. Perhaps some potential shooters would be deterred. Many, though, would simply make the guard the first target. In the real world, a person with little to do all day but be there is typically not going to remain vigilant day after day, year after year. A person assigned other duties will be focused on them. A guard would therefore "harden the target" some, but not much, and at enormous expense when multiplied over the number of schools in this country.
Others on the screen today are talking about mental health. We have to identify the people with the characteristics we see in the school shooters, get them into treatment, involuntarily if necessary, and take away their access to guns. The problem with that is that a great many people are loners with few friends, engage in minor misbehavior, rant online, etc., etc. The required due process for drastic actions such as involuntary treatment and revoking Second Amendment rights would be enormously expensive on that scale and would likely be ineffective at actually identifying the right people.
There is also a tendency to exaggerate what treatment can accomplish, especially involuntary treatment. There is an old joke among therapists. "How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but only if the light bulb really wants to change." Therapists don't have magic wands. They can't magically change a bitter, resentful person to an outgoing and kind-hearted soul, especially if he doesn't want to go there.
Still others are calling for stronger gun control measures. There are a lot of guns floating around with capabilities that no one would need for sporting or self-defense purposes. Restricting them won't prevent mass shootings but conceivably might reduce the death toll. Part of the problem is that limitations that sound good when expressed in sweeping terms become messy in the details. Years back there were loud calls to ban "assault rifles." Defining "assault rifle" was easier said than done. Full automatics were largely banned many years ago, but many semi-automatics are easily modified. "Bump stocks" became infamous after the Las Vegas Strip shooting and have no legitimate purpose, so, yes, we can and should ban those, but what will the next variation be?
Whatever restrictions we place on these firearms, a determined mass shooter can still cause a great deal of carnage simply by bringing multiple guns. So, we can consider additional limitations, and our gun-toting friends need to be reasonable on their side, but do not expect that this will be a complete solution.
It comes back to culture. What are the influences on this young man's mind that brought him to the conclusion that killing so many innocent people would benefit him? What led him to think that being infamous as opposed to famous was worth anything at all, much less the loss of so many lives? These are hard questions, pointing to problems without simple solutions. But these are the questions we need to ask.
Acknowledging that culture is the real problem is unsettling because there is so little that government policy can do about it. It is easier and more comfortable to focus on a law we can change, money we can spend, or a policy we can adopt. Then we can campaign for that and denounce anyone who opposes it. If we win and the change doesn't really help, well, that's okay because our hearts were in the right place, right?
I heard someone on television call for an armed guard in every school. That might help. Perhaps some potential shooters would be deterred. Many, though, would simply make the guard the first target. In the real world, a person with little to do all day but be there is typically not going to remain vigilant day after day, year after year. A person assigned other duties will be focused on them. A guard would therefore "harden the target" some, but not much, and at enormous expense when multiplied over the number of schools in this country.
Others on the screen today are talking about mental health. We have to identify the people with the characteristics we see in the school shooters, get them into treatment, involuntarily if necessary, and take away their access to guns. The problem with that is that a great many people are loners with few friends, engage in minor misbehavior, rant online, etc., etc. The required due process for drastic actions such as involuntary treatment and revoking Second Amendment rights would be enormously expensive on that scale and would likely be ineffective at actually identifying the right people.
There is also a tendency to exaggerate what treatment can accomplish, especially involuntary treatment. There is an old joke among therapists. "How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but only if the light bulb really wants to change." Therapists don't have magic wands. They can't magically change a bitter, resentful person to an outgoing and kind-hearted soul, especially if he doesn't want to go there.
Still others are calling for stronger gun control measures. There are a lot of guns floating around with capabilities that no one would need for sporting or self-defense purposes. Restricting them won't prevent mass shootings but conceivably might reduce the death toll. Part of the problem is that limitations that sound good when expressed in sweeping terms become messy in the details. Years back there were loud calls to ban "assault rifles." Defining "assault rifle" was easier said than done. Full automatics were largely banned many years ago, but many semi-automatics are easily modified. "Bump stocks" became infamous after the Las Vegas Strip shooting and have no legitimate purpose, so, yes, we can and should ban those, but what will the next variation be?
Whatever restrictions we place on these firearms, a determined mass shooter can still cause a great deal of carnage simply by bringing multiple guns. So, we can consider additional limitations, and our gun-toting friends need to be reasonable on their side, but do not expect that this will be a complete solution.
It comes back to culture. What are the influences on this young man's mind that brought him to the conclusion that killing so many innocent people would benefit him? What led him to think that being infamous as opposed to famous was worth anything at all, much less the loss of so many lives? These are hard questions, pointing to problems without simple solutions. But these are the questions we need to ask.
Leave a comment