Does anyone else besides me consider it exceptionally ironic that mass-murderers in this country are frequently the object of fascination and endowed with something akin to pop status? While the media demonizes George Zimmerman for an alleged crime he may in the end be found innocent of, if all the facts are allowed to be known, the media finds James Holmes—who engaged in what is called the “deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history”—an utterly compelling individual, a lone “genius” who exemplifies the “dark side” of American “ingenuity.” While the media has made the Trayvon Martin case—an accident of fate in which there had never been any intention of killing someone, except perhaps by the alleged victim—a test case for racial “guilt,” there were too many victims in that Aurora, Colorado movie theater (12 dead) to identify with any one of them to make a “definitive” statement on society; it is much easier to focus attention on the killer, and try to “explain” him.
Unlike Zimmerman, whose dark, “ethnic” visage makes him the poster boy for those regarded as not “real” Americans, and thus a “disease” on the body politic multiplied by several factors, Holmes is the boyish white man with the disarming smile; in another life, he could have been that eccentric scientist who preferred to be buried in his test tubes and microscopes than be bothered with the vicissitudes of human interference. Instead, he has achieved “fame” as the perpetrator of the “deadliest” massacre by a “single gunman” in U.S. history. Well, not really. Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people on the same day on the campus of Virginia Tech in 2007. Unlike for blacks and Latinos, there was no website established to document every crime by a Korean in the country (let alone Asians generally), and the media and law enforcement decided that he was merely “nuts.” What else would a person be who hates "rich kids,” "debauchery," and "deceitful charlatans”—living in a fantasy world in which he was the “savior” of the “oppressed, the downtrodden, the poor, and the rejected” according to a subsequent investigation. A lot of sane people can identify with the ideal, if not the “method.” In1991, George Hennard shot-up a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (outside of Fort Hood, where I was once stationed), killing 23. Hennard apparently chose this venue to express his frustrations because most of the patrons were Hispanic; apparently no one thought his motives were “crazy” in that case.
Guns are not the “problem,” people are, we are told. This is this rationalization of country that thrills to scenes of guns, bombs and explosions in movie theaters. Of course, the “movie” doesn’t have to be in theaters; I remember when General Norman Schwarzkopf and other military spokespersons had their press conferences during Desert Storm, they frequently showed “home movies” of Iraqi targets being blown to smithereens, and everyone thought this was so “cool.” But mass shootings like the Aurora massacre are so real that the mind must engage in some form of separation from it while maintaining the pretense of being appropriately “affected” by it. It’s not a movie scene to those who are directly affected by it, but for those gazing from afar, it doesn’t register as anything much more than as a plot point in the movie of life. Because the narrative requires an occasional car chase or a terrorist attack (and who is Holmes if not a domestic terrorist?) to “enliven” the action, the Aurora massacre is the kind of media-driven event that film director Billy Wilder attempted to expose in “Ace in the Hole.” It serves as a temporary “diversion” for viewers dulled by the routine of the work-a-day world and made cynical by political discord. And then it is as quickly forgotten; nobody, who still interested in Jared Loughner’s motives for the Tucson massacre, let alone if he has even been punished for it? It was brief sensation for a few days, and before you could say “Jack Johnson”—or “Wasthat?”—it passed by, only briefly remembered when the principle target, Rep. Gabriel Gifford, reemerged in public. But still nobody wanted to remember “Why?” Some people might be curious about Holmes’ motives, but he has already been labeled “crazy,” and it really doesn’t matter, does it? In this gun-happy country, who wants to know the truth?
Why do some people in this society feel that every problem is best solved by a gun? We constantly hear stories about gangland shootings, “random” killings, property owners shooting strangers on their front lawns, usually nothing more than a point on graph in the public conscience. If these shootings are discussed at all, it is an excuse to pass laws or ordinances to keep “them” as far away from “us” as possible. But some would still like to know why. In this state, a Federal Way man was recently arrested for killing of a complete stranger. Why? It seems that after trading insults with some fellow street thugs he pulled out a gun and started firing; allegedly he was called a name he found too insulting. In Arizona, Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins because “I just have a quick reaction to bullshit.” When his homeboy from Detroit assured him that “You good bro I heard about what happen down there man,” Jude—showing not the slightest moral scruples about what he had done, responded “Yea man some bs I’m good cuzo u knw I gota do me.” Is this why one-on-killings are so much easier to understand that killings with multiple victims? Because the “answer” has the benefit of “simplicity”—no matter how illogical? But is there really a difference between the one-victim and multiple-victim shooting? The man who shoots another with whom he is engaged in argument believes that the only way to gain satisfaction for his grievance is by shooting the other person; the mass killer is motivated by the same, accept that he sees the “enemy” as the generality rather than the individuality. People who ignore him are just as “guilty” as those who have done him “wrong,” even if they have no idea that they have done so.
Not everyone resorts to guns to settle an argument, whether person-to-person or in some inner, hidden domain of the mind; sensible people know that guns are more likely to intensify hostilities than resolve them. Perhaps this is the reason why people prefer to believe that this is merely a problem of people and not of a culture that glorifies guns. It allows us to avoid the question of why a person needs an assault rifle and a 100-round drum, whose only meaning of existence is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. If society doesn’t want to take the time to ask the question, the only sensible answer to which is to avoid the inevitable next scene and make it harder to get ones’ hands on the such weaponry. If there are fanatics who really feel they need to have their hands on, allow rifle ranges to keep one or two under lock and key, to be rented out for use on the range; otherwise, there is no business for them to be in the hands of private citizens.
But the gun culture is like pro-abortion fanaticism: Pass a law prohibiting something as disturbing as partial-birth abortions, advocates denounce it as the “first step” in banning abortion; stop sales of assault rifles and 100-round drums, the gun rights advocates decry it as a foot in the door for more comprehensive gun bans. Frankly, it is as a misreading of the founding fathers’ “intent” that the “right to bear arms” was to establish a society where gun violence was “tolerated” as an unfortunate side-effect of that “right.” The “right” to bear arms was at best seen as a “deterrent” to tyrannical government—but then only in justifying the founding father’s own involvement in overthrowing the legitimate but “tyrannical” rule of the British; they certainly didn’t believe that the system of government they were creating would be viewed as “tyrannical.” Instead, the “right to bear arms” has become the refuge for those who believe that the permanent removal of an individual or individuals whose needs or expectations require some reciprocal accommodation is in some circumstances “necessary. “
One person in Aurora said after the massacre "I hope this evil act, that this evil man doesn't shake people's faith in God.” The unfortunate fact is that for most Americans of the Judeo-Christian ethic, “God” has little enough influence on their lives (even to those who claim to be believers), and thus “faith” has been replaced by “acceptance” that that such acts are the price for a “free” society where guns are “necessary” extensions of self.
No comments:
Post a Comment