THE SHOOTING SPREE On Mass Random Killings

While according to statistics the number of mass random-killings, of the sort where a sole gunman starts shooting randomly at unarmed civilians, is no higher than it has ever been in America, the most recent events of this nature have opened several debates. On one level the recent shootings have restarted the talks about gun control, and on the other, on the science about what can be done to stop such nonsensical killings in the future.

Before answering both of these questions let’s make sure we get our facts straight, so we know the kind of entity we are talking about here. The phenomenon of the random killer is characterized by several traits. Usually, the perpetrator is heavily armed, and usually he is a male. The victims in tragedies of this sort are moreover always strangers, that is, the shooter makes no reckoning or evaluation about who he is going to shoot, or bomb, or otherwise kill by his own hand. The randomness of the victims is thus a characteristic of the “shooting spree,” and shows that the people who do these sorts of things make no discrimination as to who is to die. One could only wonder what would happen should these psycho-sheep actually use their remnants of minds to aim their guns at the real causes of their, and indeed society’s displeasure. Perhaps in that case they wouldn’t be simply insecure cowards, but possibly even brave freedom fighters instead. But we’re not talking revolutionaries here, or even wanna-be Green Berets or Rambos, or video-game or movie copy-cat killers, or thieves or any others with ulterior motives or vendettas to square. We’re talking about people who have one goal to accomplish, that is to destroy themselves, and take as many others with them as they can. That there is no rhyme or reason to this behavior is in itself also a characteristic, and that one characteristic which makes the problem so difficult to solve.

So now that we know what it is we’re talking about, what can be done to solve the problem? The first line of attack used by the head talker-sheep these days has to do with gun control. That argument is simple, take the guns out of the hands of people and then those people who would have to work a whole lot harder to kill. Now, as of today there is no real government effort to take away guns in general, but there is talk about limiting the power one can own. Personally I see no real immediate reason for Uzis, assault rifles, grenades, and machine guns in the hands of the GENERAL public, but I would not be against such a cache for the citizens in the event of government oppression, that is for self-defense, maybe accessible to the people in times of war or revolution. I also understand and find acceptable that there are collectors of guns and old war memorabilia and such who I think have every right to own such guns. In any case, not enough reason exists to basically negate the Right To Bear Arms, not anymore than it would be right to ban the use of pretzels because some idiots choked to death on them.

Someone who wanted to kill masses of people could do so, and perhaps even more efficiently, with means other than guns, say poisons, bombs, gases, or fires. In actuality the whole “control the guns” avenue is just anti-American and unconstitutional. No gun of any caliber picks itself up and shoots something. In every case a gun will only do what the person behind it wants to do and is capable of doing. Be afraid when already corrupt governments starts demanding your guns. In the American Wild West days, and indeed for a few who are packing today, arguments could elevate to even fistfights without either party drawing their guns. When I was a teenager, some of us drove to school with rifles in the backs of our trucks, we had fights every day on campus, but nobody got out their gun and shot it at someone. Clearly, while we must admit that guns can make it easy for the coward to get some temporary courage, it is not the presence of guns, useful for self-defense and hunting, that causes homicidal maniacs to go out shooting.

This then brings us to the second point of discussion, that is, discerning the reasons behind the shootings. What makes a person do such things? It is telling that this plan of attacking the problem is not often discussed by the big mouth sheep. Always looking for an easy short-term fix, this society is (and I use this term in the derogatory sense) pragmatic in that it seeks “best at the time” and “good enough” solutions and too often doesn’t take into account the whole long-term picture. If we find an offending body part, we’d rather cut it out than determine what made that organ go bad. Likewise for this problem, most of the baa-baa “talk” is about the quick solution of gun control. But controlling guns wouldn’t make a homicidal miscreant less so. What we have to do is determine why these people become antisocial to the point of travesty.

Now about being unsociable, or even being anti-social, I can completely understand. There are jewels among the sheep who know what I am talking about here, about how often it seems everyone around you is useless, spineless, artificial, stupid, lazy, liars, cheats and so on. I understand completely the mentality of the shooter, up to the point of the killing. For an exercise, let’s give the mass killer his gripes: society sucks, people suck, people are liars, cheats and perverts run the country, Big Business controls us, people are hypnotized and brainwashed, you get cheated on your purchases, get treated like dirt, people who say they care and love you really don’t, etc.  Indeed, I believe at least partly most of these things, but I see no real progress that can be made in solving these problems by shooting or killing random individuals. What does the shooter see?

Even if you are like me and have come to the reasoned conclusion that when it comes right down to it only about 1 in 100 people are worth their weight in oxygen, still you cannot even think of committing such a stupid act for two reasons. First, because that would make you 1 of the 99 unthinking sheep retards, and second, because you just might end up unintentionally killing a person who would be your friend, a good person, an honest person, or one who could help the world in the future, and so accidentally kill that 1 in 100 that is so precious. The randomness of the mass killer makes it an act of cowardice and in the end solves none of the problems. If it’s activism the killer seeks, he is aiming in the wrong direction.

So if anti-societal attitudes are not to blame, and guns are not to blame, what is to blame, how do we stop this problem? Well, there are two ways of looking at the solution. First is to ask WHY they do it. We have touched on some of the reasons, but there are many more, “reasons” often speculative and pieced together ex post facto, which vary from random killer to random killer. Some do it for notoriety; in this ever-growing world, and confronted constantly by the media with fantastic images of luxury and fame, and fortune and success, big talk about trillionaires and billionaires, and so on, the relative anonymity of the common man, who often, perhaps rightly, thinks himself as good or better than those people he sees in these positions, could drive him to seek fame by any means necessary. Nothing quite hits the front pages or “gets the mouths talking” with a vengeance like any headline using the words “mass killer.”

Even the dumbest mass random shooter, seeking fame, is smart enough to realize how to go out with a bang in this world. If this be the case, the ideal solution is to stop publicizing such events, perhaps even hang the perpetrators in the public square for all to see, rather than squawk until the day comes, never letting prospective killers see what really happens to their kind at the end. Sure, you say we should be beyond that “barbarity” now, but you would be surprised what a little example-deterrent could do for the situation…. But this barbarism aside, there is another, less dramatic but “kindler, gentler” solution, and that is to give human beings back their dignity. From an early age children must learn the value of human life, the value of man over any creature, the truth at all times. You need to have inspiring people, brilliant people, good people in positions of example, to show the developing young minds. These paperboard cutouts we esteem as leaders are really an insult to any thinking being, and their exploits for the most part embarrassing to have to explain to inquisitive kids. It does bring profound frustration when a thinking person reflects on the sorry state of the leadership, the incompetence in nearly all esteemed fields, the rewards bestowed upon the conformer and follower. In education, there is absolutely no training in ethics or in morality in the public school system, and by troops being sent every day to fight thousands of miles away against marginal, and perhaps even imagined enemies, society sends the message that there is no real concern for human life. “Right and wrong” in public schools means merely “what you are allowed to do,” while all natural human creativity is methodically – and thankfully only metaphorically –  beaten out of them as they are molded into an idealized mediocrity.

A person born in America today, moreover, pays taxes on the first and last penny he earns, but has no right to even affordable health care in America by virtue of paying these taxes, so that he or she can stay healthy enough to work and continue paying the racketeers. The whole stinking system displays for the thinking person the government’s actual lack of concern for the very people who butter its bread. This necessary regard for human life gets no mention in any textbooks. Morality’s never being taught in schools, and the removal of God from the curriculum, are apt to bring even more dire effects, especially considering that today “the family” is so extended – and often dysfunctional – that it can no longer be trusted to fill that void and provide the necessary ethical training.

Furthermore this society sends too many mixed messages. You are not to kill, but some killing is recognized as heroic. You are not to be sexist, but nearly all advertising and most fiction media emphasizes sex and sexuality. Film-makers, rather than putting forth their vision, rather glean from the consumer public their buying habits and so conform their product to what the market is most likely to buy. It is disturbing that nearly all new feature films (around 80%) released are of the slasher/murder/assassination/killer/disgusting nature, nearly inane that hundreds of TV channels can manage to produce so little of lasting quality. It’s as if there is a systematic plan, being pushed through by the media, to destroy all natural morality in the world. Sure sure, good people exist, but nowadays in a number too small, in its present state, to keep everyone else straight. In the past the examples of the few were good enough to keep the other 99 on the right track. Today the 99 of 100 sheep are growing larger in size and in number, having even less to do than ever before, and even less idea about what is right. It’s become a numbers game, and until you fix the numbers, expect more of the same.

What must be taught first, in order to solve problems like this, is that even when nobody is around, you are always being watched, and everything you do is being recorded. Follow this up with some simple maxims like “what comes around goes around” and “treat everyone as you would want to be treated,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” maybe even “act on the maxim so that what you do you would will to become universal law.” Frame it any way you want. The greatest vehicles are useless without a meaningful direction.