WTF Is Really Going On?
Tim Bean
7/21/2012
Paducah, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Aurora, what do all of these places have in common? Of course the easy answer is that they are all sites of gun violence, resulting in multiple injuries and deaths. There is something else though that all of these tragedies have in common too, one that I think has been overlooked and one that perhaps needs to have a little more scrutiny. Each of these dark events was perpetrated by young people, all of which are from the same generation.
- Michael Corneal: born in 1983. At 14 he brought a gun to school and opened fire on a group of praying students, killing 3 and wounding 5.
- Eric Harris: born in 1981. At 18 years old he and Dylan Klebold brought guns to school killed 12 students, one teacher, and wounding 21; before taking their own lives.
- Dylan Klebold: born in 1981. Also 18, same as above.
- Seung-Hui Cho: born in 1984. At 23 he shot and killed 32 people, wounding 17 more on the campus of Virginia Tech, eventually commits suicide.
- James Holmes: born in 1988. Age 24, enters movie theater and fires upon audience, killing 12 and wounding 58, the rest of the story is still unfolding.
One of the initial responses to each of these horrific events is to further restrict gun laws, with some calling for an outright ban on guns altogether. I think that misses the deeper and more pressing issue here. What is going on in this particular generation that has driven some to the point to where they feel the need to act out in such a violent manner? It is easy to say that if there were no guns then these terrible tragedies wouldn’t have happened. I would beg to differ, particularly if there is such angst built up in some people to where they feel so disaffected by society that they believe their only recourse is such a violent outburst to prove their point. Now before I go any further, I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that the entire millennial generation is full of such rage as those listed above; 5 disturbed individuals hardly constitutes enough people to judge an entire swathe of the population by, but I think it does merit asking what is going on. I believe that even if there were no guns available to these individuals then they would find another way to release that pent up anger and I don’t think they would simply take up racquetball.
Oklahoma City, The World Trade Center, suicide bombers; what to all of those have in common? None of them involve the use of guns. My point here is this. When someone feels so alienated and angry to where they feel the only thing they can do is kill others, then those people will find a way to do it, guns or no guns. We are dealing with people who are psychopaths, and keeping guns out of their hands is not going to either cure them, or prevent them from finding some way to act out. A bomb, or the use of some mode of transportation can be just as deadly; if not more so.
I do not own a gun, and in fact I don’t particularly care for guns, but many of my friends do own guns and they are stable, responsible, law abiding citizens, so I don’t think they are, nor will they ever be, a menace to society. So, what is the solution? I don’t know. What is the cause of 5 millennials feeling the need to resort to such violence? I have some theories, but I think blaming violence on TV, movies, and video games are a cop out. My generation grew up with violence in cartoons, TV and movies and we are not out there hitting people with frying pans or dropping safes on one another. There is an entire generation who grew up with the Three Stooges and I don’t think there was a rash of eye poking, slapping and punching. My Dad grew up, and loves to this day, watching westerns and he isn’t chomping at the bit to raid a Native American village. No, I think there are deeper issues going on that are leading some in the same generation, which as mentioned earlier, is a decided and overwhelming minority, towards these acts of unconscionable violence, and I would be curious to see a study on this. Maybe it is a little of everything, which would make it a societal problem? To blame it on guns though is too easy. A gun, like any weapon, and anything can be used as a weapon, is an inanimate object; incapable of doing anything without a conscious and physical action of the person who wields it. If that person has a psychological disorder it is not the weapon’s fault; and if that psychological disorder is bad enough to drive that person to want to kill, then gun or no gun they are going to try and act out.
Frequently consider the connection of all things in the universe. (Marcus Aurelius)
Like you, I also do not own a gun but have many safe, law-abiding friends that do. My Facebook newsfeed is filled with these people saying, as they always do, that the problem isn’t the guns and that people need to carry guns to protect themselves. So why weren’t all of these people packing heat and “protecting themselves”?
The grim reality of things is that this shooter, along with some of the others you mentioned, was a legal gun owner and there is no mechanism currently in place to stop legal gun owners from owning as many guns and weapons-related-accessories as he/she wants. I feel like a limit of two weapons per person would be a good start.
That’s still one for each hand.
I don’t own a gun either, but why in the hell do you think there should be a limit of two per person? How would that have prevented any of these tragedies? It wouldn’t have. Cars kill more people in this country every year than guns do, so should we limit every family to two cars? Oh yeah, and don’t try to order more than 2 Quarter Pounders from McDonald’s next time because all that saturated fat could end up killing you, and by the way heart disease kills more Americans than ANY OTHER CAUSE!!
Mike,
It isn’t the number guns that is the issue either. It is the fact that a disturbed individual was behind them. Unless you can figure out a way to spot deranged individuals in advance and cure crazy, then I am afraid there really isn’t an answer to this problem. As I stated in the article, people who have this level of anger and are unstable enough to act out on it, then they will find a way to do so with or without guns. As far as why weren’t all of the movie goers “packing heat” I don’t think anyone expects to get ambushed at a movie theater. The protection argument has many facets to it and I think you are trying too hard to turn it on its head, implying that we live in a wild west type of society, where all of us should be weary and suspect where ever we go. I still believe that we live in a safe society where most people are good and just; which still begs the question, why is it a minute percent of millennials who are feeling so alienated that they feel a killing spree is the answer? If however you feel that our society more closely resembles the Thunderdome, then I suggest you do go out and buy a gun.
Tim
Good article and good points. But I don’t agree with comparing cartoon violence from the 70s when we grew up to the realistic graphic violence you see today on TV. The scale is completely different and what you have today numbs younger people to violence and kills their human empathy. Some of them then become socipathic and disconnected while others actually become psychopathic and violent. I agree that it’s not the “gun’s fault” but that still doesn’t mean we need to make it easy for them to get one…
Sanjay,
Well, unless someone can cure “crazy,” to use the not politically correct word, then unfortunately there will be people who outwardly seem “normal” (whatever that is) that will crack and they will act out on whatever neurosis plagues them, guns or no guns. You want stricter gun laws, well look no further than Chicago where the gun laws are among the most strict in our fair country, and that city has seen a rash of gun violence this summer. I am willing to bet that since the gun violence there is tied mostly to gangs the guns used were not acquired by legal means. I know in your article you said that you weren’t for the abolition of guns altogether, and I think that is a fair and rational stand. However you also mention the jihadists in the Middle East, where assault rifles (and most guns altogether) and the like are decidedly illegal, but those jihadist still have them. As I stated in my article, I don’t know what the solution is, and honestly I don’t believe there is a magic wand we can waive that will solve this, or any of the other social ills that plague society. I also agree that the graphic nature of violence has increased dramatically in television, movies, and video games, but we humans have always been a rather violent species, so to simply single out violence as the one and only cause of these and other tragedies is a little myopic, in my opinion. I think that, yes, those who commit these atrocities are disturbed individuals, but maybe there is an underlying societal “something” that are making a minute portion of millennials feel so disaffected by/of our society that they are snapping in horrendous fits of rage. Again, I know you wrote that you are not for the total ban of guns, but let’s say they are banned, then, as I mentioned in my article, those who are prone to this level of violence would resort to other means to exact their twisted vengeance; like another weapon of choice of the jihadist set, the bomb vest. Then we truly would live in a place like the Middle East, and I don’t think too many people are down with that idea either.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree on aspects this subject, but I think we can agree that these tragedies are (1) the acts of disturbed individuals, and (2) there is no easy solution.
Sincerely, and Many Thanks,
Tim