View on the news

Another mass killing – who, or what, is culpable?

Christopher Curran
Posted 10/8/15

This past week, an unstable 26-year-old man named Chris Harper Mercer murdered nine people and injured seven others in a shooting rampage at Umqua Community College in Rosenburg, Ore.

Following …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Another mass killing – who, or what, is culpable?

Posted

This past week, an unstable 26-year-old man named Chris Harper Mercer murdered nine people and injured seven others in a shooting rampage at Umqua Community College in Rosenburg, Ore.

Following the carnage and out of proper chronological order, Mercer committed suicide. Where once upon a time in American society citizens would have been rocked by the news of such a tragedy, we have been so desensitized to mass gun violence that these horrific incidents have become matter of fact. Our tolerance of travesty is a sad social commentary and is symptomatic of a sickness of conscience in America.

After the most recent debacle in Oregon, President Obama and others have stated how perplexed they were by the normalization of acceptance of these mass murders. Those who still question this phenomenon have tried to assign culpability to the lack of sufficient gun control, or the lack of necessary mental health treatment, or the lack of vigilance by teachers, employers, and counselors. Others have blamed violent video games, the breakdown of modern family relationships, or the seemingly pervasive amount of bullying in school settings, which drives outcasts to extremes.

Whatever the answer may be, one cannot deny that an evolution of paradigm has occurred in the United States. Mass killers have increased the frequency of their madness, and like those who have experienced war firsthand, we have developed a utilitarian veneer as a safeguard to carry on.

According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1982 and 2013, there have been 78 incidents of firearm-related mass killings, in which a total of 547 people have been murdered. In only 11 of the 78 tragedies have the firearms used been illegally obtained.

Of course, this fact begs the question of the availability of firearms. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution assures the right of Americans to bear arms. Contrarians to this basic right cite the language of the Bill of Rights in order to affect a “Well Regulated Militia” as an argument against open accessibility to guns. The notion that James Madison and our other founding fathers could have envisioned the scope of modern weapons in the era of the musket is unquestionably anachronistic. Thus, the unavoidable question remains – should a citizen be able to purchase firearms beyond the capacity of a pistol or a shotgun? Self-protection is a righteous expectation of Americans. However, does the average homeowner, business owner, or traveling salesperson or debt collector need a weapon with an extended round or rapid-fire capability?

Therein lay the foundational argument of gun control advocates. Furthermore, according to the Pew Research Center, 34 percent of U.S. families with firearms are households with school-age children. The General Social Survey suggests that such crimes would occur less often or be less severe if households were restricted to more simplistic guns, or if firearms were altogether prohibited in single-family homes or apartment buildings where criminals, troubled teens, or the mentally ill reside.

Contrary to this standpoint is the position of the National Rifle Association. The NRA is the strongest lobbyist organization in Washington and strives for unfettered access to weapons for virtually everyone. Also, the NRA does not want any impediment to gun show sales in which buyers walk away with the firearm in hand after purchase.

Certainly, it would seem to any rational thinker that a three-day waiting period before the transfer of possession of a firearm is reasonable. During that waiting time, a prospective buyer could be vetted to determine whether or not a purchaser has a history of mental illness or a past criminal record. This 72-hour period is a small inconvenience in order to protect society against the mentally ill or the criminally inclined from possessing a gun.

According to economist Richard Florida, who conducted an extensive study of state gun control laws, “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.” Similarly, an FBI report monitored mass shootings between 2000 and 2013 and showed an increase from an average of 6.4 shootings per year in 2000 to 16.4 shootings in 2013. Thus, a federal law that limited availability of multi-round firearms would likely lessen the incidences of mass killings, or at least lessen the perpetrator’s murder capability.

Besides gun access, the handling of mentally ill people has been called into question when searching for answers in regard to the rise in mass murders. Many of these killers present a pattern of mental instability, chronic lack of self-confidence, obsessive inadequate feelings, and a twisted need for recognition in death.

Repeatedly, when those around infamous student/killers are questioned afterward, they admit that the signs of trouble were ignored or rationalized away. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in April of 1999, there had apparently been numerous signs of mental disarray seen by teachers, school counselors, and neighbors. Yet other than the notification of parents, there was little power that could be exercised by school staff within current law to safeguard society against these ticking time bombs.

The same could be said about Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 20 young students at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December of 2012. Lanza exhibited many clues to his possible impending devilment, yet his behavior was deemed eccentric and was dismissed by many. Although his potentially dangerous behavior was reported by a counselor, no further necessary action was taken. His mother was apparently indifferent to what she said was her son’s “idiosyncratic behavior.”

As we have transitioned in our society from pervasive state-run mental institutions to allowing the mentally ill to live in the general population with drug therapy, we have seen a great rise in not only homelessness but violent crime. Years ago, a reported possibly mentally ill person would have been retained for at least 30 days for evaluation to protect society. Today, the unstable are given a prescription and are released in a matter of hours. Such was the case of Seung-Hu Cho, who murdered 32 students at Virginia Polytechnic in April of 2007, and George Hennard, who killed 23 people at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in October of 1991. If officials were able to assign a 30-day evaluation to someone they sensed was psychologically worrisome as was the case 50 years ago, perhaps some hellish occurrences could have been avoided.

Along with concerns about gun control and the liberalization of how we address the mentally ill, others believe that the popularity of video games that glorify murder may be a viable culprit to explain the upsurge in mass killings. The repetitive desensitization by years of playing destructive video games is theorized to cause a strange sociopathic attitude toward carnage. When one couples the game-playing obsession with a disenfranchised person who lacks family support and suffers an unending sense of isolation, then you conceivably have a recipe for a mass murderer.

If Americans have truly become relatively immune to the suffering of victims and their families in regard to these mass killings by firearms, then our country sorrowfully has lost its way.

The answer to these catastrophes is not just gun legislation as President Obama suggested, nor is it just a change in our mental health system, nor is it just a stepped up vigilance of those around the troubled, nor is it restricting the video games that isolated youths play incessantly. It is to some degree all of those measures.

Whatever the tactics we eventually employ as a society, we must conduct and sustain a national dialogue till we stem the rising tide of this madness! We must prove to ourselves that we have not grown indifferent to the psychological maladies of the mentally distressed. We must also prove that we have not become so sullied to the point of losing our compassion for the victims.

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Wuggly

    A few things missed in the commentary, every shooting happened in a "gun free zone" in states where murder is illegal. To think that mentally unstable or those of criminal intent will follow new laws is not realistic. Just because drunk drivers kill people on the road we don't outlaw cars or alcohol. If driver "A" is caught speeding we don't take driver "B's" car away, even if it's a highly tuned sports car and can go really fast on high octane fuel.

    The Second Amendment is clear when looked at in context. The Militia was the people and they must be armed to stay free. Well regulated was well trained and familiar with Arms. The writers wanted to be sure citizens could protect themselves against an oppressive Government. They would be perfectly fine with people owning any weapon available.

    Writers of Rhode Island Constitution spelled it out in Article I, Section 22, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the whole thing.

    The First Ten Amendments/Bill of Rights puts restrictions on Government, and recognizes unalienable rights of citizens.

    The difficulty with the mental heath is if the person has no convictions of violence the State has no jurisdiction to infringe on any of their rights. A part of the Fifth Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I also find that mental stability could be subjective to the opinion of the psychologist. If the Dr. is anti-gun will he be more likely to deem the patient "unfit"?

    The article states 34% of families with school age children have firearms in the house. That would mean there are a lot of children not shooting classmates and teachers that have access to weapons.

    We have drug, sex, sensitivity and driver training in schools but no firearms training. You can't even have a plastic Army soldier glued to a hat in school without a national news story. Maybe it's time to change the fear bred by ignorance and have basic rifle training in High School.

    Saturday, October 10, 2015 Report this

  • Wuggly

    By the way, to answer the question, Chris Harper Mercer is culpable.

    Saturday, October 10, 2015 Report this