© 2024
By Don Frost
There are as many motives behind mass shootings as there are mass shooters. Some do it because they got fired and they seek revenge on their ex-boss and former colleagues. Some do it because they’re racists. Some do it because they’re religious fanatics. Some do it because they have simply given in to acute paranoia.
But most do it because they have an unhealthy need to get attention; for people to notice them. And the news media have laid out a blueprint for getting just that: Kill a great many people all at once.
The Daily Herald, Chicago’s leading suburban newspaper, solicited readers’ advice on ending mass shootings in schools and elsewhere. I thought I was alone in laying the blame for mass murder at the media’s doorstep. I was wrong. A sampling of readers’ endorsement of my theory:
“The news coverage empowers mentally ill people to do the same thing. . . . Gun control does not work. . . . My solution is to not participate in the coverage and not watch it on TV nor read your [the Herald’s] articles.”
“It would be best to provide minimum coverage on the shooter. . . . I really don’t want to know that a person is mentally ill to shoot 18 people. I already know that. Less fame would be good.”
It is a given that all mass shooters have mental problems. It could be a passing rage over a particular issue, person, or group of people; or a long-simmering hatred that drives them to kill. But the bottom line remains: They’re mentally disturbed. Whatever their specific motive, future mass killers view with envy the media hysteria that follows a mass shooting.
“Does the front page attention glorify the warped/immature mind causing that person to commit the next murder or mass shooting? Well, certainly it is possible, but social media is the real creator of many of these crimes.”
“I suggest burying the news article [of shootings] in the middle of the paper or more towards the end. . . . It doesn’t need to be in the face of the masses. A quiet, few paragraphs or less, with a simple small headline.”
“It is certainly true that some killers thrill to their 15 minutes of fame in the mass media. . . . most people have no need to know [the shooter’s identity]; just morbid curiosity.”
Mass news media give mass shooters considerably more than a measly 15 minutes of fame. They get weeks of it, enough to convince future copycats that even their own deaths would be worth it.
My own contribution to the Herald’s poll:
“I applaud the Herald’s policy of naming mass shooters only once per story. If I had my way, it would be a federal offense – with severe penalties – to name the shooters at all, ever. Columbine and the media circus that followed taught that mass murder could get (the assailants) attention, perhaps for the first time in their lives. Now the science is in: Mass shooters are basically copycats, thirsting for notoriety. Society would be well served if they went to their graves or to prison in ignominious anonymity.”
Subsequently, the Herald ran more ideas from readers. Predictably, most of them were depressingly familiar, naïve, or warmed-over failures:
“Angry Men + Assault Weapons = Mass Death! Which is easier to remove from the equation? I suggest removing assault weapons takes away the ability to kill large numbers.”
Same old, same old: People don’t kill; guns kill. And cars cause drunk drivers, and forks cause obesity, and pencils cause spelling errors. Mass killing is the rifle’s fault. And “removing assault weapons” is naïve in the extreme. There are an estimated 15 million or 16 million AR-15-style rifles scattered across the U.S. Removal of same would require confiscation, a clear assault on the 2nd Amendment and that would not be “easily” removed from the equation.
“If he or she [the shooter] didn’t have easy access to guns and ammo, it couldn’t become a mass killing in a matter of minutes. . . . More extensive mental health services are needed also. But the big problem to me is the hatred in our country . . . National seminars on hate, how to combat it, teaching tolerance and acceptance of others would be wonderful”
Where to begin on the sheer naivety of this “solution”? The mass media’s narrative on this holds that “easy access” to guns is behind mass shootings, making it an article of faith in “liberal” world. It will never die, even in the face of undeniable reality. I must repeat myself: I (along with millions of other Americans) bought a rifle and ammunition in 1957. I was a kid, 16 years old. My access to the rifle and ammo was simplicity itself. It was like buying a pack of bubblegum baseball cards. There were zero forms to fill out, no waiting period, no background check, no mental health check. And there were zero mass shootings and zero drive-by shootings. Anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together knows what changed after 1957: Guns got harder – much harder to access. Yet the drumbeat goes on: everyone has “easy access” to guns. No rational, intelligent person could possibly believe that. If you believe it, you’re a fool, blindly repeating what you’ve been told to believe; if you don’t believe it, you’re a liar.
“More mental health services.” Precisely what does it mean? Precisely how would it find and stop future mass shooters? And “national seminars on hate”? Really? Fighting hate and “teaching tolerance and acceptance of others” has been a cornerstone of Christianity and other religions for thousands of years, making seminars on hate just one more naïve idea, a platitude so simple-minded it’s embarrassing.
“Our challenge is to identify those who want to kill and treat them and to enforce background checks, no matter how much or whose ‘rights’ are being ‘violated.’ Also, there is no reason for average people to have guns with the ability to fire multiple rounds. They should not be available to anyone but military personnel.”
Identifying and treating people before they kill is simply pie in the sky. So nobody “needs” a semi-automatic rifle? In other words, what this country needs is a benevolent Big Brother who will violate the rights of only bad guys, leaving the rest of us alone. If Big Brother gets to decide who has sufficient reason to own a semi-automatic rifle, where does his authority end? What if BB decides you don’t need two cars; that your second car would only increase air pollution; that it would increase global warming; that you should use public transportation or ride a bicycle to save the planet?
If it’s okay to apply a need test to the 2nd Amendment, what about the other nine basic rights in our Bill of Rights? Do you really need freedom of the press? Do you really need the right to freely express your opinions? Do you really need the right to peaceably assemble? It is terrifying to contemplate our Bill of Rights ever being subjected to the government’s determination that we need or don’t need a particular right at a particular time.
“Even among friends, people are reluctant to say they are consulting with a mental health professional. Maybe if students and adults were educated to see mental health as a normal piece of our general health, they would be more open to seeking help.”
People used to be reluctant to broadcast that they’re undergoing mental health counseling, but not now, not in the 21st Century. They do tell their friends with no shame attached. Celebrities go on television and tell about their mental health struggles. They write books about it. Everybody knows it’s a “normal piece of our general health,” no special “education” needed.
Besides, mass killers believe they’re sane. In their minds, they don’t need counseling, they will not seek it, and no one can make them undergo counseling.
It is nothing less than nonsense that there’s a stigma to seeking mental health counseling today. Schools employ full-time counselors. When a high school kid is killed in a car accident fleets of “grievance counselors” are dispatched to the school to help students eager to have professional help in dealing with it. A friend of mine was killed in a hunting accident when I was a high school freshman. We talked about it among ourselves, but no one was dismissed from class to meet with a grievance counselor.
Of course, there are and will always be those who would rather be shot than admit they’re seeing a psychotherapist. They’re the exceptions. For decades seeing a “shrink” has been de rigueur. The stigma of that has been passe for years. It long ago was accepted as nothing to be ashamed of, and now it has almost become something to be proud of.
commonsense931 