Sick of This

When a child is shot at a political meet and greet by a lunatic there are a great many people who attempt to explain what it means. I think we may be better served by thinking about what it does not mean.

First and foremost it does mean that speech of any sort has the power to influence action. There is no speech never in history which has had the causal power to override the free will of people. Those in Nazi Germany who listened to Hitler and turned a blind eye to the plight of the Jews did so because they wanted to. No one could feign ignorance for having suspended their moral norms because of impassioned speech no matter the speaker.

The same is true of media. No violence portrayed in media has the ability to influence the actions of a person. Some will say that there are those on the fringe who may be influenced but this speaks more of coincidence than causation. In logical terms it is known as post hoc ergo proctor hoc (after this therefore because of this) but it is not true. One could just as easily point out that in spite of increased violence in media there has been a corresponding decrease in violent crime across the board.

Of course those who want handguns made illegal will not talk about this fact because it does not fit the narrative. Which reminds me, the simple fact that this crime was committed with a gun is not proof that guns should be made illegal. The cause of this crime is mental illness not a gun.

The tea party is not to blame and those licking their lips at the thought/ hope/ prayer that this guy was a right wing nut taking out his extreme views with a gun should be ashamed of themselves and have their public speaking rights revoked forever. These are the same ones who openly speculated that the Times Square bomber was also a right wing nut but did not redact those statements when he turned out to be a jihadist. BTW I used that word intentionally because I don't think Islam has the power to cause hate action either.

However those licking their lips at the thought of revolution (usually read white anger) should also be excused from public discourse forever.

So why all of the villainizing? Why this desire to lump this criminal into the right/left/ anti-immigration/ pro-immigration/ tea party/ them group? For the same reason folks long to find a grand conspiracy in the JFK assassination. It is easier to deal with shocking violence if it come from a definable recognizable group who is guilty at large. It is much more difficult to think that Oswald was a guy sort of like everyone else, at least on the surface, who was actually delusional who went to work one day and killed the President. The villain is always more frightening when he may just be the guy next door.

Same thing here. From what can be told this guy was a troubled sort who thought the government was attempting to control his mind who lashed out at a bunch of folks who had nothing to do with his bizarre fantasy. It is sad. It is evil. But the furthering of the destruction of civility because folks are afraid this guy might actually belong to their group is proof not that we lack civility (that a given), but that we lack common sense and any sort of thought which is not group in its orientation.

We should be better than that.

God knows we should be better than score boarding each other over a mass killing.

Murder is not a sporting event.