When the headline first hit my newsfeed, I’ll
admit I ignored it.
I ignored it until a cascade of related stories
made it clear that this was no run of the mill mass shooting. It’s been almost a week, and the media furor
over the deadliest gun violence incident in U.S. history so far has yet to subside.
The Las Vegas shooting has many of the
hallmarks of such incidents, and a few baffling twists. All the usual tropes have been invoked—heroic
law enforcement, firefighters, and EMTs, equally heroic vets who ran toward the
gunfire as everyone else ran away, devoted couples tragically meeting with the
death of one or both partners, and family members wringing their hands awaiting
news about the fate of loved ones. And,
of course, the endless speculation over what made the shooter do what he did.
Stephen Paddock fits some of the stereotypes of
the mass shooter. He’s white. He’s male.
And, he’s been described as a loner.
So far, so good.
But, he was older. Affluent.
Successful at business. He had no
past history of violence. No known
mental health issues. No extreme
political or religious convictions, either.
All this has us scratching our heads, because there was nothing at all to
lead anyone to believe Paddock was capable of such an act.
Unsurprisingly, rumors and conspiracy theories
hang thick in the air. The
ever-opportunistic Islamic State took credit for the shootings, claiming
Paddock had converted to Islam months ago.
Even though the FBI quickly debunked the claim, that didn’t stop a couple
of my students from using it to argue in class that them Moozlems are a threat
to ‘Murica and they should all be rounded up and deported.
Such reactions are par for the course. Americans are prone to hysteria, and not just
over the jihadists hiding under every bed.
The shooting has brought the never-ending debate over guns, always
simmering, back to a rolling boil.
One of the few sensible gun laws we have
forbids private ownership of fully automatic weapons, though there’s a
grandfather clause which means that such weapons obtained before the ban are
available for purchase albeit at a steep price.
Not to despair, though. The
so-called bump stock device can enable your inadequate semiautomatic weapon to produce a
similar rate of fire to that of a full auto.
Hence, the particular lethality of the Las Vegas massacre.
For once, congressional Republicans and
Democrats appeared open to a discussion over gun laws. The NRA, which seemed similarly open earlier in the week, retreated to form and has since come out against an
outright ban on bump stocks.
The Second Amendment argument is weakest when
it comes to private possession of automatic weapons and conversion kits for
legally sold semiautomatics. Automatic
weapons are not practical for target shooting or hunting. Even the military has very specific uses for
automatic weapons and machine guns, and most members of a standard infantry
squad are riflemen trained in making well-aimed single shots. Anything else is a waste of good ammunition.
If I haven’t made the point clear by now, it’s
this: Automatic weapons have no logical purpose except to indiscriminately kill
large numbers of people quickly. Which
then begs the question: Why would any rational citizen want an automatic weapon?
The discussion now returns to the logic, if you
can call it that, of gun politics. I am
partial to the argument that it is not so much the presence of firearms in our
society, but the culture surrounding them that is the problem. To put it bluntly, guns are a phallic symbol
for certain males insecure in their manhood and eroding socioeconomic status. They’re basically a substitute dick.
This fixation
expresses itself in its mildest form in the lobbying for liberalized concealed
carry laws. Essentially, it’s an argument
rooted in the man-as-protector ethos. It
goes something like this: If only I had a concealed gun, I coulda stopped that
maniac shootin’ at everyone.
This assertion doesn’t
account for the likelihood of the would-be hero being mistaken for a bad guy by
yet another would-be hero packing heat.
Or by the police. It also doesn’t
account for situations such as last Sunday’s where a handgun is a useless
countermeasure against a guy firing a rifle from a 32nd story
window.
The fixation’s most troubling
manifestation arises from our cultural celebration of violence. A real man teaches his enemies a permanent
lesson. And the thought of apocalyptic
vengeance is appealing. It’s the
ultimate form of dominance over other, lesser people. It’s like playing God.
Most of us sublimate
these fantasies by watching action movies or playing first-person shooter
games. NPR this week profiled a venue in
Las Vegas which offers patrons the simulated experience of firing an automatic
weapon. A soundbite featured a couple of
them telling the reporter how exhilarating it felt.
How did Stephen
Paddock feel as he fired into the crowd of concertgoers below him? If it was anger, it was an anger no one had
noticed until then. He carefully planned
and methodically prepared for the shootings, and thus can be assumed rational
enough to have known what he was about to do was wrong. Had he not been cornered in his room at the
Mandalay Bay and forced to commit suicide to evade capture, Paddock had planned
an escape from the scene further demonstrating he was compos mentis.
Maybe he did it because
he could. Capability is motive enough
for some people. We probably will never
know for sure, and it really doesn’t matter.
The one certainty is
that another mass shooting awaits us in the not too distant future. Get used to them if you haven’t already. It’s the new normal.
© 2017 The Unassuming
Scholar
No comments:
Post a Comment