Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf Tech? (Part Two)

So I got totally side-tracked in Part One, because the social responsibility aspect kept wanting to be heard, so I addressed it as much as I could at that point in time.

But here's what I originally wanted to say.

If you recall, I started off with that most "excellent" of blame-shifters: "guns don't kill people, people do!"

Banning/severely restricting the sale/possession/use of guns wouldn't make much difference to someone who is intent on killing someone else. There are plenty of other weapons that can be just as deadly: Your fists. A baseball bat. A nearby rock. A 2x4. An unfortunate "accident". Arsenic. You name it. If the determination is there, the killing will happen.

BUT.

It is important to take note that the [totally non-exhaustive list of] examples involve getting up close and personal with one's target. The first 4 involve putting the attacker at similar risk as the target - what if the target fights back? wrests the bat out of your hand? Grabs a larger rock? Swings that 2x4 more viciously than you ever could? Chances are, the attacker would not emerge unscathed from such an attack. The other two examples involve patience and planning: less exposure than the previous examples, but perhaps less satisfying? After all, the killer may not be able to actually witness the death of its target, or, the death may not be dramatic enough, satisfying enough...

A gun, on the other hand...

Joe and Jane Average will probably freeze in fear just at the sight of such a machine in your hand. You can get off on the power surge of the control you have over them, and on the fear you elicit.

Depending on what you want, you can achieve loads of blood and gore, or you can leave a nice neat little bullethole. You can snipe or spray from the top of a building or open window, or up close and personal.

So many options.

So much destruction.

And so easily achieved results, compared to a baseball bat, a 2x4, etc etc etc.

Wanna get into WHY people kill people? There's no one easy answer. But in this day and age, we "society" as well as we "experts" have a good idea about causes, and therefore have set up many opportunities for identification, prevention and treatment.

However, we know from sad experience that all too many people make it past all these potential stops.

And when they do, guns seem to be a particularly destructive weapon of choice.

So what I'm saying is, while it's true that it's people who kill people, if the weapon chosen is a gun, things get nasty, fast.

Guns are not to blame for Cho Seung-Hui's behaviour. But guns certainly were a factor in Cho Seung-Hui's high body count*.

* NOTE:
Some might argue that if only other students had guns with them, they would have been able to shoot at / kill Cho Seung-Hui and minimize his damage. Yes, but, how do you know that these armed students wouldn't have added to the body count due to getting all panicked because they've never used their guns outside of a controlled environment like a shooting range??

Also, I wouldn't want to go to class wondering *who*'s gonna get pissed off at someone else and whip out a gun, threaten to shoot, etc etc... I'm all for responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately, my impression is that a lot of the noise about gun control and ownership comes not from problems with the responsible ones, but from those idiots who shouldn't have their hands on any weapon of any kind but because they can, they do,,, and then use guns to express their irritation that their neighbour's dog barks too loudly, that a passing car has too much bass, or their classmate cracked a joke they found offensive.

So yes, again, it boils down to the PEOPLE rather than the weapon.

But yet again, mixing people of certain characteristics with guns gives a particularly lethal combination.

The gun folk can't just sit there and point to everyone else.
Well, they are... but they shouldn't; they can, however, so they will.

Ugh.

I'm not even going to try to suggest a solution. There isn't one. There is no magic bullet. A whole variety of changes need to take place, among so many people, within so many systems, that it seems just a pipe dream.

But if we sit back and do nothing, nothing will ever change, except perhaps for the worse.

Ah, what fun times we live in....

[I realise I still have some loose ends to tie up: in Part Three!]

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf Tech? (Part One)

"Guns don't kill people, people do!"

Ummm,,, yeahhhhh,,, but it's not that simple, is it?

How many pieces are there in this equation? Just three?
- Killer
- Weapon
- Victim
IMHO, there's at least one more piece, which encompasses a huge variety of stuff and overlaps with the above factors. I'll get to that in due time. [In Part Two!]

But first, let's just play along with the premise of the above quote, which shifts the focus [and blame!] squarely on the shoulders of the killer.

Thought, word and deed

All actions we undertake are the result of the chain of occurrences involving thought, word and deed. So for someone whose train of thought is chugging away along a homicidal track, having the opportunity of PREVENTION at every step will go a long way to derailing or turning back that train.

At the thought level, a huge portion of prevention rests on having a well developed internal value system [usually provided by religion*...] in line with society in general: but if we grow up being told that killing is wrong / a sin and yet we observe too many examples where killing is not only ok, but a must, or "is cool", or just plain happens all the time, how do we reconcile this internally? Where do we draw our line? Why?

At the word level, the killer is communicating intention to harm, or indicating potential capability to harm . Perhaps the communication isn't cogent and coherent, but it does happen. This is an opportunity for intervention, but this involves other people - family, friends, colleagues, strangers - who would a) notice, b) understand/recognize, and c) do something. And to have these other people to get to "c" is admittedly tough in this and age [for a variety of reasons we won't go into]. And beyond these "filters", the few potential killers who make it past all of them will probably get into the the mental health system - and how effective is that in treating them???

At the deed level, the killer then puts thoughts and words into action: gets armed, and does the deed. So gun control fits as a preventive step here, one of many prevention measures required at this weapons acquisition stage: after all, guns are not the *only* weapons out there! And finally, when actually carrying out the deed, the police and other similar services then serve as both preventive and reactive functions. It looks like prevention at this stage is a function of established "systems", although it is important to remember that systems are created and run by people, and will thus have flaws in both.

[Note that the above triune perspective works whether a killing is spur-of-the-moment or meticulously planned. A bit more about that in Part Two.]

At this stage I find myself forced to digress from my original post intention [hence requiring a Part Two], because me being me, "solutions" are jumping out at me and clamouring to be addressed.

What we, as general individuals, can do:

Thought
1. examine our own value system*: how consistent are we? what sort of example are we, whether to our children, or people in general? Figure out what you stand for, and live it! No more lip service, please!
2. similarly, examine the messages/examples being communicated by others: a major factor here is of course the media! Have you really thought about any conflicts between your values and those trumpeted by the propaganda-spewing yet tabloid-like news reports?

And if children are involved, and you're having trouble with #1, perhaps some "positive hypocrisy" might be better than mixed messages? But still need to be consistent!! As for #2, I know many choose to control media access, which works for the young'uns but such restrictions will certainly backfire as soon as the kids are able to rebel. A much more valuable action -- when children are capable of intelligent conversation -- is to encourage discussion *about* the conflicting messages of media vs values: after all, teaching your child to think critically provides a valuable skill needed through life!

Word

3. To quote the CTA: "If you see something, say something!" But say to whom? Well, you need to figure that out for yourself, depending on what you are comfortable with. "But what's the use?", you ask. Lecturers in Virginia Tech had actually referred Cho Seung-Hui to Mental Health services due to his disturbing behaviour and "creative writing" output, but it's unclear [to me; I haven't read deeply of the details] whether anything was really done. Ditto about his stalking history. But you know what? That's others who [might have] dropped the ball. But if everyone who avoided "mr question mark" had expressed their disquiet with the relevant authorities, perhaps the sheer volume might have gotten the ball picked up again? Who knows,,, no use getting hung up on What Ifs. And I'm certainly not saying we should get even more paranoid than we already are. What I'm saying is, do your part, don't just think that "Oh, someone else should do it, it's not my problem." What happened in Virgina Tech shows just how much it *can* become your problem!

By the time we get to deed, as "individuals in general" about all we can do is educate ourselves, voice our opinions and push for change where change is needed. Like I mentioned earlier, by this time it looks like prevention seems to be in the hands of "systems", and just how flawed are these systems created and run by people who might have political and personal biases that overshadow the the true function of health care, gun control, police or whatever? Are the systems themselves slaves to administrators, bureaucracy and red tape that negate the true function they were supposed to serve? Can people within the system fix things? Do we need to throw out the system and start anew? Is there anything we can do about it? All I can think of is that no matter what, systems are made of individuals, and if this collection of individuals do the self-questioning etc above, perhaps they can make the difference required so these systems actually do serve their intended purpose...

It boils down to all of us as individuals doing the right* thing.
... While educating our kids
.. While interacting with others
... While doing our jobs
.. While living our life.


So back to the premise of shifting blame totally on the shooter/killer: bullshit.

More in Part Two.
I'll let this simmer a day or two, though, just because.

* NOTE; yes, "right"/"value system" seem relative, and may mean totally opposite things to two different cultures, usually as a result of their different religious beliefs. My take on this is, if I could get them to cut through the crap and just look inward, challenge their own precepts and traditions, and see if their actions really jive with the spirit of their religion, with their ultimate inner compass, I think there might be some hope. After all, do you not believe that if Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad and other religion-establishers were put in the same room, they would embrace each other and recognise the similarity of their messages, while if you were to put their followers in the same room they'd end up killing each other? Call me idealist, but I think a lot of problems in this world can be solved if only we had the awareness to seek our true selves, and the courage to face up to what we find; and then to help others with the same journey.

Heh. This seems more appropriate fodder for another forum. Maybe I'll repost this elsewhere too ;-)

Ciao.

p/s> h/t Monsoon for triggering this post. yes, pun intended. sorry.