In a world populated by more than seven billion persons, the tiny
minorities formed by the willfully evil and dangerously insane will
number in the millions. Therefore, as I’ve noted before, it is not
surprising in a concurrent era of global information networks that we
will hear of their horrific deeds all too frequently. How we respond to
such events is a measure of our own rationality—but that’s not directly
what I want to discuss now.
To tell the truth, I’ve avoided this discussion for a while. However,
not naming a potential danger does nothing to mitigate it. Furthermore,
the evil and insane can benefit from the information revolution just as
easily as the rest of us, so they will find no shortage of terminal
inspiration or instruction when the time comes. In the end, our best
policy prescription may simply be to not make risks of mass murder worse
than they already are.
Misery loves company. This aphorism may explain as much as anything else
why certain individuals choose to end their own lives while inflicting
as much collateral damage as possible. Garnering the wide recognition
they feel they deserve but have never received may be another
motivation—which is why I refuse to name perpetrators of these atrocious
crimes. In the end, though, I can’t answer the why. A very few broken
human creatures stare
into the abyss of grief or envy or rage and see mass murder as the best
course of action
toward even the pettiest of goals. Others in the vast majority of
semi-rational human beings who may look into that same abyss will reject
violence as unjustified no matter how noble the ends might seem—even
when they lack the self-awareness to articulate doing so.
The how is what I want to discuss here. The means and methods of mass
killers are so often what drives the public-policy debate … at least
after the fact. That’s where the prevention efforts are usually focused.
Those efforts are misguided at best.
The entertainment media have made a fetish of the personal weapon, be it
a gun or a knife or some other type of sidearm. It has been transformed
into a talisman of power in the popular imagination, though its actual
lethal capabilities are much more modest. In fact, personal weapons are
not the most effective choice for mass slaughter, but deranged
individuals embrace the mythology and select them anyway, no doubt
indulging in cinematic fantasies of the carnage they will cause. There
are deadlier and more destructive methods to exact social vengeance, but
if these means are presently used with greater frequency, then we
certainly don’t hear about that fact from the politically motivated news
media.
The typical American arguments for and against the right to bear arms
don’t really matter in this case. Even if guns and knives were
completely prohibited, the ban would always be incomplete. If all
responsible adults were legally authorized to carry defensive weapons at
all times and in all locations, the armed citizen would still be the
exception rather than the rule. Actually, we could indulge in the
fantastical extremes of these positions … and we would still fail.
All weapons more dangerous than a plastic sippy cup could magically
vanish from existence, but mass killers would still arise and still
carry their crimes to completion. Conversely, all responsible adults
could be armed and ready to defend against any and all direct attacks,
but this wouldn’t stop mass murder either. Would-be killers would simply
change their tactics, and the results would probably be worse.
Personal weapons are essentially precision tools, best suited for
defensive purposes against no more than a few discreet targets. A single
bullet isn’t terribly lethal. A blade can be much deadlier but has a
more limited threat radius. By choosing a personal weapon for his
crimes, a would-be mass murderer has already limited the amount of
damage he can do.
Impersonal weapons are by far the more dangerous selection. Explosives,
fire, poison, these are just a few things that can be used to kill both
indiscriminately and on a large scale. Deployed with insidious planning,
the results of such attacks can be truly devastating—and they give the
killer not bent on suicide or imprisonment much greater
opportunities to escape and repeat his crimes again and again.
The will to commit atrocious acts is and has always been the greatest
threat. We’ve learned that lesson over and over again throughout
history, but as rational, compassionate people, we want to forget that
horrific evil can and does exist in the darkest corners of the human
heart. When it escapes into the world through willful intent or insane
delusion, the innocent will always be its victims. With billions of
human souls sharing life today, these incidents will occur with chilling
regularity and frequency—and yet they are still vanishingly rare in absolute terms.
We might mitigate the risks posed by certain strains of this social
violence, perhaps at great cost to liberty and prosperity, but in so
doing we might only clear the way for more virulent strains to manifest
themselves. The how that we can see and discuss won’t give us the
solution to this problem. That answer—if there is an answer—still lies
within the why. If we can find a solution, I do know that it won’t be
political or tactical. It will have to be emotional or spiritual … or, dare I say it, moral.
Meanwhile, to make public policy in anguish is … and always will be … folly.
No comments:
Post a Comment