Mass Shootings and Why They Seem to be Out of Control

Tragedy affects us all.

In the new digital world that phrase has a myriad of new emotions attached to it, as opposed to times past. Throughout all of human history, tragedies really didn't impact people directly unless they happened to them or someone they knew. Yes, they can have wide reaching political affects, but an event like the Boston Marathon bombing never would have affected anyone living outside of Boston, not attending the event directly, or being related to someone attending it without the digital world. The digital now brings the images and sounds of events right into our inner space, even if they happen thousands of miles away.

This transition has had a huge impact on human development. Some of it good, and some of it not so good. On the positive side, you can now know people across the world and see what they see. We have real time immersion in what they are experiencing. Being able to make a presentation in Hong Kong from New York, is incredible. Being able to witness a tsunami or violence through the very sights and sounds of another person, helps you understand the event in depths that were not even imaginable a century ago. But all the same, that very technology now separates us and draws us into a digital life where we substitute it for real life interactions. The wide range of data available makes personal information impossible to protect. It's rather easy to get ahold of someone's personal data and do all kinds of harm to them and these events are understood, but through the looking glass of technology, over-exposing sight and sound, and under exposing our other senses, including our hearts at times. Such is the nature of our world.

So what does this have to do with Mass Shootings and why it seems like they keep getting worse? Good question. As you know, the purpose of Mosquito Cannon is to tell you like it is and hit that hard. We're not pointing a fly swatter at this mosquito. So we aren't pulling any punches or tepidly backing off the subject. It's real, just like these tragic events and your perception of them. So let's get down to the reasons this all seems to be spiraling out of control.

1. You are hearing more about it. 

In the past violent actions did happen. Shootings happened, people killing each other happened, kidnappings happened...all of it. That isn't to say that it hasn't legitimately gone up in frequency, nor is it to say that your perception is a fabrication. But what your seeing, the asinine rise in these shootings to frequencies that question our ability to survive in public, is a result of attention being put on it. For instance, back in 1990, a mass shooting might not make national news. Believe me, I remember living in the 90's and mass killings like that got a byline, and at best the headlines on your evening news, but that was it. Mass shootings really didn't start dominating all national headlines until Columbine. You might ask why. Why did shootings in cities like Garden City, San Francisco, Olivehurst, California, Iowa City, and Killeen, Texas all in the early 90's get less attention than those of the modern era? People now reflect on the new shootings annually in remembrance. Shootings like Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora, Colorado, and such, get recalled over and over again. But why?

One reason is that the media have seen how much tragedy wins viewership. What you are interested in, they will report on. Tragedies are of great interest to people. Maybe it pulls them out of their routine life, maybe it's part of a survival instinct. But it's true. These will then get a lot more air time. Rather than focus on positive community events,like fundraisers for charities, viewership will go up if you focus on devastating large scale tragedies like Columbine, even if that tragedy is a whole generation old or across the world.

But that is not the only reason. The world has become smaller. Your news is less local than it used to be. You are more likely to hear about a tragedy like the shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas than the closing of a huge business in your hometown that lays off hundreds of people. Even if your home town is a metropolitan area; like Kansas City for instance, and the subject town of the story is about 400, like Sutherland.  How many people from the Kansas City area heard anything about DST laying off about 200 people in the area? Almost none. But you are probably aware of the shooting at the hands of Aaron Lawson of Pedro, Ohio, or at least remember hearing of it. News of each event came about the same time. Lawson killed 3 adults and a boy of 7. If you are from Kansas City, you would normally not have any reason to know about the killing since tragedies of that magnitude happen several times a month across the nation and likely impacted few in Kansas City. But it's clear which you knew about.

And you are saying, "of course." Because when you stack those two pieces of news next to one another, one seems more important because it affects more basic needs. Even if they aren't yours. They can also have lots of social meaning and significance as well. As in an event like that in Sutherland Springs, where someone with anti-Christian prejudice walking into a small town church and wiped out half the congregation. Or the Sikh temple shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin where someone with a prejudice to Muslims mistook Sikh's for that identity and committed a hate crime as well. Or San Bernadino, etc. Because the crime involved people we may identify with, we want to hear what happened. But there was a time when the greater impact was the story of jobs being lost.

Local communities would only hear what really impacted them. But technology has made it so Sutherland Springs DOES impact you. Everyone is now hearing about it around you and that affects their perceptions of life and opinions as well as yours. That is why someone like me, living almost a thousand miles away, is still concerned by it, because it has reached everyone I know.

So, yes, you are going to hear about it more. And because your experience of information is now filled with the permanent records of the internet, you can't get away from it easily either. You will see it again and again and so will the people around you and talking to you. Even if you try to avoid it, it's impact lasts longer. This ever present reminder of these tragedies makes them seem like they are increasing in frequency to outrageous levels. This inflates the truth. An analogy would be a truck rolling 5mph down a dangerous road and accelerating to 15mph. But based on your perception, it's more like 5mph to 500mph. Again, that is not to take away from the tragedy or the need to respond. This is an issue and there needs to be solutions, but my aim is to be real and not placate emotions to get likes or kudos. And the statistics are right there with me. According to an FBI report published by the New York Times in 2014, there were 6.4 shootings in the US annually from 2000-2006. From 2007-2013 that number went up about 3 times to 16.4.

2. It seems like nothing is getting done

This is a product of how the media portrays the issue. I don't even have to go into it without you understanding that when a mass shooting happens there are two solutions playing out in the media, right? There's gun control on a wide sweeping national level, and thoughts and prayers. Well...actually that's completely bogus and nothing like what reality is at all. But if you only pay attention to the mainstream media, that is the message and invariably, what you will start to think. In reality, there are a whole scope of possible actions. Anything from Mental Health reform, to a stronger network of risk identification, to a spiritual movement. The problem is that for most Americans, what they hear is what they will parrot. So when the media has wave after wave of people parading a single answer, like national gun control, after every single incident that they are bringing up very frequently; and then little gun control is accepted on a national scale, even if it happens radically in state governments, it feels nothing was done to resolve the issue.

Yes, in reality, there are numerous solutions, but I am not even focusing on the solutions. The perception nothing is done is created by this proverbial putting of all the eggs in one basket. And by "eggs" I don't even mean actions, but attention. And the basket isn't even state or local authority, or self-responsibility,  it's federal government. Well, in the scope of human life, that's a small basket, and a difficult one to change. So, yeah, it very easily happens that people feel like nothing is changing, that nothing is being done. So much so that anyone not pushing for that solution are equatable with the killer themselves, like accomplices. And this is a logical conclusion. If any of us saw someone with the power to stop a crime and they didn't, we'd accuse them of being an accomplice. Well, the same idea applies. When people are presented the facts in such a way that there is only one solution, and someone doesn't support it, that person will draw the aggression or resentment of well-meaning people.

A most recent example is with this last shooting in Sutherland Springs. People have begun to turn viciously on those who even say "thoughts and prayers", blaming those who resist gun control, and even saying the church members deserved it because they believe in prayers and not gun control. It's not fringe activists or ragaholics saying this either. Try New York's governor, professors, media personalities, and celebrities. There's a lot of pent up aggression and anger based in a small reality that isn't even close to the truth. That is not to say gun control can't be part of the answer, but a lot get's done each time, even without the government doing anything. Despite the fact media has everyone focused on the government as the place of solution, regular, self-reliant people, like you and me, develop solutions on our own. The unseen truth is that with every mass shooting, people respond with renewed awareness and focus on preventing tragedy. Institutions become more prepared, law enforcement becomes more prepared; everyone gains in understanding and readiness.

Is that enough to offset the increase? It depends on the cause. Is it just easier access to weapons? Is it the active recruiting of toxic communities? Is it the loosening moral restrictions people once may have had? Well, that depends on if you even believe in those moral restrictions. But it is true that the only thing that really collapses societies, is the character of the people themselves. That's enough to show you that the media story you hear is not the accurate depiction of reality you are relying on. And yes, it's creating the perception that this is completely out of control, only destined to get worse. But there is some truth to that sentiment, as I will discuss.

3. We are becoming disconnected people who have less positive influence in our lives

The advent of technology has created a byproduct that no one seriously addressed before it happened. Social Media, the easy access to stimulus, all around the digital world, has created an expanse between individuals and the personal part of life that once existed in every community. And it is decaying quickly. For futurists, this is just a hallmark of evolution, a step toward a brave new world that is more collective based than before. But in reality, it's much more than that, with far more negative consequences than we are willing to accept as a society, though we are willing to entertain, it seems. But we entertain a lot more than we admit to, so I digress.

At one point in human history, the lone individual that refused to connect with everyone else from time to time, was very rare. The very fact they were a recluse made them suspect and hard to trust. As much as we have discovered the error of mistrusting people for superficial reasons, it is still true that a social recluse is more likely to lack basic coping skills for conflict and societal acceptance. They are far more likely to be a threat or commit an act of aggression; most of the time incidentally as they may not have even tried to hurt anyone. It's just that their interest is far more self-centered by the product of their environment, making them willing to sacrifice the others for their gain.

But in modern society, there are far more recluses as people are more easily disconnected. If you do not believe that, all I need do is point to the people that have been so ensnared by the stimulus of computer games or even social media, that they have let their children die, or neglected basic social responsibilities. There are a lot more people of this nature because technology makes it appealing, bringing stimulus into your home without human companionship. It once was the case in human history that such stimulus was rarely achievable without community, and very difficult. You certainly couldn't entertain yourself, or be aware of the world around you, locked away in your home away from others night after night. If you wanted to be entertained, you would need to seek out other people.

But there is another function community adds by virtue of connectedness, and that is the checks and balances offered by relationships. When people are in constant communication, it is a lot easier to know when someone might be apt to commit an act of violence or carry out a crime. In ages past, people with deep seeded issues of hate that could spawn violent action, were easily identified by those around them. It was difficult to keep those feelings reserved and those that succeeded were masters of a dual nature. But in our modern digital age, everyone is seen from a distance. Yes, you can see a person go on a racially charged rant, or even advocate violence for prejudice's sake; but there are now so many that fit that description who do not act violently, how can you possibly tell if they are about to act? In real life a rant almost never means action, so how can you distinguish between that and preparedness to commit violence without being in their proximity to see all the other tells?

When you can't identify someone having these issues, its impossible for anyone to counter their negative messages influencing them with positive ones. Of course, because negative ideals sell easier, its hard to promote that. The more people charge at each other with prejudice, the more negative it all becomes. But back to identifying individuals overwhelmed by this negativity, responding to them is paramount, before they act. Really, the system has to get smarter in order to make up for the original network of information that safeguarded society from people willing to act this way. And this is the personal community that is being separated from each person by technology and stimulus. As a result, there are more people naturally getting to that point, even without the help of encouragement or dark forces.

4. Our media and culture continues to propagate mass violence as rewarding, despite any verbiage and attempt to say the opposite.

The media has often made the assertion that sharing the manifesto of the killer and giving them face time, agreeably, increases the likelihood of copycats. In fact, studies show that it's inevitable. In prior decades and throughout history, doing such a feat could indeed, get you remembered, but little would be remembered about you other than the fact you were a killer. Today, the same media that would trumpet that fact, has no issue plastering the faces of the individuals and their reasons all over the internet and network television. Part of the reason for this is the politicization of the issue. Since the media is polarized, it depends on who it is as to whether or not the news organization airs their identity and manifesto. A person who adheres to the opposite political agenda committing an atrocity, can help the cause of the media organization reporting it; to satiate their own bias.

Sometimes they cannot help but do what will earn them ratings though. Despite the wisdom that glorifying killers with news and attention only encourages more acts, the public itself, constantly thirsts to know who it is that is guilty and why they did it.

Study after study has been shown to connect the social reward of infamy or attention, even worship, as a major factor in encouraging killers to act. Many killers that act are fascinated by prior killers and idolize them themselves. The media airtime and remembrance of those individuals makes doing the deed appealing. In a world where everyone feels very small because the whole world is now at our fingertips, standing out in any way, is attractive to disillusioned souls or individuals deprived of human attention. In the end, that is exactly the type of profile created more and more in the digital age.

Every human being has a need to be noticed and admired. The media itself, creates the possibility for someone to reach that fame and success, in almost no time at all. Even when one has an agenda of hatred or violence against a prejudiced group, it is now possible to get his manifesto out to the public for little real effort and time simply by committing the very atrocity they dream of.

5. All the best solutions are controversial and don't offer the instant gratification of a quick fix

Restricting access to weapons would, in theory, reduce mass killings. The more restriction there is on who can have weapons, the less likely they are to be used for those purposes. But only if the control is absolute and in the hands of a trustworthy authority. As is pointed out a lot, weapons will inevitably end up in people's hands, it's all about whose. Who has them and what is their intent?

Again and again, history is full of governments or authorities that use their armed status against their population. Once a population is unarmed, it cannot offer the most basic resistance to corrupt or oppressive rule. In fact, the relationship is so certain, one could actually draw a formula by it. Unarmed populace = oppressed populous. In reality, someone is going to be armed. It can be everyone; responsible citizens, the government, or those intending to harm. But it is almost impossible to determine who can and cannot become armed. In that regard, regulating weapons is a tepid task; one that has merit, but only as much as the authority is powerful enough to enforce the restrictions and of enough moral character to not utilize its position to corruption. In the end, firearms are just a power. Like all power, it can be centralized in control, or spread to everyone. But at the end of the day, anyone can become a killer. So what is the real fix?

The real fix, of course, is to the curb human decisions to kill in the first place. This is actually the one place all civility in society begins, and efforts made in this area have overwhelmingly positive influences on their community as a whole. Things like social norms, values, spiritual devotion to life and purity, charity, understanding, gentleness, protection of innocents, and justice, all contribute to the foundation of a society in an overwhelmingly positive way that undercuts negative torrents. As an example of how, take a fishing lake in a remote part of a 3rd world country.

During the wet season, the lake swells, and becomes a home to a lot of fish. Experts at the lake determine that the lake can hold about 5000 trout, during the wet season. But during a period of drought, the lake cannot hold as much, and the trout population goes down to about 1000-2000. People from outside the community and commercial poachers, come and perform illicit actions that reduce the ability of other fishermen to live off the lake all the time. However, the higher the lake water, the more people are utilizing the lake for a livelihood and the healthier their catch. It's easier to catch poachers because more honest people are fishing and people are less likely to be dishonest when so much fish is abundant, while simultaneously, the community can survive the unethical poachers taking their illicit catches because they have greater catches to live off of themselves. But when the lake is dry, the impact becomes greater, it's harder to prevent poaching, and the catches are less; making survival harder. The culture of honest fishermen becomes less powerful as the poachers make up a larger part of the fishing community. They also prey on the heightened value of the fish, which encourages others to degrade to their antics as well.

This is how these civilization building blocks affect our communities. The more they are there, the stronger our communities are. This strong precedent makes it harder to be a negative part of society, as it is a lot easier to be an honest member. Character in society, rewards character, much like honest fishing in abundance, encourages people to be honest fishermen. But When character dries up, it begins to become a liability. It slowly becomes more risky and dangerous to be generous, trusting, and kind to people. People fear stopping to help a stranded motorist, because they could be harmed. People fear giving, because someone might unexpectedly take from them. People fear lending their resources to others, for fear they will be taken advantage of.

Just like it becomes more dangerous to be an honest fishermen when there are less and less other honest fishermen at the lake. Having a full lake with lots of honest fishermen, makes for a healthy society, but its not something that can change overnight. Punishing a few poachers, or giving someone the power to regulate who can fish and who can't, is an overnight solution. But it still doesn't solve the root of the problem. The lake is dry and no matter how much power you give to someone over the lake to dispense justice and fairness, the dryness of the lake will still encourage everyone, including the authority, to act without honor.

That's the issue facing America. The moral character of America is drying up. That character is the foundation the society needs to survive social predators. But without it, it becomes harder to mitigate their affect and ends up encouraging more social predators, that further decay the culture. Does that make sense? It's not hard to understand at all and most people kind of get that concept. But once again, it doesn't resolve the issue now and often the answers are controversial as they involve spiritual creeds, religion, and social norms. Since people don't agree on those things, the tendency is to throw them out, rather than offer synchretic solutions such as federally autonomous government or commonwealth power, consensus, liberatarianism, or even productive dialogue. Things like thoughts and prayers, contribute to intelligent reflection and spiritual fervor that have a long lasting positive impact on the issue at hand, and human nature, but none of those things fix it "now", and don't fit the secular religious mandate of the government. As such, Americans don't want them, or feel they are impractical solutions. And it's all just because the answer is just too hard to work for. As an individual, you can see the value in investing your money for the long term, rather than living the high life now though. So why is this such a hard one to grasp?

6. There are legitimately far more forces in each community dedicated to killing people

Although there has always been a tension between communities that dislike one another, or distrust one another, America has been blessed with relatively few movements aiming to dismantle or destroy society. In the past, terrorist organizations that intended to break down society, were aimed at particular groups or constructs. The KKK was aimed mostly at suppressing blacks and jews, the environmental terrorists were focused on harming businesses, the Black Panthers on destroying white power, abortion activists on shutting down abortion clinics, and the FALN on ending the sovergnty of the American government in Puerto Rico. But in recent years, wealth and technology have brought groups that exclusively target people for the sake of just killing them, into America.

The notorious Jihadist groups, the likes of Al Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, have been around for a long time and have a long history of violence against westerners. But only recently have they begun to touch Americans and technology now allows them to recruit in the United States. Many mass shooters have been influenced by these groups while their influence has been neglected, or outright ignored, in the media. Such as the recent New York attack, which you would be hard pressed to find accurate information on.

Many shooters are now motivated by the desire to kill people that are not like themselves. Such as the Charleston, South Carolina shooting where the shooter was deeply influenced by neo-nazi propaganda and anti-black sentiment. The growing acceptance of anti-religion or anti-racial sentiments is also causing a problem. Many of the last shootings were influenced by a hate group, dedicated to hurting people of a certain demographic. Many groups that openly believe in discriminating against other ethnicities, or imposing apartheid type rules, are perfectly accepted on college campuses, share allegiances with large corporations, or feel confident enough to publicly act out in violence. Groups that have an expressed intent in destroying the system and causing collapse, anarchists, are also very accepted now and have a regular presence in the country with very robust and active funding for their endeavors.

Because the intent of these shooters or groups is to target the country in general, or people themselves, mass killings are becoming popular. If your goal is to get attention for your cause or disrupt the system, targeting buildings or symbols will work fine. But people set on exterminating people they don't like, will invariably target bodies as their goal. The goal of many modern terrorists is not to get attention, or even to drive terror (which inspires the definition of terrorist) but to kill as many people as possible. When that is the stated goal, even if the stated aim isn't to do it with violence, mass shootings will invariably become more regular, as well as high casualty terror attacks.

I hope one or more of these points strikes a chord with you. It is often hard to have a balanced discussion and often balanced is not true, as one side can miss the truth. My real hope is that with the increased awareness of antics used to give these organizations and ideologies support expands, their hold will begin to diminish. My hope is that you do too. Mass shootings are terrible events that take far too many lives. I hope everyone does their civil responsibility to ensure this does not happen in their community.