Stop, You're Killing Me

It always begins with a “senseless murder” or a “senseless killing”. Well, in this age of hyper-empathy we ought to know better. Apparently-random killings may seem “senseless” to the casual observer, but I'm sure they made eminent sense to the perpetrator... and why aren't we ever interested in his point of view? The fact is we are, and yet there is never any attempt, once his motives are known and supposedly understood, to go back and re-label the killing as “sensible”. (Plus, you'll notice that any time anyone, anywhere on earth, is killed by someone in uniform it's always considered sensible. Just thought I'd throw that in... )

But this is not the metaphysical dilemma I'm here to discuss today. I'd like to focus on what is reflected in the headline of an article on Tuesday night's killing of three women at a local health club: “Killings prompt anger, resolve. At a vigil for 3 slain women, mourners vow to stop violence.” And a spokesperson says, “We are committed to work together as a community to ensure that something like this never happens again.” Now... anger I can understand, although it would have been even worse if the killer hadn't made himself the final victim. Because in that case, we would have been treated to months of trials and appeals, followed by, most likely, a life sentence punctuated with even more appeals – all at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Why don't we get more “angry” about that? But at any rate, let's look at the “resolve” part and the “vow to stop violence” part for a moment. Whenever something like this happens, the law-abiding, non-psychotic people gather around, hold candlelight vigils, and buy out the flower shops and teddy bear stores, and make all sorts of vows and resolutions (typically with the help of local politicians who see a photo op ready and waiting). But let's face it – these aren't the people who need to take vows and make resolutions. They are not killers and are unlikely to become killers. They are, as the saying goes, preaching to the choir, because the people who one would like to see stepping up to the “vow and resolution” altar are nowhere to be found. It's like those drearily-regular inner city drive-by shootings, which are invariably followed by a half-hearted campaign to “take back the streets”. They usually wind up “taking back” about half a city block for about an hour, while the gangbangers lounge on the corner, smirking and muttering “sheeeit..”

The point is that all the vows and resolutions in the world are of no avail if they do not target, or impact, the next likely perpetrators one iota. And they won't ever accomplish this for a number of reasons. One is that even the “inner-city” culture is not all of a piece – it typically consists of the outlaws, who basically run things... the old-time, law-abiding types, who stay out of the way... the marginal types who have way too much time on their hands but not quite the gumption to get “ganged up”... and the in-between types who attempt to make peace with both sides in order to get along and keep their skin intact (and stay in business). And which group is the most helpless, and the least influential? Why, the old-time law-abiding types, of course; who else? If a local politician wants to make a name for himself by ginning up some new entitlement, he's going to call up “rent-a-mob”, and they will consist mostly of marginal types – not the gangbangers, but not necessarily the old timers either... and also not the tightrope walkers, whose top priority is not rocking the boat. But what typically “gets things done” in that environment is violence – or the threat thereof. Remember how fast civil rights and affirmative action legislation got passed once the inner cities caught fire? You can do “peaceful demonstrating” and “passive resistance” until you die of old age, but there's nothing like a Molotov cocktail or two to get “the man's” attention.

Now, move out of the inner city and you get an even more “diverse”, multi-layered social structure, consisting of more than one racial/ethnic group, aggravated by wide discrepancies in income, education, political conviction, and so forth. So if an antisocial loser from the lower depths (socially, economically, psychologically, morally, or all the above) shoots a couple of suburbanites, I'd like someone to explain how any amount of “vowing” and “resolving” on the part of other suburbanites is going to make an impression on the denizens of the lower depths. It's not! We're talking about drastically different cultures here. They may live almost side by side – root for the same sports teams – eat at some of the same joints – but on a more profound level they could not be more different. The person from the lower depths will take his licks, and give back as good as he got... and if anyone is fool enough to get in the way, well, too bad. What goes through his mind as he cruises by the funeral service for the latest victim? Something, I suspect, like: “Huh! Fool!” After all, he is still alive and on the street, and that other chump is headed for the cemetery, and that's all that matters. And the crazier ones can always convince themselves that any given victim “had it coming”.

Plus, what, precisely, do all these vowers and resolvers want the government to do (it has to be the government, because who else)? Because whenever people talk about “working together as a community”, you can bet that they are counting on the government to get involved. To deal with this
question, you have to ask what, if anything, could have been done to prevent the latest string of killings. I suppose, like with cancer, “early detection” is the key – which means administering mental health screenings to each and every citizen on at least an annual basis, and entering the results into a data base along with a record of all prescription medicines the person has taken or is taking, any firearms permits they've obtained, and firearms they've purchased, and domestic or employment difficulties they've had... um, what else? In the most recent case, the guy's blog would have had to be monitored night and day. But I guess “Obamacare” is going to include all of this, so maybe it's OK.

In many cases, we're dealing with a troublemaker who, in more enlightened times, would already have been in jail – or who wouldn't have been let out so soon after his prior offense. Well, the solution to that one is obvious, if costly. But in other cases, like with the one this week, it was that guy right out of Central Casting – you know, the “obsessive, angry, moody loner” who felt rejected by women. But even here, we might just be able to put some of the blame on popular culture – like the premise, pushed relentlessly by the entertainment industry, that everyone has to have a “significant other”, or a “main squeeze”, or at least an occasional “date”, or they're a total loser. This is the kind of thing that sinks in eventually – and it's especially devastating to the people for whom a normal life is, apparently, not an option. The picture we're presented with is what I call the “Snow White universe”, where there are two of everything – two bluebirds, two chipmunks, two bunny rabbits... you know, all those adorable Disney animals cavorting across the grass while Snow White sings. No room for any “moody loners” in that picture! No antisocial Asperger's types! No geeks, spazzes, or losers! And preferably, not even anyone who is “shy”. No, it has to be a perfect world, and you have only yourself to blame if you don't fit in. So... what's a guy who really is a moody loner to do? Most of them do noting at all; they subscribe to cable with the deluxe option and spend the rest of their life watching TV. But a rare few seek a way out... and wind up spraying a health club with bullets. And these candlelight vigil people think any of this can be prevented? Please. We already have a society that is just about as unthreatening, and unchallenging, as any society in history. Most Americans live the way Chinese royalty used to live – at least in some respects. The fact that there are people out there who are still miserable is not the fault of the “system” or “holes in the safety net” -- it's part and parcel of flawed human nature operating in a fallen world. And the more government steps in and tries to lock-step people back to “mental health”, the more pathological things become.

Now, this is not to say that there is absolutely nothing that can be done. To start with, once a person has proven themselves to be an unredeemable badass, the only sensible thing to do is lock them up, period. And yeah, I know all about overcrowding in prisons – but we've been over this. Let all the nonviolent drug offenders out, and take the worst cases – the Manson types – for a walk down the hall to pay a visit to “Old Sparky”. I guarantee you'll have plenty of room for the new cohort. Then – do something about the monolithic messages being blasted at the citizenry day in and day out by the “entertainment” industry. Make being single – truly single – respectable again. Quit killing charity by putting the government in charge of solving all human problems. Restore some of the challenges – and risks – to life that, for many people, are the only things that make life worth living. And mainly, quit oppressing people with taxes, social “programs”, endless wars, and economic crises. As it is, we provide a marginal level of existence for the bulk of the population, then wonder why some of them go off the deep end. These are all things that the teddy bear brigades could take up with their representatives – but they never connect the dots.

Finally, it should be accepted that, just as “the poor will always be with us”, so will the crazy... the disturbed... the psychotic. Locking everybody in a rubber room just to make sure the crazies are locked in rubber rooms is not going to enhance the aggregate quality of life. And yes, some innocents will suffer no matter what... and this too is something that we are unwilling to deal with... but until we do, we will continue to be a half-mad society, paralyzed by denial and obsessing about non-solutions to non-problems.