Bang bang! Did anyone record this?
The gruesome murder of two TV persons on air is now top news around the media at both sides of the Atlantic. The sad thing is, people have grown so accustomed to hearing that sort of news coming from America that the overwhelming response I'm hearing is, "Meh, no surprise there". It's just that Americans reaching for the gun to sort out their issues has become the standard now.
There are two possible explanations for what happened, and the pattern that it's part of. One is that there's something very perverse in this right to freely and openly bear arms that's at the core of American society - I mean, the very idea of someone being able to carry a loaded gun around schools, hospitals, or as is this case, a live-TV studio, is truly mind-boggling for a non-American.
Apparently, the POTUS does share that sentiment as well, since with a visible mixture of embarrassment and vexation he has again reminded his compatriots that they should overcome their obsession with guns, and even abandon it at some point. It's evident that under the surface he's feeling pretty angry in his helplessness, because he knows he can't say what he truly thinks, even if he's not running for election any more - it's just that the whole nation would turn against him the moment he opens his mouth on the question. That's how deep the lead poison has infiltrated people's hearts and minds.
The second reaction was the outrage from the killer's callousness, as he used smartphones and social media to record his act and express his jubilation from having committed it. He clearly did that out of some perverse need to feed his ego, as per the mores of our modern exhibitionist age, where everyone should know about an event, lest they thought it didn't really happen, or worse - didn't pay any attention.
Such is the cruel reality in which we live, where everything has to be photographed and filmed, otherwise it's not real. This way, in a sense we're all accomplices to the crime, being ourselves willing voyeurs. That young man was doing his sinister act, and we were watching it, and couldn't get our eyes off it. If we had consciously chosen to watch, then indeed, we were accomplices. We were besmirched. And quite voluntarily so.
But the hard, disgusting truth that all these rational reactions serve to conceal is that the guy was feeling genuine pleasure from ending the life of other human beings - because that's what guns are for. So what if he had some scores to settle with somebody? So what? Many people occasionally get angry for various things - I've become frustrated over various reasons from time to time. But I'm sure neither I nor any of you would ever think of venting that anger through deadly fire, would we? But this man's brain operates in a different way. Anger is just a plan, a foundation. The decision he took and the pleasure it brought him is what matters. And this has deep roots too - because Americans are being brought up from the earliest age to draw delight from shooting with guns. "That's the American way, what can you do", I'm often told.
For example there could be valid arguments against arming cops as is in several other countries, since they seem alarmingly prone to getting trigger-happy. But the truth is, such an idea would never stand a chance in the US. It would be ridiculed and rejected even by the most ardent proponents of gun control, because it's simply inapplicable to the conditions of the gun-soaked American society.
There are guns being produced even for little kids, even for 5 year olds, and kids are being given real guns as a birthday present - their proud parents then teaching them to shoot with them with pleasure. And it's no surprise that these are then being misused by kids with fatal consequences. But of course, that still hasn't brought anybody to the logical decision to remove gun-holding rights from kids. And that is mind-boggling to a non-American, too.
I know at least two persons who, on their regular trips to the US, when invited into a friends' home, have first inquired if there were any guns inside, and upon positive answer have politely declined the invitation. One told me that the general reaction is bewilderment. It's just that many Americans simply refuse to even attempt to understand their motivations.
Behind all this, there are of course organizations like the powerful NRA. They've tirelessly worked in the same direction, namely the propagation of guns throughout the populace - for profit, of course. They're using the 2nd Amendment as a shield, which was carefully formulated to match the realities of its time: it was meant to allow the young American nation to defend itself in case its former British colonial masters ever attempted to re-gain control. There's no longer a threat from a colonialist invasion today, and yet that Amendment is being cited as Gospel. Because it has become part of the American's bloodstream now.
But the NRA's actual goal (apart from the obvious financial interests of the wealthy gun-producing lobby) is to preserve the unwritten principle of leisure and pleasure behind gun use. According to that principle, there's nothing bad in shooting at things - and if things do take a bad turn, it's because the perpetrator had "mental issues" (as is the narrative surrounding this particular case that has triggered this post). But our anti-hero here Vester Lee Flanagan was actually not mentally ill. He was "just angry". And in America, anger seems too easy to get expressed through bullets. President Obama could speak more openly now about his true thoughts on the matter, now that he's not running for re-election. But if he does, he's risking to hurt his own party, and giving more ammo (ha!) to their detractors and opponents - whose agenda includes even looser gun laws. So unfortunately, I'm not seeing the shootings rate slowing down any time soon. In fact, I expect it go be getting only worse.
Ps. Cue the race card being played now. "When a white guy shoots a black guy, you're all over them. This guy shot a white TV anchor for making racist remarks about black - so where's the outrage?" Yep, I've been expecting that sort of argument to be brought up any time now.
There are two possible explanations for what happened, and the pattern that it's part of. One is that there's something very perverse in this right to freely and openly bear arms that's at the core of American society - I mean, the very idea of someone being able to carry a loaded gun around schools, hospitals, or as is this case, a live-TV studio, is truly mind-boggling for a non-American.
Apparently, the POTUS does share that sentiment as well, since with a visible mixture of embarrassment and vexation he has again reminded his compatriots that they should overcome their obsession with guns, and even abandon it at some point. It's evident that under the surface he's feeling pretty angry in his helplessness, because he knows he can't say what he truly thinks, even if he's not running for election any more - it's just that the whole nation would turn against him the moment he opens his mouth on the question. That's how deep the lead poison has infiltrated people's hearts and minds.
The second reaction was the outrage from the killer's callousness, as he used smartphones and social media to record his act and express his jubilation from having committed it. He clearly did that out of some perverse need to feed his ego, as per the mores of our modern exhibitionist age, where everyone should know about an event, lest they thought it didn't really happen, or worse - didn't pay any attention.
Such is the cruel reality in which we live, where everything has to be photographed and filmed, otherwise it's not real. This way, in a sense we're all accomplices to the crime, being ourselves willing voyeurs. That young man was doing his sinister act, and we were watching it, and couldn't get our eyes off it. If we had consciously chosen to watch, then indeed, we were accomplices. We were besmirched. And quite voluntarily so.
But the hard, disgusting truth that all these rational reactions serve to conceal is that the guy was feeling genuine pleasure from ending the life of other human beings - because that's what guns are for. So what if he had some scores to settle with somebody? So what? Many people occasionally get angry for various things - I've become frustrated over various reasons from time to time. But I'm sure neither I nor any of you would ever think of venting that anger through deadly fire, would we? But this man's brain operates in a different way. Anger is just a plan, a foundation. The decision he took and the pleasure it brought him is what matters. And this has deep roots too - because Americans are being brought up from the earliest age to draw delight from shooting with guns. "That's the American way, what can you do", I'm often told.
For example there could be valid arguments against arming cops as is in several other countries, since they seem alarmingly prone to getting trigger-happy. But the truth is, such an idea would never stand a chance in the US. It would be ridiculed and rejected even by the most ardent proponents of gun control, because it's simply inapplicable to the conditions of the gun-soaked American society.
There are guns being produced even for little kids, even for 5 year olds, and kids are being given real guns as a birthday present - their proud parents then teaching them to shoot with them with pleasure. And it's no surprise that these are then being misused by kids with fatal consequences. But of course, that still hasn't brought anybody to the logical decision to remove gun-holding rights from kids. And that is mind-boggling to a non-American, too.
I know at least two persons who, on their regular trips to the US, when invited into a friends' home, have first inquired if there were any guns inside, and upon positive answer have politely declined the invitation. One told me that the general reaction is bewilderment. It's just that many Americans simply refuse to even attempt to understand their motivations.
Behind all this, there are of course organizations like the powerful NRA. They've tirelessly worked in the same direction, namely the propagation of guns throughout the populace - for profit, of course. They're using the 2nd Amendment as a shield, which was carefully formulated to match the realities of its time: it was meant to allow the young American nation to defend itself in case its former British colonial masters ever attempted to re-gain control. There's no longer a threat from a colonialist invasion today, and yet that Amendment is being cited as Gospel. Because it has become part of the American's bloodstream now.
But the NRA's actual goal (apart from the obvious financial interests of the wealthy gun-producing lobby) is to preserve the unwritten principle of leisure and pleasure behind gun use. According to that principle, there's nothing bad in shooting at things - and if things do take a bad turn, it's because the perpetrator had "mental issues" (as is the narrative surrounding this particular case that has triggered this post). But our anti-hero here Vester Lee Flanagan was actually not mentally ill. He was "just angry". And in America, anger seems too easy to get expressed through bullets. President Obama could speak more openly now about his true thoughts on the matter, now that he's not running for re-election. But if he does, he's risking to hurt his own party, and giving more ammo (ha!) to their detractors and opponents - whose agenda includes even looser gun laws. So unfortunately, I'm not seeing the shootings rate slowing down any time soon. In fact, I expect it go be getting only worse.
Ps. Cue the race card being played now. "When a white guy shoots a black guy, you're all over them. This guy shot a white TV anchor for making racist remarks about black - so where's the outrage?" Yep, I've been expecting that sort of argument to be brought up any time now.