Another- yet another- mass shooting, and this time it is Buffalo’s turn. Surely, the thought makes me sick to my stomach, visualizing the chaos, the last moments of the fallen, and sorrow for the families that must now bury them.
I am fearful that we are becoming some inoculated to the rhetoric, and the mainstream attitudes towards these events. Immediately post event- the lines divide, and the bombastic theories begin flying, which as it happens, I will add my two cents- hopefully more scientific than sensational.
My view is that an active shooting is a terrorist event and transcends criminality. If the problem is approached within this paradigm, some solutions begin to materialize.
To explain the differences, criminality is transactional, and at its simplest form is “you have, and I want”- in that, a criminal seeks to take one’s treasure, blood, or sexual virtue and do so without being caught. As such, a criminal has a direct relationship with his victims, and the responders, i.e. the police, which he intends to avoid.
A terrorist does not have a direct relationship with either his immediate victims, or the police, instead- he uses both entities to facilitate the broadcast of his intended, terroristic aims. The immediate shooting casualties are not the intended victims, rather a vehicle to reach the broader audience of the populace, and his aim is realized by detailed exposure that the shooter gains by conducting the attack. The shooter does not necessarily wish to survive, which adds to the conjecture, and the police, as necessary- perform this function.
Simply put, the act itself is nothing but a demonstration, designed to shock and generate fear and attention, and in this we are all compliant in generating the effect in which the shooter designed in the first place. Before the attack, the shooter was unknown, and he wished to change this anonymity. Recently, his attack was discussed by the President of the United States- which means to the shooter that the leader of the free world “talked about me”. With this exposure, certainly the shooter gained the attention that he intended. Terrorists conduct these terrible acts to gain this attention, nothing more or less.
The media, and the political factions whose lines were drawn on this issue long ago, pick up the informational wave and add to it. The remainder of us place it in a mental file, add a few descriptors to it, among them “motivation” and “mental illness”.
Motivation is always the same, and that is to ride the reporting and informational element of power afterwards. Doctrine is not the same, and some shooters are not subordinate to doctrine, other than their own vanity. “Tomorrow, everyone will know who I am- and that I am not a man to be trifled with.”
Mental illness doesn’t fit either- as the shooting itself is a deliberate, intentional, and rational act. Because of the bombast afterwards, it works as the shooter intended in the first place. If one gains the exactly desired outcome, how can the act be serialized as mentally unbalanced?
Strategically, this places the solution in an interesting niche. If we understand that the messaging is the desired effect, what can be done to curb this informational wave?
Firstly, understanding that it is a terrorist event, is a useful start. Understanding what the desired effect gives the populace and authorities an objective in which to deny a shooter the accomplishment of such an end state.
A terrorist not only must be stopped physically, but also discredited- certainly not honored with examination. Talking to the shooter’s third grade teacher, showing photos, interviews, exploring the childhood, pacing the blame on mental illness or corrupt ideology delivers more harm than good.
My proposal is to conduct a media blackout of the shooter, and deny him the personal exposure that he so craves. The victims can be memorialized surely, as they should be, and the doctrinal emphasis that the shooter followed, could be conjectured upon as well. Just not his name, face, personal life, or any details that would gratify his act or give him satisfaction towards the intended effect.
I know this is a radical position, and that the First Amendment of the United States will be denied in sense, and that is regrettable. Solutions that point to a ban a portion of the Second Amendment have been parroted enough that they have developed a following, but frankly restricting a certain type of firearm would not be effective. Active shootings would continue with other firearms not subject to the ban- and we would continue to chase our tails without any progress, only fewer gun rights.
The terrorist uses informational elements of power to generate this effect, and as long as the system of reporting, the media, and the politicians still use these sad events for their own purposes, the active shooter epidemic will continue. One alteration of the First Amendment, radical as the thought may be- is what is going to get us there.