I've heard and read several people make the argument that, in the aftermath of mass shootings like those of the past two weeks, we do not need to understand the reasons the shooters took action as they did, that those reasons are irrelevant because the facts of the shootings are plain or because the shooter is dead (as is most often the case) and therefore his motives are moot.
I disagree. First, in the case of a surviving shooter (as in the most recent incidents), there will be at least a hearing and more likely a trial. Motive will always be a factor in court proceedings, if only in determining whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. Second, when the shooter is dead, it is worthwhile to know what drove any human being to such actions, in order to recognize the same problems and situations in other lives and attempt to prevent further tragic outcomes.
I've also seen an argument that "it all boils down to hate"--not the hatred of specific groups that constitutes a "hate crime" under the law, but a generalized hatred of humanity itself, misanthropy, if you will. This seems far too simplistic to me, a way of saying in effect, "well, he was crazy, what can you do about that?"
Alexander Pope once said, "The proper study of mankind is man". If that applies to anything in the modern world, it applies to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment