7 08 2009



How many stories like the one in the url above have you read or heard about over the last 20 years? Think back. The first case I remember where a “disturbed” guy set out to shoot a lot of strangers was back in the 1966 — the “Texas Tower” incident at the University of Texas in Austin, in which a man on top of a high building with a high-powered rifle killed 17 and wounded 31 innocent people before he was stopped.

I remember how surprised and horrified all us high school kids were  — and the teachers even more so. After we’d all talked it to death for a few weeks we decided it was an amazingly unique awful thing that would never happen again, and we forgot about it.

The joke was on us. Today no-one (at least no-one who is awake to the world around him) is surprised, by these shoot-em-up events, which seem to happen more frequently each year.*

Today, in fact, when life gets so infuriating you just can’t stand it any more, you need not always just decently kill yourself. There was never any real satisfaction in that traditional form of relief anyway — at best it merely freed the angry brooder from the burden of continuing to be his implacably resentful self.

Now, luckily for the terminally disaffected, the means to go far beyond suicide and wreak real revenge on the unsatisfactory world are available everywhere. Your right to access those means is jealously guarded by the National Rifle Association, and by millions of “traditional males”, who would never think of restricting the availability of this toy of theirs in order to frustrate a relatively few multi-murderers.

Since it is too obvious to need stating that the ready availability of guns in the USA, due to their ability to kill a satisfyingly large number of folks quickly from a distance, is probably going to increase the number and success of rage-induced massacres here, I have to assume that the smarter gun lovers take note of this and then routinely say, in essence, “Hey, those [strangers’] lives are the price we pay for freedom!”

It’s a price that will inevitably grow over time. Over the last forty years I’ve watched the gun multi-murder become an established part of American culture. We even have a special term for it, “going postal.” I wonder how high the kills-per-year numbers will have to get before the traditionalists will let something be done about it?**

And, in the meantime, will growing fear of such rage events gradually turn our schools, offices, and now health clubs into armed fortresses? Guards are everywhere already, including where I work. And my recently-constructed office building is laid out so you have to swipe your keycard at two different doors to get from outside to in. The place is a prison turned inside out, and you can’t help but feel like a prisoner as you go about your business there.  Meanwhile on the streets, policepersons walk around on hair triggers always — with predictable results.

To me it all looks a lot like the days of the Cold War, when the best defense was a good offense. Both sides piled up more and more weapons, but somehow neither America nor Russia ever felt any more secure. Will the mounting misery and irritation of our new, domestic cold war always just be dismissed as the “price paid for freedom”?  Or will it instead finally be the death of one of our most basic freedoms, the freedom to move about in the world unchallenged by authority?


*Here’s a site that shows the number of “mass” (victim death count of ten or more) murders for the years 1948 through 2007:

The page has a point of view, but the data are straightforward, and I doubt that they have fudged the numbers.

I’ve been unable to find any site that tabulated all multi-murder incidents over time, including incidents with a death toll of less than 10.

**Hint: It’s taken seventy years for the ever-increasing death and suffering caused in the USA by another of our traditional American practices to just POSSIBLY be about to end in reform at last. How many lives have been destroyed by our you-get-what-you-pay-for health care over all those years?




3 responses

8 08 2009

Yeah. But consider this:

There are THOUSANDS of unregistered guns belonging to hoodlums in bad neighborhoods throughout the USA. Ethnic oppression is a much more understandable murder motive than the mere failure to get laid. I’m always fascinated that despite access to black market weapons, these folks aren’t mowing down hordes of white people at movie theaters. Robberies and turf wars are socially unacceptable, but plenty of sane (or at least sane-ish) people commit them. They aren’t going psycho with those guns. Why is that? I think it has to do with societal permission.

When a person obtains a gun through legal means, they’re granted not only the gun but the ‘right’ to have the gun. Shady people with filed serial numbers and stolen ‘pieces’ on the other hand have one overriding thought going thru their mind: “I’m not supposed to have this.” That might be the thing that keeps them rooted in reality- Use Only In Emergency. It’s more along the original idea of guns in the first place.

I’ve often theorized that if the government were to turn dark and evil, and needed to be gotten rid of, the only two groups that could realistically help would be ‘homeys’ and ‘hicks’. That the two groups stereotypically despise each other only adds to the novelty of the idea- It’s the stuff of John Brunner…

9 08 2009

I thought about this comment for several days. I’m to lazy to do research, but paging back through my memory of the last 40 years reveals only two cases of Black men perpetrating the kind of multi-murder rage attack that I wrote about here. One was a guy in New York who I seem to recall acted on a commuter train around 20 years ago. The other was that the man who led that carefully-planned series of murders around the Washington DC area about 7 years ago.

Why the difference?

I try to understand human behavior mostly by applying imagination in light of knowledge. As a long-time novel reader I find this a natural approach. You’ve done that here, and it sounds right to me.

Lot’s of people speak dismissively of a “sense of entitlement” among American Blacks. My observations, internal and external, suggest that the possessors of the hugest sense of entitlement in America — maybe in the world — are Whites. Our deepest assumption is that we are the measure of the world. Normally in our public discourse this is not expressed, because it’s now not politically correct. It’s almost certainly a lingering vestige of colonialism. You can see it at work every day in our foreign policy. (and, more explicitly, that of Britain before us. See the works of Rudyard Kipling.)

A fine, rare, recent overt manifestation of this assumption of White entitlement is the furor Republicans tried to kick up about the “wise latina” comment of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. Judging done by traditional American Whites is assumed to be the judging against which all other judging must be judged. Nonsense! Looking at the matter rationally, can anyone doubt that a person coming from a slightly different culture than the long-ruling White North American one WOULD bring fresh insights to the job of judging?

That proto-furor was a manifestation of the streak of American thinking called, ironically, “nativism”. The White culture established in North America by people of English and celtic origin is very tenacious. Gun ownership is part of it. Every White man, by and large, “knows” on the deepest, most unquestionable level that he has an inalienable right to own a gun. It seems to me that it is a medium-length step, if powered by seething rage, to the notion that he has a right to USE his gun for its intended purpose.

10 08 2009

“I’m to lazy to do research, but paging back through my memory of the last 40 years reveals only two cases of Black men perpetrating the kind of multi-murder rage attack that I wrote about here. One was a guy in New York who I seem to recall acted on a commuter train around 20 years ago. The other was that the man who led that carefully-planned series of murders around the Washington DC area about 7 years ago.”

No, there was also MATA, Mark Essex who ran from room to room and floor to floor changing outfits and yelling to passers by “he went that way” a true master of confusion. Most who saw him never realized he was the sniper!

He had the entire police dept convinced there were several men in on the job. A riveting account.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: