Summary: Another mass shooting has shocked the nation, with yet another unhinged twentysomething young man bringing a virtual arsenal with him walks into a public venue, kills 12 and injures 38. Notwithstanding the temptation to want to create a narrative that will advance particular political or social agenda, now is not the time for the chattering classes to be throwing bombs. We need to take time out, ascertain what we think, what we know, and what we can prove. We need to be respectful of the suffering that has been inflicted, and avoid divisive rhetoric that only sharpens the wounds and aggravates the already fraught nature of our national conversation.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Oh God, not again.
America reels from another mass shooting, as yet another unhinged twentysomething young man carrying a virtual arsenal walks into a public venue and starts firing. This time, the carnage took place in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and, at most recent report, twelve are dead and nearly twoscore have been injured.
These kinds of horrors seem to be like the refrain of a folk song that never tires of repeating itself.
Of course, we all want to know who has done this and why.
The shooter, like Jared Loughner, the gunman in the Gabrielle Giffords case, is in custody. We will not know his motives for some time.
Nonetheless, as I observed a year and a half ago at the time Congresswoman Giffords was gravely wounded and United States Chief District Judge John Roll was killed, the temptation to want to point fingers and assign blame will be well nigh overwhelming. We may expect, as we did after the events in Tucson, that the chattering classes on both sides of the political divide will take this opportunity to lob verbal broadsides at one another in the hope of advancing particular partisan, political, or other agenda.
Once again, however, we need to step back, to be moved --- if not by the better angels of our nature --- at least by some sense of social responsibility to put immediate, emotional reactions aside and seek truth from facts.
Once again, we need to ask basic questions: what do we know? What do we think? What can we prove?
As after the Tucson shootings, we know the butcher’s bill; a dozen are dead and 38 have been wounded. We know that the shooter’s mother is from San Diego, and that she right now is undergoing a kind of suffering that few can understand, let alone empathize with.
We know also that for survivors and family members of the dead and the injured, their lives will never again be the same; we may perhaps be excused for empathizing more with them at this moment then with the shooter’s mother, even though we should never forget that the Marian suffering of the mother of the perpetrator of so vast a crime is in many ways even more profound because aggravated by the circumstances of the criminal behavior of the offspring.
Our thinking about what has transpired is more problematic. As happened after the events in Tucson, the events in Aurora have become grist for the mill of just about every commentator with an agendum to push, an ax to grind, or a bomb to throw. Nonetheless, we may dare to hope that even in so divisive a time as a presidential election year, cooler, adult heads among us will realize the importance of taking time to engage in calm, careful, considerate reflection.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Oh God, not again.
America reels from another mass shooting, as yet another unhinged twentysomething young man carrying a virtual arsenal walks into a public venue and starts firing. This time, the carnage took place in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and, at most recent report, twelve are dead and nearly twoscore have been injured.
These kinds of horrors seem to be like the refrain of a folk song that never tires of repeating itself.
Of course, we all want to know who has done this and why.
The shooter, like Jared Loughner, the gunman in the Gabrielle Giffords case, is in custody. We will not know his motives for some time.
Nonetheless, as I observed a year and a half ago at the time Congresswoman Giffords was gravely wounded and United States Chief District Judge John Roll was killed, the temptation to want to point fingers and assign blame will be well nigh overwhelming. We may expect, as we did after the events in Tucson, that the chattering classes on both sides of the political divide will take this opportunity to lob verbal broadsides at one another in the hope of advancing particular partisan, political, or other agenda.
Once again, however, we need to step back, to be moved --- if not by the better angels of our nature --- at least by some sense of social responsibility to put immediate, emotional reactions aside and seek truth from facts.
Once again, we need to ask basic questions: what do we know? What do we think? What can we prove?
As after the Tucson shootings, we know the butcher’s bill; a dozen are dead and 38 have been wounded. We know that the shooter’s mother is from San Diego, and that she right now is undergoing a kind of suffering that few can understand, let alone empathize with.
We know also that for survivors and family members of the dead and the injured, their lives will never again be the same; we may perhaps be excused for empathizing more with them at this moment then with the shooter’s mother, even though we should never forget that the Marian suffering of the mother of the perpetrator of so vast a crime is in many ways even more profound because aggravated by the circumstances of the criminal behavior of the offspring.
Our thinking about what has transpired is more problematic. As happened after the events in Tucson, the events in Aurora have become grist for the mill of just about every commentator with an agendum to push, an ax to grind, or a bomb to throw. Nonetheless, we may dare to hope that even in so divisive a time as a presidential election year, cooler, adult heads among us will realize the importance of taking time to engage in calm, careful, considerate reflection.
This is no time for radio and TV talkers to fan the flames of an already fraught national conversation.
Of course, events may well move so quickly as to overtake this, or any, commentary upon what has happened. Our knowledge is necessarily incomplete, and drawing conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge is always problematic. As I wrote following the Tucson events:
“[T]he first and greatest challenge is to take a metaphorical deep breath, to wait before rushing in with theories, allegations, or accusations. As Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, we have very few known knowns at this point. There are far more known unknowns, such as the true motivations of the shooter, or whether he had assistance, or whether there were in fact others involved.”
As the situation develops further, we will have more information about the shooter, his motives, the existence of accomplices, and whether --- as appears likely, the incident was the horrifying result of an imbalance of the mind of a lone actor. As was the case in Tucson, the evidence at this early stage is too thin to draw any significant conclusions, notwithstanding our felt need to do so.
Once again, we know very little, we think -- perhaps -- too much, and we don’t know at this moment what, if anything, can be proven.
Nevertheless, it may be safe to draw a very preliminary conclusion that the shootings were not necessarily political; a conclusion we could not safely draw when Congressman Giffords and Chief Judge Roll were gunned down.
So today, let our thoughts and prayers be with those nearly twoscore souls who were injured for their recovery, as well for the repose of the souls of the dozen victims whose lives were so tragically cut short. Tomorrow, and on the days that follow, it will be time again to ask: What do we know? What do we think? What can we prove?
Of course, events may well move so quickly as to overtake this, or any, commentary upon what has happened. Our knowledge is necessarily incomplete, and drawing conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge is always problematic. As I wrote following the Tucson events:
“[T]he first and greatest challenge is to take a metaphorical deep breath, to wait before rushing in with theories, allegations, or accusations. As Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, we have very few known knowns at this point. There are far more known unknowns, such as the true motivations of the shooter, or whether he had assistance, or whether there were in fact others involved.”
As the situation develops further, we will have more information about the shooter, his motives, the existence of accomplices, and whether --- as appears likely, the incident was the horrifying result of an imbalance of the mind of a lone actor. As was the case in Tucson, the evidence at this early stage is too thin to draw any significant conclusions, notwithstanding our felt need to do so.
Once again, we know very little, we think -- perhaps -- too much, and we don’t know at this moment what, if anything, can be proven.
Nevertheless, it may be safe to draw a very preliminary conclusion that the shootings were not necessarily political; a conclusion we could not safely draw when Congressman Giffords and Chief Judge Roll were gunned down.
So today, let our thoughts and prayers be with those nearly twoscore souls who were injured for their recovery, as well for the repose of the souls of the dozen victims whose lives were so tragically cut short. Tomorrow, and on the days that follow, it will be time again to ask: What do we know? What do we think? What can we prove?
For now, however, we should observe a principled and considerate time of silence, leaving off with partisan rhetoric and poisoned comments.
A decent respect for the dead and the injured should demand no less of us.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney in Cathedral City, California, where he practices law, and where he two terms on the Cathedral City city Council. The views expressed herein are exclusively his own, and are not necessarily those of any entity or organization with which he is associated.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney in Cathedral City, California, where he practices law, and where he two terms on the Cathedral City city Council. The views expressed herein are exclusively his own, and are not necessarily those of any entity or organization with which he is associated.
