In the wake of the most recent mass shooting, the nation is once again partaking in that most American of dishes: lukewarm, calorie-free sadness, presented in a spotless, faultless bowl and garnished with a sprinkling of guilt-free outrage (on the side, of course - if you don't want it, you don't have to have it).
While the presence of overt misogyny adds a new ingredient to this dish, it's otherwise the standard gruel: person shoots people in the United States. We've all eaten this before, and compared to other recent variations on it, this dish is not even all that remarkable: after Newtown, we all know that the nation's tolerance for gun violence is somehow greater than 20 dead elementary school students and six adults. The latest shooting falls well below that threshold, and as such, the media and our politicians need only to flip on the hot plate to bring ready-to-serve sadness and outrage to a lukewarm, easy-on-the-mouth temperature. There's no need to bring things to a boil.
So, no: I do not expect that this latest shooting will result in genuine progress towards reducing gun violence. (It does seem to be shining a harsh light on contemporary misogyny, however, and perhaps some progress will be made on that front; the light of the autopsy table still has the power to bring some things into clearer moral focus for us).
However, just because ground is not being gained in the struggle against gun violence, does not mean that ground is not being lost.
And I believe that ground is being lost. Read on below.
I believe that ground is being lost, right now. It's being lost via a pervasive meme in op-eds and comments sections, in essays and long-form screeds, under guise of attempting to understand this latest shooting. I don't think that the majority of the purveyors of this meme are intending to erode support for gun regulations, but I do believe that the originators of this meme intend for it to do exactly that.
In short: I believe that ground is being lost via what seems to be a rising acceptance of the "he was crazy" explanation (or, in its more P.C. form, the "he was mentally ill" explanation).
I believe that this "explanation" for mass shootings is deeply and dangerously flawed.
I believe that the danger in this "explanation" is this: it enervates any attempt to understand or minimize gun violence, because it implies that mass shootings are caused by a variable that is absolutely random, unforeseeable, and uncontrollable. It shifts our focus from a variable that can be regulated (access to weapons) to a variable that cannot be regulated (the mental state of a free individual).
I believe that the "he was crazy" or "he was suffering from mental illness" meme is a trojan horse, and that its purpose is to instill in us an unspoken belief that nothing can be done about mass shootings.
And I don't believe that this is unintentional. Shifting the post-massacre focus to mental illness not only nudges the glare of the autopsy light away from guns and those who oppose the regulation of guns, it also sends the message that mass shootings are impossible to predict, are therefore impossible to manage or reduce, and ultimately are an unavoidable and unmanageable feature of life in the United States. Both of these results benefit the gun lobby in the wake of a massacre - they both deflect blame and mitigate any demand for tighter regulations, and the latter drives up sales to boot.
I believe that the fact that Wayne LaPierre, enemy of government intrusion, has publicly suggested a government database for the mentally ill - even while the NRA has worked to scuttle efforts to keep weapons away from the mentally ill - suggests that the gun lobby sees the mental illness meme as beneficial to its purposes. We can assume that the NRA has done its research, and that there is a practical reason for LaPierre's public embrace of government intrusion into the lives of the mentally ill.
Yes, the killer was mentally ill. He was also armed. One of those two variables is manageable. Let's not lose sight of that.
-------
Note: Yes, I know that he also used a knife. No need to make that point. And secondly: I'm not saying that mental health is not an important issue, nor am I saying that our nation's approach to mental health treatment is acceptable.