Great article! I’m going to share this on Twitter. Several thoughts.
“No, mass killings are not "the cost of liberty," but they are a tragically constant reality of the human condition.”
Exactly. Violence happens because human beings are violent, not because weapons make them violent.
“ History documents them in the earliest written records, they’ve existed in every century, and they presently exist in every country of the world.”
I fully believe this. But I’m curious about your sources. What records or events are you referring to? We’re talking about ancient evidence of something akin to Columbine-style attacks or McVeigh-style attacks? In other words, with one or two perpetrators?
“ This is not uniquely American.”
True. However, isn’t it also true that America is particularly violent? I mean more violent than at least some other western nations?
“ The two worst mass shootings in modern American history are the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting (58 dead, 413 wounded) and the 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting (49 dead, 53 wounded). In terms of police officer deaths, the worst instances were the Dallas Shooting (5 officers killed) and the 2009 Lakewood Shooting (4 officers killed).
The 2016 Nice Truck Attack in France rivals both of the mass shootings above (86 dead, 458 wounded), as do the 2004 Madrid Train Bombings (193 dead, 2,000 wounded) and the 2015 Paris Attacks (131 dead, 413 wounded). As for officers killed, a Paris police station came under attack in 2019 and four officers were killed, with a knife.
All of these are rivaled by 9/11, which resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths and over 25,000 wounded (many of them first responders). The terrorists who hijacked the planes were armed only with box cutters and clay.”
This is a very important point.
“ Most wars and conquests concluded with pillaging, raping, and murder. Most regimes kept their populations in check with brutal and indiscriminate violence.”
Russia (and others) still use rape as a weapon of war. Iran turns the guns of security forces on its people and uses rape as a punishment for protesting the regime.
As for the sources of my claim that "History documents them in the earliest written records, they’ve existed in every century, and they presently exist in every country of the world" I'm mostly referring to mass murder in general and we could go all the way back into the fossil record for the dying out of the neanderthals, which some believed directly resulted from violence against them from more modern man. In history, we can look to such things as the Sacking of Jerusalem as well as St. Bartholomew's Massacre referenced in the image tagline (estimations of dead range between 5,000 to 30,000).
But if you're asking specifically about lone killers or "columbine style" attacks, it's a bit more of a complicated subject. Arguably, the ingredients for lone killers to emerge don't fully exist outside of a nation with the rule of law because psychopaths and those with violent tendencies are embraced as instruments of the state and given positions where they can indulge their tendencies as part of the arm of the law rather than as pushing against it. But I would suggest that there have always been those who stand apart from society and lash out in violence, but whose actions don't end up being recorded in history because of how easy it was to get away with certain crimes in a less developed society. Think of how spread out humanity used to be, and how slowly information traveled (and how distorted it got over time). I wouldn't be surprised at all if tales of ghosts and monsters originated as horrible acts perpetrated randomly by disturbed individuals, but the stories took on metaphysical and demonic aspects as they spread.
But probably the main point of my perspective would be that lone killers in modern society largely result because the rule of law keeps such people from indulging in their acts of violence in the name of the state and that they then lash out as lone killers. I'm sure if Germany hadn't fallen to Nazism, there are many killers and criminals who would have still engaged in their violent tendencies but would have been outside of the law rather than committing violence in the name of the law.
“ But I would suggest that there have always been those who stand apart from society and lash out in violence, but whose actions don't end up being recorded in history because of how easy it was to get away with certain crimes in a less developed society.”
That’s what I figured. I was just curious to see if you knew any accounts that fit that description.
“ I wouldn't be surprised at all if tales of ghosts and monsters originated as horrible acts perpetrated randomly by disturbed individuals, but the stories took on metaphysical and demonic aspects as they spread.”
One other point: “ I am willing to concede that we can enact some modest measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and would-be criminals. But such measures should only be a very small part of a broader vision to ensure adequate security of likely targets, better proactive enforcement of existing laws, and swift responses to actual attacks.”
I largely agree. I’d be in favor of some sort of background check that prevented several disturbed people from obtaining firearms.
I also think that properly crafted red flag laws could be a beneficial tool. The problem with this idea, of course, is that many Left-leaning states have crafted them in the wrong way and have created a serious stigmatism towards the idea.
Great article! I’m going to share this on Twitter. Several thoughts.
“No, mass killings are not "the cost of liberty," but they are a tragically constant reality of the human condition.”
Exactly. Violence happens because human beings are violent, not because weapons make them violent.
“ History documents them in the earliest written records, they’ve existed in every century, and they presently exist in every country of the world.”
I fully believe this. But I’m curious about your sources. What records or events are you referring to? We’re talking about ancient evidence of something akin to Columbine-style attacks or McVeigh-style attacks? In other words, with one or two perpetrators?
“ This is not uniquely American.”
True. However, isn’t it also true that America is particularly violent? I mean more violent than at least some other western nations?
“ The two worst mass shootings in modern American history are the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting (58 dead, 413 wounded) and the 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting (49 dead, 53 wounded). In terms of police officer deaths, the worst instances were the Dallas Shooting (5 officers killed) and the 2009 Lakewood Shooting (4 officers killed).
The 2016 Nice Truck Attack in France rivals both of the mass shootings above (86 dead, 458 wounded), as do the 2004 Madrid Train Bombings (193 dead, 2,000 wounded) and the 2015 Paris Attacks (131 dead, 413 wounded). As for officers killed, a Paris police station came under attack in 2019 and four officers were killed, with a knife.
All of these are rivaled by 9/11, which resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths and over 25,000 wounded (many of them first responders). The terrorists who hijacked the planes were armed only with box cutters and clay.”
This is a very important point.
“ Most wars and conquests concluded with pillaging, raping, and murder. Most regimes kept their populations in check with brutal and indiscriminate violence.”
Russia (and others) still use rape as a weapon of war. Iran turns the guns of security forces on its people and uses rape as a punishment for protesting the regime.
As for the sources of my claim that "History documents them in the earliest written records, they’ve existed in every century, and they presently exist in every country of the world" I'm mostly referring to mass murder in general and we could go all the way back into the fossil record for the dying out of the neanderthals, which some believed directly resulted from violence against them from more modern man. In history, we can look to such things as the Sacking of Jerusalem as well as St. Bartholomew's Massacre referenced in the image tagline (estimations of dead range between 5,000 to 30,000).
But if you're asking specifically about lone killers or "columbine style" attacks, it's a bit more of a complicated subject. Arguably, the ingredients for lone killers to emerge don't fully exist outside of a nation with the rule of law because psychopaths and those with violent tendencies are embraced as instruments of the state and given positions where they can indulge their tendencies as part of the arm of the law rather than as pushing against it. But I would suggest that there have always been those who stand apart from society and lash out in violence, but whose actions don't end up being recorded in history because of how easy it was to get away with certain crimes in a less developed society. Think of how spread out humanity used to be, and how slowly information traveled (and how distorted it got over time). I wouldn't be surprised at all if tales of ghosts and monsters originated as horrible acts perpetrated randomly by disturbed individuals, but the stories took on metaphysical and demonic aspects as they spread.
But probably the main point of my perspective would be that lone killers in modern society largely result because the rule of law keeps such people from indulging in their acts of violence in the name of the state and that they then lash out as lone killers. I'm sure if Germany hadn't fallen to Nazism, there are many killers and criminals who would have still engaged in their violent tendencies but would have been outside of the law rather than committing violence in the name of the law.
“ But I would suggest that there have always been those who stand apart from society and lash out in violence, but whose actions don't end up being recorded in history because of how easy it was to get away with certain crimes in a less developed society.”
That’s what I figured. I was just curious to see if you knew any accounts that fit that description.
“ I wouldn't be surprised at all if tales of ghosts and monsters originated as horrible acts perpetrated randomly by disturbed individuals, but the stories took on metaphysical and demonic aspects as they spread.”
Interesting. That would make sense.
One other point: “ I am willing to concede that we can enact some modest measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and would-be criminals. But such measures should only be a very small part of a broader vision to ensure adequate security of likely targets, better proactive enforcement of existing laws, and swift responses to actual attacks.”
I largely agree. I’d be in favor of some sort of background check that prevented several disturbed people from obtaining firearms.
I also think that properly crafted red flag laws could be a beneficial tool. The problem with this idea, of course, is that many Left-leaning states have crafted them in the wrong way and have created a serious stigmatism towards the idea.