Yet again, we see a situation unfold almost too horrible and gruesome to believe. A man, with motives we may never be able to understand, let out a hail of gun fire on an unsuspecting crowd in a gay nightclub. His actions caused over 50 deaths and over 50 injuries. It’s an awful scene to imagine, let alone see it happening in reality. This tragedy has caused outrage and stirred up a lot of conversation on how to deal with this problem. Many people are pointing to guns as the problem. I personally believe the weapon of choice is only a means to an (violent) end. With the proper amount of motivation, a person will commit an act of violence with whatever instrument is available to them. But, even that is not the larger point of this article. The point is, we shouldn’t be looking at how he did it, but why, and how we can stop it, and protect ourselves from it. What could one possibly have gone through, seen, or felt that would motivate them to such violence towards a certain group of people? Too often we look at the effect rather than the cause and never actually get to the root of the problem we face. I think with all the outrage we see from this, it is definitely a problem worth dissecting.

If we look at what motivates these infamous characters of mass shootings we have to look at human nature and logic to offer ideas on why, generally, people can be motivated to do so much harm. There are many factors that go into play, including, but not limited to: a person’s upbringing and culture (taught to violently reject other cultures), a person’s sense of right and wrong, a quest for dominance, revenge, exploitation, and an equal number of counter motivations such as morality, empathy, self control, and reason. How can we counter these negative motivations? Well, before we can counter them we have to understand them.

In the US we have a huge mix of cultures. And as a whole are accepting of that mix of culture. It is a symbol of freedom that this country is said to represent. But, on an individual level, there are some who are not going to accept others. This is likely to happen when you have so many different opinions and ideologies being expressed. Some people aren’t as tolerant as others. Some people have more violent tendencies than others. When the right mix of intolerance, even anger, a skewed sense of morality and reason come together, the results can be horrible, as we have seen too many times. But, it should be clear, through the general tolerance and support of society as a whole (even if people don’t support others they don’t wish violence on them, for the most part), we don’t cheer this kind of violence. In fact, we demonize and vehemently discourage it. Even if we don’t agree with one’s decisions or lifestyle, we care for the safety of others. A professor of psychology at Harvard, Steven Pinker, suggests that human nature has been evolving with less violent tendencies. A lot of his writings I have looked through are on the study of this idea, including his book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. From this idea, I think this problem, however tragic, is a better problem to have than searching for witches to burn, or blacks to hang. Now we are discussing ways to defend minorities, and it’s a beautiful thing. So, as far as the violent nature of man goes, I hope it’s obvious without getting into much depth; human beings have evolved to become less violent since the age of cavemen and at this point in time are the most non-violent we have ever been (if you can’t take my word for it, I suggest this article by Pinker). So, I believe a great contribution to the eradication of these types of massacres is to continue to support and advocate for peace, non-violence, diplomacy, and empathy, and help push this evolution further. Unfortunately, there will always be people that push back against this kind of blanketed acceptance of our differences. If that is the problem at hand, I think we are well on our way, as a society, to a place where we can all feel safe.

The individuals who do not follow that evolutionary track (there are definitely people who are quicker to violence than others, but they are in the small minority), or who have had some life event that has made them a violent person (maybe an abusive childhood, or drug addiction) will always be around. We can only hope to reduce that number by expressing support and a listening ear for those who feel mistreated or misplaced. If these things are happening because people are motivated by intolerance, we cannot allow that to drag us down to their level. If a “Muslim” shoots up a gay bar, especially during a time of nonviolence in their religion, you cannot reasonably assume all Muslims around a gay bar should be assumed aggressors. You are displaying the same intolerance that motivated them to violence in the first place. You cannot take the action of an individual to reflect on a group they may belong to. Every individual has a different upbringing, life experiences, mentality, that shapes them for better or for worse, but never exactly like another. The only group that one can agree without absolutely every idea or statement they come across is them self. So, I think we have to accept the fact that people are always going to motivated to do harm to others, we just have to recognize this and try to deploy action to avoid their intolerance turning to violence. Hopefully we can see a time where we can all feel safe, no matter color, creed, gender, or any other arbitrary characteristic that people will judge you on, and won’t need to feel that we need to protect ourselves. But for now, we have to try and protect ourselves from being victims of this violence, especially for the most vulnerable groups.

So, how are we supposed to protect ourselves, or each other? Some would argue for state restrictions on guns, that the state, by taking away the means or restricting the means, can somehow magically take away the motivation. I would argue, if you make it harder for someone to get what they want, it will just take longer for more motivation to build up for these people to seek alternatives, which could be of far worse consequences. Think about what could have happened if this guy didn’t have a gun. What if he was motivated so far as to build a bomb and take it to the club, leveling it completely leaving 350 people dead? Maybe it wouldn’t have happened that night, maybe it would have taken more motivation to go through that means, and wouldn’t have happened for a much longer time. Sure the people who lost their lives in Orlando that night would be alive, but a different 350 people would be dead. By taking away his means at a lesser motivation it could have even created the higher motivation to take it a step further. But, that is just a hypothetical, it could go as though the man loses all motivation, and sees the wrong in his ideas…but does that sound reasonable? Whatever motivation this man had to cause so much violence would just disappear because someone said he couldn’t (or just made it harder for him to) own a gun? I can’t believe that. Even with the restriction on guns, he could find someone willing to sell him the gun. It is the black (free) market. Just like drugs, when you restrict the manufacturing, distributing, and trade of something it is not going to stop those most motivated to get said product. What actually happens is, these products are pushed into a violent market (since you can’t go to court for a dispute between you and your dealer) where the consumer may be putting his life on the line just to get something that will probably never harm another human being. You put the product, and the profits from selling it, into the hands of those most unfit to have it; criminals and the state (sorry for the redundancy). We should not look at the state as a compass of morality. I would argue the state is one of the last entities or groups of people who should have the restricted right to allocate firearms. I think the record would show that the US government is the cause of more violence, death, destruction, and chaos, than any other man, or organization on the planet. Why give control to an entity that has been responsible for things like the Wounded Knee Massacre, killing students and protesters at Kent State, children in Waco, Texas, bombing a poor black neighborhood in Philadelphia, and the obvious oppression people have to deal with from an oppressive police state we see in the present day? That doesn’t seem like the group I want in control of my protection. If you look at the government’s track record on violence, you are not going to have fun. Morality is not one of their best qualities. Sure it may work in other places where the fear of an oppressive, tyrannical government isn’t so high. But, is that really to the fault of the people who are worried about it? Is it not the fault of the government with a record that includes the dirty deeds above? And if the government is the one you are setting out to protect yourself from, why should anyone else be concerned? If you want to purchase some obscure weaponry because you want to be prepared for the absolute worst you can imagine the state will do (I’m sure the state can do much worse than your imagination), why does someone feel they have the right to tell you that you can’t? I feel that you should have the right to seek out any property you want for whatever means you’d like. As long as you haven’t hurt anyone on your way to getting this property, by trade or manufacture, you have every right to it, and no one has the right to tell you otherwise (and being so have no power to transfer that nonexistent right to their representatives in the government). If your means are to protect yourself when you go out for a walk at night, or to protect you and your family when “shit hits the fan”, I don’t care, and I have no right to barge into that situation with my “authority”. But, we can even take that whole idea out of the equation and come at it from another angle.

There is no way for anyone to know exactly when and where someone will commit a crime like one of these mass shootings. If we can accept that, how can we then think the state can be all knowing in regards to predicting a mass shooting? Because, we have to accept that we cannot stop violent people, only reduce to a population and degree of which there are. If the state can’t guarantee our safety from crimes of this magnitude it has to be able to guarantee our protection if it is going to restrict us from doing it ourselves, right? Well, that sounds absolutely insane. Even if the state had the audacity to try, it would mean putting a certain amount of officers in every single public building and venue in the country, which would be a logistical and financial impossibility. If you think the state can hold up to that promise (or want it to for that matter), you are delusional. . But, isn’t there a better alternative to a policeman in every room, in every public building just so they can “keep you safe”? I thought we didn’t like the police being in public bathrooms making sure you are using the “correct” one? Well, that’s what you would get with the state upholding its promise to protect you. I think this would only create more violence, as the oppression of the police state we have would expand greatly, and you would surge the black market; leading to dangerous, violent gangs gaining power and money from the sale of black market firearms. You would create more victims, and more powerful criminals

So, what if we had an environment where we just respected people’s right to protect themselves and believe that the nature of man has evolved to the point where it takes much more than a debate with a friend to pull out a gun and shoot the place up? Now, I understand what happened, happened in a bar, and when people drink they don’t think as clearly, and it’s definitely a place where something could go wrong. Okay, but I’m sure there are solutions to that problem. A club could have a set of rules that states if you are consuming alcohol you cannot carry a firearm. Because, if we can have designated drivers, why can’t they (trained and willing) also be designated carrier? Why can’t the club hire trained staff, or train their staff in the use of hand guns and keep one in a secret spot at the bar in case of emergencies? If a shooter walks into a night club of 350 people, and five of them are armed and trained, if even one of them has the opportunity to stop this guy, wouldn’t you want them there? Wouldn’t you want, if not yourself, someone to be able to protect you, or at least try, when you have absolutely no options but certain death? I’m not saying everyone at every bar would do this, but it’s an idea to be put in the conversation.

We need to be proactive about looking for solutions to this kind of violence; to both reduce its existence, and the hate and motivation it stems from, and to be able to protect ourselves when our worst nightmares become reality.