Why do They Kill? We'll Never Know

[Gaybutton]

I thought this commentary was well worth reading and I agree with every word of it:

_____

 

Commentary: We'll Never Know Why They Kill

 

By Bob Greene

CNN Contributor

 

Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a bestselling author whose forthcoming book is "Late Edition: A Love Story."

 

(CNN) -- Carnage in Germany, carnage in Alabama, and one of the most saddening aspects of the killings is this:

 

The impulse to ask "why," while present, seems somehow muted. There will be a search for answers -- why did Michael K. McLendon, the gunman in the American South, murder 10 people, why did Tim Kretschmer, the gunman in the German South, murder 15 people -- but even when a tentative answer is arrived upon, it almost certainly won't mean much. Because the real answer we're searching for -- the answer that will stop these bursts of bloodshed -- seems destined to ever elude us.

 

There is always an impulse to blame obscene killing sprees on outside stimuli. In the years just after World War II, comic books were cited as an incitement for young people to harm each other. Violent television programs were subsequently blamed, as video games sometimes are today. The connective theory has long been: if society desensitizes people to violence, if violence becomes a commodity, then it will proliferate. If people are passively taught that violence is everywhere, then violence will sprout, if not everywhere, then many wheres.

 

But to place the brunt of the blame for this on outside forces is to duck a truth that we are understandably reluctant to face: the impulse to murder without remorse seems to be, in some people, almost like a learned language, deriving from somewhere deep and difficult to find. Thankfully, it remains relatively rare, although during weeks like this one it is not easy to take much comfort in that. Yet with each new torrent of killings, with each new demonstration that, to some among us, the idea of spreading heartache and horror is not only acceptable, but attractive...

 

With each new demonstration of that, we find ourselves once again looking for lessons, in a search that can seem perpetually futile.

 

Are the gunmen in cases like these out to make a name for themselves? If so, they are ordained to fail; there was a time when multiple, random murders were enough to give the perpetrators such notoriety that their names became catchphrases. Charlie Starkweather, whose name means nothing to most people today, had more than one movie made about him after his killing spree on the American Plains in the 1950s. There was a time when we could ascribe, to people who murdered without mercy, a dark desire for the worst kind of fame.

 

But that's gone. Those names you read in the second paragraph of this story -- Michael McLendon, Tim Kretschmer -- may be freshly in the news today, but you will have forgotten them in a month or two. That's one more numbing sign of just how ordinary extraordinary violence has become: the names fail to stick. The protagonists are interchangeable.

 

How to stop this? There has long been a debate over whether the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, but this week the murderers themselves are both dead, and almost certainly they considered that probability before they set out to kill. The learned language of violence seems to contain a concession, on the part of those who absorb it, that their acts may very well conclude with their own dying -- and that the price, in their minds, is acceptable, even, perhaps, sought.

 

Which may be the most chilling lesson of all. Because if even death for those who do it is not enough to stop the profane slaughters around the globe, then our impotence in the face of this feels all the more profound. Whatever our need may be to grasp for answers, the killers, by dying on the day they kill, deny us the chance for even that scant solace. It's the ultimate taunt; it is as if they are saying: You want to know why? You'll never know.

 

Which leaves us with only one certainty:

 

Before long -- in a matter of days, or weeks, or months -- we'll be asking these questions again. The names will change; the specks on the map will be different. But somewhere, someone who has learned the wordless language of spreading hurt and grief will do this once more, and we will pause anew in our daily lives to wonder what has become of us. And feel all the more empty at the silence that greets our question.

[Guest laurence]

We all are shocked by this type of random (maybe not random) violence and ask the questions why? But, everyday in the US at least 100 people are killed in auto accidents and no one questions that. It is the price of living.

[Gaybutton]

everyday in the US at least 100 people are killed in auto accidents and no one questions that.

I fail to see your point. How are unintentional accidents comparable to intentional multiple murders?

[Guest fountainhall]

the real answer we're searching for -- the answer that will stop these bursts of bloodshed -- seems destined to ever elude us

 

From the little I know, two factors seem common in this type of shooting rampage - the accessibility of guns, sometimes accompanied by a fascination with them, and a strong feeling of alienation from at least part of society, often that part on which the guns were trained.

 

Think back to the school horrors at Columbine, Dunblane, the University of Texas, Virginia Tech . . . all seemed to involve loners bearing some perceived grievance against the institution or their one-time fellow students. In many cases, though, the investigations after the bloodshed turned up any number of pointers to what was about to happen. Families of the perpetrators, especially, turned blind eyes to odd or unusual behaviour, or had just given up trying to establish real communication with their children. And local societies regarded loners with an interest in guns as just odd-balls in the lottery of life.

 

How do we end it? I haven't the faintest idea. I do think, though, that a way has to be found to get parents to exercise greater responsibility for and oversight of their teenage children.

[Gaybutton]

To me the solution is quite simple. The gun people in the USA keep saying they have a constitutional right to have guns. I think that's debatable, but fine with me. Let them have all the guns they want; their children too. No toy guns. Let 'em have real ones. No problem.

 

Just ban bullets.

[Rogie]

Families of the perpetrators, especially, turned blind eyes to odd or unusual behaviour, or had just given up trying to establish real communication with their children.

 

How do we end it? I haven't the faintest idea. I do think, though, that a way has to be found to get parents to exercise greater responsibility for and oversight of their teenage children.

 

It does seem to boil down to communication

 

There was a case in Sweden last November where a teenage boy was taken to hospital in a serious condition after playing a computer game "all day and all night".

 

The name of the game? World of Warcraft

 

A fascination with computer games = likely addiction

 

I suspect many parents cannot see where a harmless interest ends and a potentially harmful attraction begins, whether it be confined to the computer screen or out there in real life.

[Guest laurence]

I fail to see your point. How are unintentional accidents comparable to intentional multiple murders?

 

Unfortunately auto accidents are not unintentional, they are caused by the driver in most instances. Inattention, cell phones, DWI, sleeping,etc.

 

[Gaybutton]

Unfortunately auto accidents are not unintentional

Really? How many people do you know who drive and try to have an accident? And I guess if one of those "intentional" drivers just happens to crash, and what he crashes into just happens to be my car, then I too intended to have an accident.

 

My friend, there are times when you would be better off quitting while you're behind. This is one of those times.

[Guest laurence]

GB, auto accidents don't just happen, they are caused! Do some research and find out for yourself.

Anyone who has taken a safe driving course will understand that a number of factors can lead up to an accident. They are not caused by random lighting bolts.

 

How many people do I know who drive try to have an accident?

Everyone who uses a cell phone, everyone who speeds, everyone who tailgates, everyone who fiddles with the radio. Just about everyone I know, to some degree, engage in some behavior that can cause an accident.

[Gaybutton]

Just about everyone I know, to some degree, engage in some behavior that can cause an accident.

Ok, have it your way. Accidents are caused by people out there who wanted it to happen. Do you plan to respond to my statement about someone crashing into my car means that I too must have been engaging in accident-causing behavior? You forgot to include anything about that in your previous post. I guess I must have been, though. The way you are putting it, anyone who drives at all is now engaging in behavior that can cause an accident. After all, if the driver never got behind the wheel, then there would never have been the accident.

 

The last accident involving me occurred while I was stopped at a red light. The car behind me crashed right into me. But you're right. It was my fault. I intended for an accident to happen. If I hadn't stopped for that red light or decided not to drive at all, maybe that accident wouldn't have happened.

 

Come to think of it, I intended for an accident to happen the last time I was walking. I tripped over an obstacle on the sidewalk. I definitely intended for that accident to happen. I was engaging in accident-causing behavior. I was walking, but looking at something in a shop window at the same time. I plead guilty.

[Bob]

The call an "accident" an "accident" for a reason. If it was intentional, it'd be called a crime. Being negligent and causing some damage isn't the same as intending the damage and a government (or "the law") attaches different consequences to those acts for that reason. And, yes, there are some variations - the occasional but rare attachment of criminal penalties to simple negligence and the more certain attachment of criminal penalties to what is called gross negligence.

 

"Trying" to do something is intentional, at least in my understanding. Being a little careless (like taking your eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio or to grab papers that fell off the carseat) is not recognized as intentional conduct for the reason one had no intent to cause the damage/injury that happened to follow.

 

Sometimes I wonder how Thais look at causation and responsibility. Too many times I've asked why they don't take some precautions (like why they won't wear the seat belt or why they won't wear the helmet) and I get a simple stare (you know, the one which tells you you're a simpleton) and I always get the same response: "Why? It's not my day to die!"

[Guest laurence]

Ok, have it your way. Accidents are caused by people out there who wanted it to happen.

First of all, back to what fountainhall had to say regarding the original post. I do believe he was right in every way on what he had to say.

 

No, GB, I don't want it my way. When people get into a car or on a motorbike they are taking a lethal weapon in their hands. More lethal than any gun. But they act in a manner as if it were a walk in the park. (dangerous in NYC). I realize you were the victim on some ass who did not consider the manner in which he drove. For most cases, it is not an unforeseen incident. If anyone has a brain, and is knowledgeable, they can foresee the consequences of their actions. Of course it was not your fault at that intersection but it was the other person's fault for their failure. Again, accidents don't just happen, they are caused.

 

Yes, I understand the original post is off track and my doing.

Why? Because we are puzzled by the crazy type of shooting and killings that goes on in the world. School shootings, suicide bombings and on and on. My posting about auto deaths only was to illustrate that more mayhem occurs daily on highways than in these other instances. And we accept the every day events but are horrified at the the rare events.