Daryl Ilbury

#Aurora killer’s actions explained

In Eish!, Politics, Science on July 23, 2012 at 10:47 am

The suspect in the Aurora killings. Not that inconceivable in his actions

Twitter has been abuzz with talk following the recent mass-shooting in Aurora, Colorado; mainly with messages of condolence for the families of the victims; the expected murmurings around the issue of gun control; a developing lobby to not give the suspected gunman what it’s thought he wants: notoriety – and therefore not to mention his name; and, finally, surprise as to why a seemingly normal young man would kill people.

The answer to the last point is surprisingly simple, and yet seemingly illusive to common logic: it’s a combination of human psychology and the law of averages.

If there’s one thing that the study of human psychology has unearthed, it’s the fragility of the human psyche. It’s estimated that in any given year in the US, 1 in 4 adults suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder. However, that doesn’t mean that the other 75% of Americans, are captains of completely logical behaviour.

They, like all other humans, are constantly faced with a myriad situations where they are emotionally tested. Who hasn’t lost their temper in an argument? Who hasn’t grown exasperated with shocking service? Who hasn’t felt the bitter sting of rejection and contemplated reaction? Who hasn’t been fired or laid off from work and vacillated between depression and anger?

Rational, civil human behaviour relies on the constant balancing of logic and emotion; and every now and then emotion wins over logic, and the result is an outburst of seemingly irrational, uncivil behaviour: having an argument with a partner in a crowded restaurant, shouting at a public official who has rejected an application, shredding an ex-boyfriend’s clothes, or publicly threatening a boss after being laid off.

Such behaviour, although shocking to observe, and seemingly irrational, is in fact – and here’s the critical point – normal human behaviour.

Now imagine if, during such a time of elevated emotional, and reduced civil, behaviour, a person has access to a firearm? It’s not something alien or inconceivable for Americans. Firearms are continually displayed in entertainment in the plethora of popular police and crime films and TV series; they are highly visible (CNN recently reported that in the US gun shops outnumber McDonald’s restaurants 8 to 1); they are highly prevalent (nearly 300 million privately owned guns in the US – approximately 9 for every 10 people); and their ownership is constitutionally encouraged.

But, the argument goes, people don’t like to kill people, so surely it’s safe to own a gun – it’s not as if everyone is a potential killer. That’s not entirely true. As any forensic psychologist will tell you, compared to the physical intimacy of stabbing, shooting someone is a crime of detachment. It’s arguably easier to pick up a gun and shoot someone than it is to stab them.

There’s also the issue of being disconnected from the outcome. Unless you have seen for yourself the damage done to someone who has been shot and killed, the most likely frames of reference are the fictional, often un-bloody, recreations on film, or, even worse, the excitement and thrill of first-person shooter games.

Now throw all this together: the percentage of Americans with a diagnosable mental health problem; the fragility of healthy, normal human behaviour; the accessibility of firearms and their ‘normalisation’ in American culture; and, finally, the psychological detachment and emotional disconnect in the act of shooting someone.

Suddenly the question as to why a seemingly normal young person would kill other people takes on a different perspective. In fact, it becomes almost irrelevant compared to the increasingly obvious, and pressing question: why don’t more seemingly normal people in the US kill other people?

Only they do. Here’s a list of just some of the reported mass shootings in the US since 2005.

I am not going to lecture Americans on the issue of gun control, I’m simply just going to say that they do need to have a serious debate about it. I can’t help noticing that neither Barrack Obama nor Mitt Romney have brought it up since the shooting. That’s because it’s a politically divisive issue.

But then so was apartheid. Just as the right to bear arms is a cornerstone of the American constitution, apartheid was an institutionalised foundation of the previous government. When it became increasingly clear to the power elite that it was an outdated legislation that was killing innocent people, tearing the country apart and taking it on the road to ruin, politicians put aside their differences and started talking. Change became not only inevitable, but urgent; and it happened.

Perhaps it’s something that Americans can learn from South Africans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: