Chris Banyas

Editor-in-Chief

Albert Einstein is widely recognized for the idea that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

I feel that this is an apt description of America’s collective reaction every time a school shooting takes center stage in the media and public consciousness. The block of news channels are dominated for weeks, showing all of the juicy details of the horrible acts that unfolded, before leaving the scene and the people dealing with it alone, as they cut to the next bloody affair. 

Every time this happens, the pattern of response is the same:  horror, disbelief, anger, mourning, solidarity before eventually and inevitably several of those directly affected by the tragedy come together to collectively call for change.

If the late stages of the Roman Empire were characterized by excess and a general disregard for the wellbeing of the republic, I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that when historians of the future look back at the American Empire, we will be characterized by an inability to directly address issues, instead myopically attempting to treat symptoms of the problems which we face.

Is a school shooting a monstrous act? Of course it is. No one has ever said otherwise. But is calling for tighter laws for gun control the answer?

Actions and reactions occur at such a fast pace in our modern day society that it is becoming rarer and rarer for people to sit down, like we all did in Kindergarten, in a circle upon the floor, and have a polite and orderly discussion, preferably led by a matronly figure.

Information is disseminated faster now than it ever has been before, and this has directly affected the thought process of the modern Homo sapiens sapiens: the news feed, and the eternal ongoing refresh process that occurs by which new events chop their way to the top, vying for your attention have largely come to dominate the rational thought processes of old. 

The cult of celebrity that has developed in America over the past 50 or so years, starting with the Hollywood star system of the early movie making age, and culminating in the modern twitter and facebook era is, in my opinion, much more to blame for school shootings than any procedure or regulatory act concerning keeping guns in the right hands and out of the wrong hands.

Conceptually, anyone wanting to have their fifteen minutes of fame has but to come up with something that they know will get media attention, and enact it. The news cameras and bloggers are a system of infrastructure that is ready, willing and able to send the action out to the four winds and quickly around the globe.

Soon the name of the shooter is upon the lips of millions of people worldwide as the videos of gurneys and gunshots are aired again, and again, and again.

So, where do we go from here? How do we begin to chop down the tree?

Call me cynical, but I do not believe that we will be able to stop this trend, not of school shootings per se, but of the importance that is placed on what it means to be “trending.”

What would have to happen is this:  people would have to universally not tune in to coverage of attacks of this nature. If the news station saw that it was getting little or no traction, eventually they would stop covering such things.

Again, I believe this to be impossible.

Perhaps it is some sort of modern day mutation, or maybe it has always been present in our genetic make-up, but the sad truth is that there is a deep seeded obsession with violence. This manifests itself in what the news feeds take advantage of day-in and day-out:  a sick voyeuristic delivery service aimed at pulling all your strings and tickling all your fears.
Even if someone were to create a machine that might blink out of existence every firearm in the world in a single moment, things like school shootings would still continue to happen again, and again, and again.

I subscribe to the explanation provided by Blaise Pascal, “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

A consciousness eternally flitting around from distraction to distraction is much more likely to settle on something, to become obsessed by something negative or harmful.

Again, from Pascal, “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.”

What is the answer? I love philosophy, but answers are never part of the package, though they stand waiting at the end of every equation dealing with human nature and happiness, standing ready to be connected, to be traced back to the question, to the problem.

The beauty of all this is that I don’t need to provide an answer:  I can sit back and watch with everyone else.