 |
| This is a picture of Clint Eastwood holding a gun. It has nothing to do with the rest of the story. |
After every mass shooting incident in America—and there seems to be a new one every few weeks—there's always a heated but ultimately pointless debate about gun laws. Some argue that we need stricter laws about who can legally purchase guns and what kinds of guns they can own. Others say that such laws not only wouldn't work but would violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Personally, I'm not a gun owner or user. I've never gone hunting in my life, though I do eat meat and wear leather so who am I to judge hunters? If it's really to control the animal population, as they say it is, I'm fine with it. Deep down, I don't think most hunters really give a damn about the animal population. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that excuse. I think they just want to get out there and kill something, and they use the "animal population" story to justify it. But better they shoot a deer than a coworker, huh?
Then there's the old self-defense argument. If bad people break into your place, you'd want to shoot them, right? I don't think I'd be able to guard my home very effectively with a firearm either. That's always one of the big pro-gun arguments, isn't it? Protecting the homestead, a la Ralphie in A Christmas Story? Apparently, you need military-grade assault weapons for that, though. A Red Ryder air rifle's not going to get the job done.
I don't know if anyone's crunched the numbers on this, but I think it's much more likely that people are going to reach for a gun in anger during a dispute with family members, classmates, or neighbors than they are to shoot a burglar. I had a crazy uncle who lived down the street from my family, for instance, and he had a whole safe full of guns. It's a goddamned miracle no one in his family or his neighborhood got shot, because my uncle had a bad temper and liked his alcohol. Anger + booze + guns = family tragedy waiting to happen.
So I'm not a great believer in guns. But I still don't have a great deal of faith that gun control laws will change anything. And that's because I think the problem is something rooted deep in the American psyche. The idea that you can somehow fix your problems by going to a location (a school, a church, a warehouse) and shooting up the place is a fundamentally American concept, I'm sorry to say. I don't know how we got that idea, but it's there nevertheless.
The problem gets worse every time there's one of these mass shootings, and the news media goes into "tragedy porn" mode. The sad, demented individuals who commit these crimes are turned into instant superstars. I remember back in 2012 when that depraved young man with the orange clown hair opened fire in a Colorado movie theater during a screening of a Batman movie. His face was everywhere for days: TV, the internet, newspapers, magazines. Was there any surprise when he became something of a pop icon with his own fanbase?
Some media outlets, like YouTube's The Philip DeFranco Show, refuse to broadcast the names or faces of mass shooters. I applaud that. It's a good first step. But I think we need to make radical changes to the vocabulary surrounding guns and gun violence. The current terminology is too cool and empowering.
For instance, I hate that term "gunman." You could pick up a sword and start swinging it around wildly, but that doesn't make you a swordsman. The mere act of climbing onto a horse does not qualify you to be a horseman. You have to demonstrate some degree of skill first for those other titles. But all you have to do to be a gunman is hold a gun in any public place. It's not fair.
Besides, "gunman" sounds like the name of a costumed superhero, like Spider-Man or Superman. I suggest "some dude with a gun." Or, better yet, "Poopypants McGillicuddy." Nobody wants to be described that way on the news. Can you imagine? "Authorities say there is a Poopypants McGillicuddy on the roof of the 7-Eleven."
I also hate the term "active shooter." It sounds too much like a compliment. "Well, at least he's an active shooter. He's getting up off the couch, getting some exercise. He's not just some passive shooter, sitting there like a lump." This isn't cardio, CNN. It's mass murder. Stop giving these guys credit for being active. Suggested replacement: "Yosemite Sam" or "Poopypants McGillicuddy with explosive diarrhea." I know that's a lot of syllables, but we're talking about saving lives here.
Getting off on a tangent, I know the term "lone wolf" is more of a terrorism thing than a mass shooting thing, but there's some overlap between those fields. And that's definitely another term to retire. Let's leave the wolves out of this, huh? And, once again, the whole thing sounds too cool and heroic. I suggest using "friendless feeb" instead.
Lastly, the term "shooting spree" is beyond stupid. I can't believe we still use it, but I heard it in a news report just two or three mass shootings ago. Do I even need to explain this? "Spree" is a word you use with "spending" or "shopping," but not "shooting." It suggests a lighthearted romp, a carefree afternoon of fun and frolic. It should never be used in connection with murder. Hell, when I was growing up, there was a candy called Spree. So instead of "shooting spree," I say we use "fart-a-palooza."
You may say these terms of mine lack respect. But it's not true. I have tremendous respect for human lives, and I don't want them interrupted suddenly by gun violence. If we want people to stop committing these terrible crimes, we have to strip away every bit of dignity and power from them. Changing the vocabulary is one small way of doing that.