The number of active shooter events are more frequent in our society than ever before and they are also more widely reported in the age of social media.
With such news comes inevitable, lengthy discussions from the online ‘expert’ who has unrealistic opinions on how any given active shooter event should have been handled — after the fact.
And from these opinions, after an active shooter situation occurs, the gun is blamed instead of the perpetrator. On the other hand, when a police officer shoots someone (most often justifiably), it’s inevitably the officer’s fault. It is a culturally accepted — or so it seems — double-standard used when the gun, or the officer, needs to be blamed to fit a particular narrative. This behavior has become typical and even expected from pandering politicians.
In cases of unjustified shootings, the officer gets held accountable for being negligent, too aggressive, or outright racist. In these cases, based on facts, this is a justifiable outcome.
But what about justifiable shootings? Even when it’s justified, officers still find themselves blamed, often implying that the shooting occurred strictly because of the person’s race, and out of malicious racist intent. Police have found and continue to find themselves in handcuffs based on these devastating implications.
When we choose to blame the firearm in an active shooter event, we take the blame away from the perpetrator. That is unfair to the victims and their families.
Similarly, when the officer is blamed instead of the suspect, it’s unfair to all the police officers that serve this great country and damages the confidence the public places in us to do our job with integrity. It may not be perfect, but our criminal justice system is the most exceptional in the world. Find me a perfect one, and I’ll gladly change my mind.
People believe there is a “blue wall of silence” when it comes to corrupt cops and unjustifiable shootings. In fact, officers hate corrupt cops more than the average citizen. They make our jobs and lives that much harder. If corrupt cops are found to do deliberate harm to someone, they should be arrested, tried, and incarcerated.
Similarly, when an active shooter commits unspeakable acts on innocent people, they should be locked up.
Some people are just evil human beings and need to be locked away to protect society.
So, what is the answer? There’s an increasing number of people who believe that confiscation of guns will solve this problem. A buyback plan was recently suggested by presidential candidates. Or more correctly, a gun seizure disguised as a “gun buyback” plan.
If we’ve learned anything from history, it’s never in the best interest of the public when the government starts overreaching by wanting to take our guns.
What happens when people don’t want to sell their guns? Who determines the price of the gun? And let’s not forget that such a buyback plan would be mandatory, so there will be very little choice for citizens to say no to such plan.
You may now ask yourself who administers that force? But you already know the answer — it would be police officers, set out to protect people. It is easy for politicians to say, “we’re going to take your guns by force.” In reality, you’re not the one risking your life to take anything, Eric. Nor are you, Beto. It is always easier to put someone else in harm’s way. It’s easy when it’s not your life on the line.
America has become a celebrity worship culture, where active shooters, or school shooters find a guaranteed opportunity to gain temporary celebrity status when they murder innocent people in a public place. On top of that, they may feel justified in their behavior, believing that they are acting on a higher calling, or as virtue signaling. Everyone wants to be internet famous.
When a shooting happens, it is human nature for us to be curious about what transpired, what the shooter’s motivations were, what they looked like. But let’s remember that notoriety is a big psychological motivator. Add in virtue signaling, and now the shooter believes they’re acting for a higher purpose and they will find infamy through their actions.
What if we were not allowed to mention the shooter’s name? What if we couldn’t show their picture in the news? What if we couldn’t post all over social media about it? If the would-be shooter knew, before a shooting ever occurs, that the masses would never know about them — that their name and face would disappear into the dark — would that change their minds? I believe that if we take away their motivation and drive, we could indeed significantly reduce the rate these horrific incidents occur.