A Shot at Peace

The recent tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ which left 6 dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is only the latest reminder of the vexing problems that we, as a species, face on this planet. Any connection that exists between that incident and mental disease or the current political climate in the United States of America should not blind us to the fact that this is a symptom of a much larger global problem. This is not a uniquely American problem. It is not the first incidence of mass murder and, unless we move quickly and decisively to act, it certainly won’t be the last. The question from President Obama at the memorial service resonates: "What, beyond prayer and expressions of concern, is expected of us as we go forward?"

Representative Giffords was not shot in the head at close range because she was Gabrielle Giffords, daughter of Gloria and Spencer Giffords, a graduate of Scripps College and Cornell University, and wife of Astronaut Mark Kelly. I doubt her shooter knew that about her. He did not care who she really was, and he certainly did not want to get to get better acquainted. Based on evidence retrieved by the authorities it appears that she was targeted because of what she represented. In that sense it was not an act of personal violence against Rep. Giffords. Those who were killed and injured in the shooting suffered because of their association with her, however remote it may have been.

Why do we experience such feelings of anger and loss at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? I can think of a number of scenarios under which we would laud Jared Loughner for his actions. We are angry because we know that neither she nor any of the other victims of Loughner’s actions represented a threat to Loughner. The only problem was that Loughner considered her to be a threat because she represented an institution that he considered to be a threat. The fact that he is mentally ill does not change this. Even though she was not shot because of who she was, Loughner shot her because of who he perceived her to be. But deep within our collective consciousness something tells us that humans should not be turning on each other; that such self-destructive behavior is of no benefit to us as a people.

Soon, Loughner will be tried on Federal and State charges. In each case a jury of his peers will determine his guilt or innocence and the courts will impose the sentence society considers to be appropriate. But whatever happens in the courtroom will only bring closure to this particular case. It will not prevent a recurrence. Except for those who who have been intimately affected by the shootings, for most of us the incident will become a distant memory. We will be blissfully unaware that the most important defendant in this case will never be tried – the society that created Loughner and others like him for whom mental defect is not a convenient excuse.

The irony should be obvious. What is it that makes us turn on each other? I have no doubt that those who have complained about the role played by the rhetoric of some on the right of the political spectrum are not just engaged in finger pointing. But I am also convinced that their complaints are driven by our collective reluctance to blame ourselves for what one of ours has done. Those on the right are reluctant to be blamed for what one of theirs has done. As humans we are reluctant to be blamed for what one of us has done.

Loughner is not a member of an alien species. He is a part of human society, and while it is true that he may have been mentally deranged before he carried out the shootings, many people considered to be sane by society have committed similar acts. We have a long history of self-destructive behavior.

Once again we have heard references to “home-grown” terrorism as if there is any other kind of terrorism. We have conveniently forgotten that home is this planet. We may live in different nations or different communities but we all share the same home. None of our violence or wars makes sense because every war we fight is a civil war. Our reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords shows that we have an aversion to this infighting, but we seem unable to find a solution.

Many cling to the idea that we will get rid of terrorism if we can rid of the terrorists. This is an extension of the view that we will get rid of crime if we can get rid of criminals. That type of thinking is stymied by the fact that terrorists and criminals look the same as ordinary human beings do. Truth be told, this is the only reason these acts of violence are able to terrorise the populace. Until he stepped forward and discharged his 31 rounds he was just another face in the crowd. He was “one of us.”

Since we cannot identify terrorists and criminals before they act we are forced to spend significant portions of our national budgets to protect ourselves from these individuals. We will never know just how large our global military and enforcement budgets are. But we do know that they represent resources that could be used to improve the lives of many around the globe if we could only find a way to “stop this madness.” Peace that is imposed with the threat of violence is not peace. Peace that can only be maintained at great cost is not peace.