Seems whenever there’s a mass shooting, the most prominent question asked is why, rather than how; and I believe this is one reason why the answers, the solutions, are so evasive, so rigorously debated—because they’re two different questions, with two different answers.
Let’s make a quick sports analogy: in sports, a strong defense is what wins games. That’s because your team’s ability to stop the opposing team from scoring is just as important—if not more so—than your team’s ability to score against the opposing team.
When a team has a weak or non-existant defense, and are therefore incapable of stopping the opposing team from scoring, then they lose the game, and usually badly. And it’s not necessarily because the winning team’s offense was so good, but because the losing team’s defense was so bad.
And imagine how bad their defeat would be if, whenever the offense tried to score—the defense just sat on the bench, called 911, then waited…
Now, let’s look at these two questions—why, and how—as they relate to tragedies such as the Orlando shooting:
When there are mass deaths in other types of tragedies—such as a jetliner crash, for instance—people don’t generally obsess about the whys, because “why” entails motivation. Rarely do we ask what the pilot’s motivation was for crashing the plane, or question the motivation of the crew, or perhaps that of the aircraft manufacturer.
No, what we ask is “how?”, which entails not motivation, but facilitation. What enabled the aircraft to fail and crash, thus killing so many people? And once the hows are determined, then new policies and safeguards are developed, and design changes are implemented—all in an attempt to prevent a recurrence of the failure in the future.
In other words, we strengthen our defenses…
Now to the Orlando shooting:
In the case of mass shootings, when we ask why, the problem is there likely won’t BE any rational reason, or rational motivation, for the killer doing it—they did what they did because they were insane or psychologically/emotionally unstable or were harboring a grudge and wanted to exact revenge or were whacked out on drugs or whatever it was that drove them to do it. Trying to establish a sane, rational motivation for such a killing will likely prove futile. There probably isn’t one.
So, rather than asking why, we should instead ask how. Rather than trying to determine motivation, we should try to determine facilitation. Rather than ask why did he do it?, instead we should ask how was he so successful? Rather than trying to determine why the tragedy happened, we should try to determine what enabled it to happen.
In the Orlando shooting, fifty innocent people were killed, and over fifty more were injured—not because the shooter was armed with an AR-15, or because the shooter was a Muslim, or because the shooter was homophobic. No, fifty innocent people were killed, and over fifty others injured, for one reason, and one reason only: because nobody else in the place had a gun with which to defend themselves.
In other words, they had no defense; so they lost the game—badly.
Again, when we ask why, which entails motivation—because the shooter was Muslim, or because the shooter hated gays, or because the shooter was able to purchase an AR-15—we don’t come up with any answers as to how to prevent such tragedies in the future. Hating, persecuting, prosecuting, or even banishing Muslims or homophobes will do nothing to prevent such tragedies in the future. And gun control laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, any more than outlawing murder keeps criminals from murdering people. Gun control laws will only further disable law-abiding people from defending themselves, their families and loved ones, their property.
But when we ask how, which entails facilitation, rather than motivation—because all the other people in the club had no capability of defending themselves—well, now we’re getting some answers as to how to prevent such tragedies in the future. Simple: enable people to better defend themselves.
In other words, strengthen our defenses…
But instead, there are many out there who are now, predictably, clamoring for even more restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. And this is understandable; for you see, the human right of owning and carrying arms is specifically protected by the Constitution for the express purpose of enabling the American people to defend themselves agains their government, if and when the need to do so arises (and the need to do so always, as proven throughout history, arises). And the 200+ million armed Americans is highly problematic for the US empire and the emerging domestic police state, so the government, and their propaganda arm—the mainstream media—is incessantly pushing for the disarmament of the people, so they can finally implement full-frontal tyranny domestically. And they love to use such mass shootings as just transpired in Orlando—false flag or not—to further their disarmeemt agenda.
And unfortunately, the American people are buying into the state’s anti-gun propaganda en masse.
But regardless of that specific danger, let’s look at the rationale (or lack thereof) in that type of thinking: how will further restricting, or even eliminating, the ability of law-abiding people to defend themselves prevent such tragedies in the future? Remember, it wasn’t the skill, or power, or numbers of the “offense” that facilitated the mass casualties—it was only one (armed) man, against hundreds of (unarmed) people—but rather the lack of “defense,” the inability of the hundreds to defend themselves against the one; if even one other law-abiding person in that club had been armed, the carnage would have likely been stopped much, much earlier—with untold lives saved, and untold casualties averted.
A Note From Rand: Please take a moment to subscribe to this blog for email updates; also, please like my corresponding Facebook page, and follow my Amazon Author Page for notification of future book releases. Thanks!