PHOTOS, PAGE 1

       Editor and prime reporter is Doug Terry, a veteran television and radio reporter in   Washington, DC, (details below)

Mass killings in the United States are largely a phoemenon in the majority, white population. Indeed, there are very few cases in which minority population members take up guns and try to trap people in a location, like a school, and kill as many as possible. I have my pet theories about why this is so, why it is whites, rather than others, who pick up the gun in this manner, but suffice it to say that this is an area worthy of additional study.

While I have not made a formal, case by case study of mass killings, I do know that there is no clear pattern in regard to the psychological disturbances which have led to mass killing. We know, however, that is primarily young men who carry out the acts, most often acting purely alone, but having told someone of their plans ahead of time.

I believe mass killings are very much like a contagion, a destructive, bad idea that got loose in our society in the 1960s and has not died out yet. In part, mass kills might be a by product of modern media that can spread the news of these events so quickly, so widely and in such a dramatic fashion. We know, for example, that mass killers have often left references to earlier killings on their rambling notes and, of late, video recorded comments. We know that a number of the killers wanted to make a big splash of headlines and news, just as did the terrorists of 9-11, 2001.

Could this suggest that it might be time for the news media to consider much more carefully how these events are covered? Yes, but I would leave it to psychological experts to make some determination whether their should be more restraint shown in putting the pictures and video of the killers into such wide, immediate circulation. In general, it doesn’t seem like a good idea.

As for the tone and volume of the immediate coverage itself, I don’t know what could be done to lessen its potential impact on other disturbed minds. There is no doubt that some of these events are “inspired” but earlier killings, but we can’t be absolutely sure that taking away that message would lessen the chances of more killings.

I believe we can begin to rid ourselves of mass shootings by treating them as we would any other contagion. Doctors work to reduce the incidence of contagious diseases by trying to get ahead of their spread. In this case, we need to create heightened awareness among all elements of our society as to the possibility of someone carrying out mass killings. The basic problem, however, is that these events have been spread all over the map and do not usually occur in a concentrated time period (except for an apparent increase in the springtime). So, it could be argued that we should not do much, because the chances are low that anyone would be caught. This is self defeating.

The people who have, generally, carried out the worst attacks have been suffering from mental illness. There can be little doubt that we, as a society, have gone somewhat too far in protecting the rights of mentally ill people. As has been widely reported, the standard for potential commitment in most states these days is whether the person represents a danger to himself or others. Who is to know? Who is to make that assessment?  Absent clear danger, the bias now is to leave people alone, even if it is obvious they are suffering from mental illness. Why? Because we are a free society and one man’s “crazy person” might turn out to be the next man’s genius.

Clearly. this standard “metric”, if you can call it that, for making a judgment about getting help for someone needs to be expanded. Some specific language needs to be developed. Perhaps it could be “or appears to be unable to function in normal tasks or social interaction, or even in self assigned tasks”. The language needs to be highly specific, without, at the same time, excluding seriously ill people from consideration for treatment. And, there should be a standard, minimum number of people, not directly related to the person,  required to testify, perhaps three, in the event the wider standard is being applied. On top of that, there must be a functional and effective way for a person who has been declared incompetent to gain release (this is perhaps the most burdensome aspect of a new system of commitment, but one that cannot be ignored or taken   lightly).

The point is, simply, that it can be done, individual rights can be honored and protected (unlike the past) and we can get better treatment for people who need it. We just need to make the changes necessary and move forward. This is not an intractable problem.  In this context we should note, also, that shootings in high school settings appear to have been greatly reduced by making students aware of the potential and having those students report potential problems to the school authorities. This is a success story that has gone largely unreported.

A public education and awareness campaign can be carried out by all levels of government  and aided by broadcast media and newspapers. The problem we face is serious enough, and keeps repeating itself enough, that we must face the need for action. Americans spend hundreds of millions of hours watching television, surely we can spare sometime for those who regularly come into contact with young men to educate them about what they should look for. The same applies to all college and high school students.

This is no longer an occasional, strange occurrence. Mass killings are happening in America every year in places far and wide. We are spending billions at our airports to search people who have no potential to be terrorists. Only by getting both the general public and specific sectors of our society, like public schools, colleges and universities, involved in a coordinated effort to stop this violence can we begin to control the contagion and move toward the time when such events are once again rare.

Doug Terry, 1.18.11 (more to follow soon)

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end