May 2019

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Riley Howell was laid to rest Sunday in Waynesville, North Carolina, at a funeral service with full military honors. He was not killed in a Middle East war zone; he was not even an enlisted member of the Armed Services. Riley was a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who died rushing toward a person who entered his classroom with a pistol and began shooting. 

Riley’s parents say he was shot three times at close range as he charged forward, but still managed to take the shooter to the ground so hard that he whined to first responders of internal injuries. It happened in the blink of an eye, but Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney credits Riley with saving countless lives and giving police, who fortunately were nearby, time to get to the classroom and detain the shooter. “But for [Riley Howell’s] work, the assailant might not have been disarmed .  .   .  his sacrifice saved lives,” Putney said. 

Indeed, Riley’s final act in life – saving others regardless of cost – was an ultimate expression of humanity, tragically juxtaposed to that of the extreme inhumanity exhibited by his killer. But, in leaving behind a legacy of heroism, he also offers an important lesson for us all.

We are told by the Department of Homeland Security that the appropriate response to an active shooter situation is “run, hide, fight,” in descending order of priority. Though perhaps effective for self-preservation, such instructions reflect a disturbing truth that we have in many respects lost the collective courage of our forefathers; and have become in large measure a nation that encourages the role of the victim and the submissive, rather than encourage proactive individual responsibility in defense of one’s life and values and the lives of others. 

It is important to bear in mind also that such a passive mentality contradicts what little we actually know and have observed about the mindset of mass shooters.

Unlike traditional criminal activity involving firearms – which has been studied and researched at length by all manner of experts — we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the complexities of mass shootings; occurrences in which demographics, motives, planning, targets, and even firearms used, are characteristics that vary from one incident to another. However, one of the few, if perhaps only, common characteristics among most, if not all of these killers, is cowardice.  These criminals tend to pick “soft” targets, in which victims are seen as unprotected and vulnerable; they then flee, surrender, or commit suicide at the onset of resistance or as soon as they perceive themselves to be in danger. 

The evolution of law enforcement tactics for active shooter scenarios since the 1999 Columbine school shooting reflect this view. Officers now are trained to immediately seek and confront active shooters upon arriving at the scene, rather than spend precious minutes regrouping and waiting for additional tactical support. 

Conversely – as witnessed in last year’s mass shooting at the high school in Parkland, Florida – where a law enforcement officer on the scene hesitates or hides, the tragedy is worsened considerably.

In the San Diego synagogue shooting two weeks ago, an unarmed Army veteran in the congregation who rushed and shouted at the shooter, was enough to send him scurrying to his car where he was quickly apprehended. When factoring in the number of incidents where armed citizens also played a role in prematurely ending active shooter situations before police arrive (documented excellently here), it becomes abundantly clear that the “run, hide, fight” prioritization of action is misplaced.  Evil in whatever form is best met with immediate and assertive resistance

There is a reason why these cowards do not normally pick military or police targets for their sprees. The question is — or should be — what changes if suddenly “soft” targets were no longer declared to be safe havens for potential shooters; but instead seen as areas where students, teachers, congregants, clergy, mall shoppers, and everyone else were no longer willing to play the role of victim, but instead fight back with all the ferocity of those who value life and will protect it at all costs? What if we all found the courage, determination, and selflessness of Riley Howell? 

A real willingness to change the passive mindset that now prevails in contemporary American culture, is a far better place from which to launch a national debate on how to deal with mass shooting situations, than is advocating for more “gun control” or for less First Amendment freedom.  And doing so would more appropriately honor the sacrifice and heroism of Riley Howell.

Townhall.com

Bob Barr

In the wake of last week’s tragic shooting at a Jewish temple outside San Diego, California, attention is once again focused largely on the instruments used in the murder, rather on the root causes of the incident; especially the depraved internet community in which this and other recent murderers live.

Except for the victims of these murderous rampages and the brave public safety first responders, we citizens are largely insulated from the actual horrors of mass murder. We are spared the horrendous visuals of bodies torn apart from bombs and bullets; the stomach-churning screams of victims as they’re stalked and murdered at point blank range; the stench of death mixed with ammunition propellant. These details are far too unsettling for public consumption (properly so), which is why conventional wisdom leads many to believe such violence is more common than it really is; as if picking up a gun and shooting-up a church is as easy as playing a video game. It is not.

The mass killings of strangers is not a normal act for a human being; even for most hardened criminals. We simply are not programed for emotionless, indiscriminate killing; that is, unless we cease to view other people as human. This is how the Holocaust occurred in a highly educated, industrialized nation; or how a 19-year-old from San Diego could walk into a synagogue with a single goal in mind – to kill other people.

By focusing our emotional attention after such tragedies debating (as we do with excruciating predictability) the type of firearm used, or whether the First Amendment should protect hate speech, we fail to address the greatest danger of all, and the root cause of these crimes – social isolation.

Wherever you look in today’s society, examples of increasing social isolation are apparent. Many examples can be considered benign – digital customer support and kiosks for ordering everything from fast food to medications.  Other examples are more sinister — children preferring online gaming with strangers to team sports with friends, or worse, adult men who prefer sex robots to actual human relationships. 

The cumulative collateral effect of such social isolation is a growing detachment from other people; and, as we have seen recently, it can be deadly.

Many of us are fortunate to find and join social groups at work, school, or church to help keep us firmly grounded. But increasingly, many of our fellow humans do not, and have instead turned to the internet for a sense of worth and belonging, even a new personal identity. 

Not surprisingly, both the San Diego and Christchurch killers belonged to the same internet message board; an online ecosystem with equal parts political extremism and internet machoism. Here, political incorrectness is lauded in proportion to the offensiveness of the statement. Before long, the hatred becomes less a joke than a conviction; a radicalization process encouraged along the way by nameless “friends” on the other side of the digital connection, who are similarly detached from the real faces they mock and on which they prey.

When the San Diego killer announced his murderous plan to his digital “community,” instead of dissuading him, those on the message board urged him to “get the high score” – sickening slang for the number of victims. This was his new “family,” and this was their form of love; just as it was for the Christchurch shooter and other recent mass murderers such as the Charleston killer. 

Disturbing as it may be, this phenomenon will continue to worsen as cultural and social institutions increasingly are belittled and undermined.  The two-parent nuclear family and the support it provides is becoming all too rare. Religious institutions constantly are under attack, with church membership at an all-time low. Greek Life at colleges is swiftly becoming a relic of the past as fraternities and sororities clash with the P.C. campus movement that declares any group activity encouraging bonding based on common ideals, be declared “discriminatory” and therefore banned. 

Politically we operate now in a climate in which “punching” other people is the new norm, and even Members of Congress openly call for the stalking and harassment of opponents. No opportunity is passed up to ruin an opponent’s professional and personal life because of a political disagreement.  Laws are debated, enacted, and then glorified — such as in New York and Virginia — according to which newborn babies can be left to die after birth.  Clearly, nothing that debases life or values is beyond the pale.

And still, in such a depraved and forlorn environment, we somehow seem surprised when an internet junkie carries out in real life what he and his faceless cohorts practice daily on their laptops computers.