Who is to blame for violence in society?

The Democrats and the liberal media were quick to blame the Republicans and conservative commentators on TV after a recent shootout in Buffalo, New York where 18-year-old gunman, Payton Gendron, killed 10 people at a supermarket.

CNN referred to the gunman's “writings about his perceptions of the dwindling size of the White population" and linked it to the "replacement theory," which they claim Tucker Carlson and other prominent conservatives pushed. Most other media outlets stuck with this narrative.

Joe Biden condemned the gunman's "hateful, perverse ideology rooted in fear and racism" and called out those who have pushed the "Great Replacement Theory".

We know the Democrats are doing this as part of their campaign for mid-terms. They have no compunction behaving like vultures raising funds and scoring political points over the corpses of murder victims. They hope to mobilize their base and scare voters into voting for them.

But beyond the hateful Democrats' rhetoric is there any merit to the argument that external sources could trigger violence?

Last month there was an attempted shootout in the New York subway when gunman Frank James detonated smoke bombs and opened fire on a packed subway train in Brooklyn during rush hour. Over two dozen people were injured, fortunately, there were no deaths because James's gun was jammed.

James had a significant social media presence, appearing in myriad YouTube videos where he viciously attacked White People. Was James influenced by the poisonous rhetoric against Caucasians on MSNBC?

In the past, people have often blamed violence in moves and on TV as the trigger for violence in society.

Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange in 1977 was blamed when teenagers committed crimes dressed like the main characters of the film. Kubrick withdrew the film from cinemas.

During the VHS boom during the 80s in the UK, politicians, the news media, social commentators, and religious organizations blamed horror and exploitation films, distributed on videocassettes as the cause of violence.

Many murderers have confessed to modeling their crimes on serial killers from films or television. In 2001, Thierry Jaradin based his murder of a 15-year-old on the opening scene of the film Scream (1996). In 2004, Michael Hernandez stabbed a friend 40 times, imitating killings he had seen in American Psycho (2000) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991). In 2009, Andrew Conley strangled his younger brother before confessing that he wanted to be a serial killer after watching Dexter (2006-2013).

What if we eliminate all triggers? Will that bring an end to violence?

Before we even think of that, we focus on an important aspect of the perpetrators. 

The Buffalo gunman previously made threatening comments that brought police to his high school last spring. Yet he was never charged with a crime and had no further contact with law enforcement after his release from a mental institute.

Mental health experts say that NY Subway shooter Frank James’s utterances show suffered from serious mental health issues. James also confessed that he was diagnosed with mental illness.

Clearly, the violence is related to mental health.

What if we eliminate only those triggers that affect the mentally unstable?

If precious lives can be saved by stopping the broadcast of violent movies, tv shows, and cable news shows, we should do it now.

So what sort of films do we allow?

Perhaps we just allow family films such as The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins?

The Sound of Music contains a scene where someone is threatened at gunpoint. Could that be a trigger?

Mary Poppins has scenes of slapstick comedy of people bang their heads on fireplaces and ceilings. What if that is a trigger?

How about allowing films such as Gandhi that promote non-violence or  Schindler’s List which depicts one of the darkest chapters in history?

But Gandhi begins with a gunman assassinating Gandhi. Could that be a trigger? 

Schindler’s List shows the barbarism of the Nazis. What serves as a trigger for violence?

What about cartoons?

Could Tom and Jerry or Bugs Bunny cartoons trigger violence?

Do we apply this rationale to the works of Shakespeare as well? Richard III is the story of a deranged tyrant who perpetrates violence against his rivals to the throne. Hamlet and Titus Andronicus also contain violence. Do we ban Shakespeare because it could trigger a mentally unstable person?

What about an art exhibition? Even Italian Renaissance Art depicted scenes of violence. Do we ban exhibitions?

The news always carries stories of violence. Footage of the war in Ukraine could be a trigger. Coverage of the shootout in Buffalo could also be a trigger.

An argument in the street could be a trigger for somebody.

Detecting all triggers is impossible because triggers are subjective. A prayer sermon could trigger one and a gruesomely violent film may have no effect on another. 

If you set out to ban all triggers we will all have to impose lockdowns forever and perhaps even that won't be enough.

Instead, it is essential that investigation agencies, law enforcement authorities, mental health professionals, close relatives, associates, authorities (school or place of work or place the person visits), and friends pay close attention when they see mentally unstable behavior.

If the Buffalo shooter was subjected to treatment or was placed in an institution, these murders would never have occurred. This applies to all acts of violence where the perpetrator claims to be inspired by an external source.

The primary responsibility for an act of violence such as murder falls only on the individual who pulls the trigger. The secondary responsibility falls on the people around the individual who may have seen troubling behavior but didn’t bother to report it or didn’t take it seriously.

It is also essential to destigmatize mental health issues. The fear of being labeled ‘crazy’ or a ‘nutjob’ often discourages people from seeking help. An attitude needs to be developed where mental health is considered equally important to physical health and is regularly evaluated. Perhaps free helplines can be set up and promoted for counseling mental health issues.

In a democracy, free expression cannot be curbed merely because a section of society will misconstrue the contents and be triggered by it. 

Back to politics.

The Democrats desperately want to drive a hateful narrative by blaming the GOP and their supporters. If the GOP wants to win the midterms they must assertively counter the hateful rhetoric of the Democrats. In such situations, silence could be perceived as an admission of guilt!!

Also appears in American Thinker