IMO the only discussion most shooting tragedies should directly prompt is gun control

[Armstead]

We have a tendency on DU -- and elsewhere -- to make sweeping generalizations and get into heated discussions about various "related" issues in the aftermath of tragedies like the shootings in California.

I almost posted in response to things being said in one of these threads, but then stopped myself because it I realized it seems very wrong for a fundamental reason.

These horrible shootings also certainly merit discussion of how we might prevent the easy access to guns to too many people who should not have them, for whatever reason. And they should certainly prompt scrutiny if such as acts are connected with actual organized terrorism.

I also agree that many of the larger subjects, such as sexism, religion or ideology, that are addressed after these shootings are important, and certainly merit serious discussion and debate.

However, IMO, it hinders honest constructive debate about those other social issues when such horrible random shootings by individuals are used as the direct stimulus for "related" discussions and conclusions, either among ourselves or in the media.

Those discussions inevitably are distorted because the true motivations of the shooters do not usually reflect anything lager than the horrific internal aberrations of the specific individuals involved. So any related discussions spring from a poisoned well, when shootings are cited as the "logical extension" of these issues-- especially when they are exploited to point fingers or advance a point of view.

In most instances, the actual reason some "average" individual decides to take a weapon and start shooting at people randomly is much more personal than sexism, racism, ideology, religious values or other issues. The people who engage in such shootings have been twisted by internal forces that we cannot truly understand.

Ultimately, someone like Rodgers does not represent anything other than the fact that he had severe internal problems that unleashed a monster inside.

Yes, all of society has to deal with issues of gender identity and sexism that are both personal and collective. But he is not a logical extension or typical illustration of sexism -- just as he should not be used an illustration of the evils of religion if he were a Christian who had decided to randomly start killing "sinners." Nor should he have been used to justify political brick-tossing if he was a right wing-nut or an extreme leftist or anarchist, if he had used political point of view as the "reason" for his actions.

He does not illustrate some horrible violent mysogeny that exists below the surface of "nice guys" who are frustrated because they fail to attract women. Of the guys -- or their female equivalents -- who have similar frustrations, 99.999999999999999999999999999999 percent would never even contemplate grabbing a gun and randomly shooting innocent people.

Yes, many hetero males do act like pigs. But 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999 percent would never think of expressing that by such an action.

Nor does he illustrate some twisted forces of perverse energy related to sexual identity in other ways. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of people who are gay would never consider doing such a thing.

Rodgers obviously did represent a failure of the mental health system. But he does not represent some danger that exists inside the vast majority of people who have mental or psychological issues or disorders. Again 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 of people who have to deal with those personal issues will never reach that point, whether or not they are treated.

IMO when we try to use such individuals to represent larger issues and advance our own point of view, it stifles and twists the honest and clear examinations and discussions and actions that are necessary to actually deal with those issues, whatever they are.