Guilt of the Inanimate

How many times have we heard of phrases like sorry I can’t make it, my car broke down; the plane crashed because of engine trouble; I wasn’t able to call because I have no more credits; the fatal accident happened due to brake failure…..and so on….

The human instinct of self preservation always comes into play amid tragedies and misgivings. It is a means of escape. In the absence of other animate, the tendency to proclaim inanimate to be the cause, as if it has a mind of its own would not be an exception. The aim is to convince himself and others that if ever and when there is a human factor in a tragedy, it is of lesser… much lesser degree. This human attitude is a natural manifestation of bloated ego and fear of punishment. It is docile to benign, as it is instinct driven. It is not premise on motive or pre-determined result.

If ever it, the recent event in the US was a terrible tragedy and no amount of words can described the feelings of the families of the victims, all 26 of them. This venue and surely the world sympathized and we all hope that it will never ever happen again. As we watched the international news as the event was unfolding, the news anchor time and again had been making the statement that goes something like “we will not discuss the identity of the killer, or elaborate his life so as not to glorify his action”. Many times that a statement to that meaning were repeated by the anchor. True to that statement the focus of reporting since, were the images of the inanimate guns used by the killer/s. Interviews were made with pro and anti-guns, and clash of ideas and opinions were thrown before the public on account of “gun violence”. From the latter phrase, we can see the point this venue has been attempting to impart. It was the concept of ‘gun violence’ (and not “human violence”) that the media and the proponents of gun ban had seemed to find   convenience to dwell on. The news anchor’s statement that was previously quoted in its meaning was projected to conditioned the viewers to ignore the most crucial factor that predicated the tragedy, which is the human factor. Why would they fear the glorification of an act which undeniably was more heinous than inglorious in the first place? Why would this prevent the dissection of the character of that criminal, and the criminal before him if it can help to establish the circumstances and habits that brought them to do those dastardly acts. Isn’t it more important that the media spearhead and stimulate concerned agencies in profiling the lives of the people that was said to have perpetrated the massacre/s to establish a template of behavior that could serve as a red light sign towards public education and awareness, thereby affording them the knowledge and recognition tool which in turn the latter may use as basis to look inside their own homes, their families, sons and daughters,  so that they themselves would be alerted and possibly thwart a similar tragedy from happening?

Ted Bundy had killed 30 women and girls by bludgeoning them with hammer and other hard objects. He never used guns. It seems that there are a lot of Ted Bundy’s in the offing or will they? Outside the US, massacres were perpetrated with “goloks” or bolos, kitchen knives, sickles and even screwdrivers. Just today, a report came in that 20 people were killed by a knife wielding man in China. In Africa, “Pangas” were use to exterminate hundreds of thousands. If we are to go along the line of reasoning the media has been using and their values in reporting, hammers and tire wrench should be regulated.

Early on, this venue had stated that blaming inanimate is but a benign and natural reaction to self-preservation; I cannot say the same for the events that recently transpired in the US. I hope that the American public and the people at large would have the wisdom to discern.