The prospect of no ‘particular political reason’ behind the Butler, PA shooting

Update: A NY Times article published July 17 contains this quote:
”He (perpetrator) also seems to have previewed his attack on Steam, a gaming platform he frequented, telling fellow gamers he planned to make his “premiere” on July 13, the day of the shooting.”

Last Saturday’s harrowing incident at a Bethel Park, PA rally for presidential candidate Donald Trump illustrated that life is a precious thing often maintained by the slimmest of margins.

No one is exempt from the at times centimeters of distance between life & death when a person with the profile and protective detail of the next possible American President is subjected to what Mr. Trump was on a sunny Saturday evening. Goodness knows life is a humbling exercise indeed.

Naturally— and understandably— one armed individual’s near-miss has mobilized an enormous investigative machine that has likely overturned everything from the proximal details at the scene of the crime to developing theories on the all-important Why? and Who else? questions to help reduce the likelihood of a similar event happening in the future.

But two days in to a legal probe that has probably involved thousands of confiscated documents, images, and physical assets, as well as scores of background interviews— nothing has surfaced to justify the case moving from being an act of violence occurring at a political event to an act of political violence, which are very different things.

According to a NY Times article, the perpetrator is believed to have acted alone, left no online trail of any significance, nor can anything approaching “manifesto” status be located regarding a mobilizing set of beliefs he held. Additionally, the gunman does not appear to have left behind written clues that could easily explain his motivations or lead to nefarious connections or influences, according to law enforcement.

Although the nature of this investigation means it could well take months, even years, to complete, a major question about what moved a very young man to do what he did remains.

With one conjecture just as good as another at this point in the untangling of events: is it possible the basis for the shooter’s actions is much more superficial than people want to believe?

To illustrate, let’s bring in the just turned 30-years-old movie Forrest Gump, which features the life a fictional character who was inspired by real people in the life of the late author Winston Groom.

Should you not be acquainted with the blockbuster book and film, this Gump character dispensed a lot of wisdom despite his lack of everyday intelligence throughout the story.

For instance, in one sequence of the historically clever film, Forrest took up long distance running, becoming so dedicated to it that people questioned him about his reasons for doing so.

“Why are you running?  Gump’s gathering throng of followers called out as he hoofed from coast-to-coast and back again.

“Are you doing this for world peace?” a huffing & puffing admirer inquired.

“Are you doing this for the homeless?” questioned another.

“Are you running  for women’s rights, or for the environment? Or for animals?” members of the unsatisfied media asked him.

Gump then reflected:

They couldn’t believe that somebody would do all that running for no particular reason, and that he “just felt like running.”

Jumping back to the situation at the recent political rally, according to one source, the young offender at Bethel Park tried out for the rifle team around ninth grade but didn’t make it due to subpar performance. Additionally, he enjoyed building computers and played a lot of video games.

Combining this with his very ‘non-descript’ record of political affiliation and lack of any ‘statement level’ expressions, could it be possible he was just captivated by weapons, and was enamored with the idea of discharging them in the direction of others with little concern as to why?

Perhaps the most practiced thing by severely troubled video gamers is the amount of random, indiscriminate online killing with little to no contemplation of it before hand. Such priming might not result in very many gamers taking their practice from cyberspace into everyday life, but aren’t there at least some gamers for whom the glamorization of killing could move them to mimic an on-screen killing scene— even when doing so requires the person to concede his own life?

Over the past 25 years, the proliferation of so many young people being resigned to their own dying in exchange for the ability to wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people begs this question.

Of course, many vocal experts would call this suggestion ludicrous by asserting that ‘no causal connection has been proven’ between video game playing and acts of real-world violence. In fact, the mixed results of researchers suggest they would be right. Using their criteria, however, that ‘no causal connection has been proven’ for anything is also true, making the requirement to do so regarding violent video game play both unrealistic and irrelevant.

In the continuing dialogue about the Butler episode, none of us are likely to see much consideration of violent video gaming undertaken by the alleged shooter as a preceding factor to his having ‘no particular political reason’ to commit the felonious offenses he did July 13th.

And very unfortunately, many people will speak unfoundedly about how ‘they’ did this to presidential candidate Trump or ‘we needn’t settle our differences through violent means’ as a reaction to the event.

President Biden was right in stating, “It’s sick, it’s just sick” in characterizing the shooting.

But it’s distinctly possible this statement’s truth actually relates to the role digital killing practice played in leading to an emotionally broken, 20-year-old’s choice to kill one and wound three— and not to a reason that is either personal or political.