Tags
A good guy with a gun?, Cul de sac of victimhood, Elisjsha Dicken, NRA answer to gun violence, Packing heat, The making of a hero in 15 seconds?, The narrative of heroism, The place of violence in our times, Victims of the Second Amendment, Violence begets Violence, What is the opposite of a gun
In this month to contemplate the place of violence in our times, I want to reflect on a story that broke in July of this year.
Blaze Media reported that 22-year-old armed citizen, Elisjsha Dicken, neutralized a potential mass killing at an Indiana mall by shooting the perpetrator within just 15 seconds of his first shots. Dicken was carrying his gun under Indiana’s new constitutional carry law that went into effect less than three weeks earlier; so was the first victim, Victor Gomez (what good did it do him to be carrying a gun?)… and so was the perpetrator:
“Surveillance footage shows the killer entered the mall shortly before 5 p.m. Sunday evening. He was armed with multiple firearms and spent approximately one hour in a bathroom before he opened fire at patrons in the Greenwood Park mall food court. Police said he exited the bathroom at 5:56:48 and was neutralized by 5:57:03.
Even more impressive is the fact that Dicken fired 10 shots from his handgun from a distance of 40 yards. Police said the killer was shot eight times and none of them were self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
‘His actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun. Was very proficient in that, was tactically sound and as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,’ Greenwood Police Chief James Ison explained, WTHR-TV reported. ‘Many people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly within the first two minutes of this shooting.'”
The Narrative of a Hero?
Though Dicken did not communicate with the media, his attorney Guy Relford did all the talking for him:
“I am proud to serve as Eli Dicken’s attorney and spokesperson. He is a true American hero who saved countless lives during a horrific event that could have been so much worse if not for Eli’s courage, preparedness and willingness to protect others,” Relford said in a statement.
The NRA and the National Review were quick to promote Dicken as the epitome of “a good guy with a gun.” I think it is safe to say there were a flood of endorsements across American media, but at no time was there a question about why a 22 year old would feel the need to carry a loaded weapon at all times.
At no time was there any reflection on how one could possibly tell the difference between the gunman and Dicken at the point of shooting. As far as anyone could tell during the hail of bullets, what was the difference? Only the identity of the victims? The narrative of heroism was blinded to the fact that everyone is a victim of the Second Amendment.
With little reflection, the media and the NRA were not talking about the fact that the gunman also legally carried his firearms into the mall. The only difference was that he appeared to be intent on killing a lot of people.
What’s my Problem?
So, you might ask, what is my problem with Eli Dicken as a hero?
I have no problem with him. The potential victims can be grateful for his quick and precise action. In a State where both “hero” and “perpetrator” had the same rights to openly carry weapons, many have expressed appreciation for young Eli Dicken who had the practice, the pistol, and the presence of mind to put them into action.
Here’s my problem: a society too quick to make this the narrative of heroism when there is no reflection on why so many people feel the need to be legally packing heat in the first place.
By the time this event happened in July, it had become one of more than 350 mass shootings this year (!) according to Gun Violence Archive (“mass shooting” is defined as one in which four or more people are shot, not including the shooter).
Take in that last paragraph again: 350 mass shootings…
(By the publishing of this post, there were 589 “Mass Shootings” recorded… and the year isn’t over yet).
Greenwood now joined a slew of other communities also grappling with the aftermath of mass shootings, including those reeling from earlier massacres at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and a July Fourth parade in Highland Park, Illinois.
A society that praises their gun shooting heroes forget they in-prison themselves in a cul de sac of victimhood, and promote a fear that perpetrates more gun violence.
While I understand how this event lionized Dicken in America, I would rather live in a society where people felt safe enough to not have to carry guns (especially military type guns); I would rather live in a society where there would be fewer guns carried; I’d rather live in a society where the heroism of self control was granted higher status than violence, for violence only begets violence.
I remain very interested in any convincing argument for why there is a need for more guns, especially military type guns, in the hands of so many people and increasingly carried in public. Surely this is a recipe for disaster.
More Enigma Than Dogma 
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Ned for exposing this post to your wider sphere of readership. May the conversation continue…
LikeLiked by 1 person
We must make some common ground to get guns out of our lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect the common ground is found in the difference between loving my neighbour and fearing my neighbour. I claim no moral superiority on this difficult argument for Americans… but oh how I wish our common ground would be in our desire for the common good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Violence only begets violence.” Yet we continue to fuel the violence with more guns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree that it is “we” who continue to fuel the violence with adding more weapons – as Rabbi Heschel has said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible”. At end of November I will post “The Appalling Fantasy of Hope” in which I critique the unquestioned ethic of the West: more weapons are not the answer – they are the expedient response to “naked aggression.” I know it is naive to say weapons are not the answer in the face of an aggressor – but – this is greeted with the deeper naivety that weapons are the answer. Thanks for your comments. Let there be peace…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I look forward to reading your post on “The Appalling Fantasy of Hope.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eli Dicken should not have had to do that in a situation with guns. While it’s great he has those skills to deescalate a situation, it should not fall on ordinary citizens to do so. Although, people who do have skills to handle an emergency in the way that he did are heroic! My Dad is like that. He’s incredible in an emergency. There’s no bystander effect with him. He saved a baby from a burning building once. I was recently in a car accident with my Dad and I was so incredibly grateful he was there. A few percent of the population are like Eli Dicken or my Dad, and yes, they are heroic. My Dad is a pacifist though. He was on the draft for Vietnam and he was planning on being a conscientious objector if he was called up. He wasn’t though. Although, if he had gone, I have no doubt he would have been decorated for bravery because he’s just that sort of person. Lots of moral questions going on but ones that need to be said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments. I love your appreciation of your dad, who I must say, took more than 15 seconds to become a “hero”. Though “hero” is a term too loosely used, we should appreciate those with the hard-won de-escalation skills, the patience, and the self-giving among other qualities that speak to being human and humane. May you find yourself continuing to become a person of integrity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I do consider my Dad a hero because he has taken that kind of action more than once. Plus, he’s very humble and doesn’t consider himself a hero
LikeLiked by 2 people
Human history has never demonstrated that the presence or absence of a particular type of weapon influences the expression of violence positively or negatively by an individual determined to project violence on another individual. Cain killed Abel with a rock, David killed Goliath with a rock. Same tool, different motivations of the heart. Guns exist. They’re common technology today. The number of guns in the world will not increase or decrease the amount of violence in the world. It is an inanimate object. It is only the intentions of people that increase or decrease the amount of violence in the world. It is unfortunate, but the only effective deterrent to someone intent on foisting violence on others is responsive violence. Pray for peace. Desire and work to change the hearts of those prone to violence. Promote the value of all life. There is nothing inherently wrong or unjust in being prepared with the best tool available as means to protect innocent human life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Hedgemaster1982 – thanks for your note and for the tone of your engagement on this topic about which we see differently. I have heard the line of reasoning you are using before, and while I agree that rocks have been used as weapons and understand they are everywhere (and we are not likely to restrict access to rocks), it is also true that rocks have never been implicated in 589 mass murders as of the posting of this article. In a way your comments are a variation of the “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” argument. But it is more accurate to say – “Guns don’t kill people – it is people with easy access to the kinds of guns that can kill many people who kill people.” In deed the number of firearms is positively correlated with the amount of gun shootings, woundings, killings, accidental firings, and suicide deaths. Somehow restricting, registering, and/or otherwise licensing guns whose design is intended for human harm would actually impact the obscene number of mass shootings the U.S. experiences (along with accidental firings and suicide by gun).
Though I don’t agree that the only effective deterrent to violence is more violence (you may note this if you read any of the many articles I post every November under the rubric of “the place of violence in our times” https://moreenigma.com/tag/the-place-of-violence-in-our-times/). Rather violence begets violence, and I am encouraging reflection on what a community can do to make itself feel and be safe. So I don’t agree that being “prepared with the best tool available to protect innocent human life”, because I don’t agree that a gun designed to kill people is the best tool or the best way to protect oneself/family/neighbours.
For the record, I make a distinction between guns used for hunters/farmers/sports shooters (I grew up in a rural community after all); rather it is guns whose primary design is to kill people that is troubling.
While I agree there is “nothing inherently wrong with being prepared” – may I suggest looking at the issue from the vantage point of 40,000 feet, as it were, in order to think a little differently about the amount of gun violence and different perspectives. You will note that I had nothing disparaging to say about Eli Dicken who became the “hero” who killed the shooter who had equal rights to openly carry a gun and who’s first victim was also legally carrying a gun. I will restate that my problem is with “a society too quick to make this the narrative of heroism when there is no reflection on why so many people feel the need to be legally packing heat in the first place.”
Thanks again for your comments, and though I am fairly sure I have not changed your mind, I will invite you to read virtually any of my other posts on the topic: https://moreenigma.com/tag/the-place-of-violence-in-our-times/
Merry Christmas – may we one day enjoy the peace the Prince of Peace came to bring.
LikeLike