Do fear and anger share a common root?

Oh Dark Thirty

This question inspired another sleepless night... Most of us have been discussing the shootings in Oregon, the most recent example of mass murder in an American school. Interestingly, similarly sane and rational people considering the circumstances of the crime come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Some want to ban all guns. Others want to arm themselves. Even more interestingly, those who respond out of fear can reach either conclusion. So can those who are predominantly angry. This dichotomy led me to consider if fear and anger share a common root and how can people with similar feelings be poles apart in their response to the same situation.

I believe I found the answer. Both fear and anger are founded in helplessness.

Think about it.

I was shot at in Vietnam. Someone wanted to hurt me, kill me if they could. I became angry and tried to hunt them down. It wasn't an act of bravery. It was a vendetta. Vengeance was running hot in my blood. Only later the truth occurred to me that I had been helpless to control my own destiny. The fact that the shooter missed was totally out of my control. He could just as easily have succeeded. I was helpless to influence either outcome. That same sense of helplessness could have cause me to respond in fear.

Is one response, fear or anger, any more correct than the other? Neither is constructive. Indeed, it may be argued that both are destructive. Fear may cause a person to act irrationally, making a target of themselves rather than taking cover and then fleeing or fighting effectively. Anger may have exactly the same effect.

Ultimately, the best response is the rational one. Fighting and fleeing are both most effective when executed rationally. 

So here I am discussing an event to which I was not a party. Why am I either angry or fearful? Because I am helpless. I care that others were killed and injured randomly, senselessly. Why didn't someone prevent this? How can we prevent this?

Some responding out of fear and others responding out of anger want to disarm Americans. The same emotions drive others to arm themselves. At the heart of both arguments is the desire to reduce our helplessness. Can't we better defend ourselves against criminals if we're better armed? Can't we better defend ourselves against criminals if we disarm them? Isn't that what the arguments boil down to?

Before I continue, let's be factual. No, we're not the only developed country in the world that suffers mass murders. Of the most infamous twenty (as measured in the number of persons killed) seven occurred in the United States. The majority occurred elsewhere.

Most murders do not occur en masse. Granted, mass murders attract more attention but they pale in comparison to just one month's death toll in Chicago where gun ownership is infringed upon to the greatest degree in the country.

Now compare that with the numbers of murders which occurred in just the last century in nations where guns were confiscated. Well over 100,000,000. That's a pretty big mass of murders, don't you think?

One of the most frightening aspects of these mass murders, especially the school shootings, are their apparent randomness. How do you guard against that? Maybe you can't but it's worth a try isn't it? Death by automobile accident appears random until you look closely. (Remember, far more people die in auto accidents than in shootings of any kind.) However, we have identified behaviors which may lead to auto accidents: Speeding, reckless driving, DUI, driving while texting, etc. We cite and fine (punish) offenders in hopes of reducing the incidence of auto accidents. Still, accidents occur. Should we give up our cars? No, cars are necessary. Thus, we need to better enforce laws that help reduce the incidence of accidents, improve design safety in both vehicles and roadways, and seek other methods of preventing deaths.

Guns are necessary too. Think about that a moment. What was the world like before guns? Brutes dominated. Guns are the great equalizer that allowed weaklings to defend themselves from the brutes. Guns allowed the intelligent to rise above the domination of kings who earned their thrones by wielding a club or sword more efficiently than anyone else. Do we want to return to those brutal days of yesteryear?

The simple fact is that living in a society of free people is a risky business. I tried to teach my children to be situationally aware. To always know what's around you and what's going on. Have a plan: Flee or fight rationally. Don't go passively into the killing fields as the Jews once did in Nazi Germany because they simply couldn't conceive that anyone could be that evil. I hope my children teach the same lessons to their children. 

Maybe, until we discover a better way, that's all we can really do. Two things are clear: Taking away the guns of the criminals is an impossible task. Taking away our right and our ability to defend ourselves is not an answer that I can rationally accept, and I will fight rationally to interfere with any attempt to disarm me, to remove my ability to defend myself, my family, my community, and the Constitution. That's the best that I can come up. It may not eliminate the sense of helplessness that I feel, but it will mitigate it.

Only time will mitigate the fear and anger we all feel until the next time. Sadly, don't you know, there will be a next time because the warring factions will prevent any effective solution.