On Willful Ignorance

 Joseph Duplessis

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin

Wikimedia Commons

“We are all born ignorant,

but one must work

 hard to remain stupid.”

Interestingly enough, my previous post castigating the Colorado Attorney General's Office for their incredibly ignorant and insensitive Tweet regarding the 20/20 interview that Sue Klebold participated in has generated nothing but silence from that office. Perhaps they could have at least thought twice about what they were saying before they said it? I don't know. You'd think an office this high up in the state government hierarchy would have the common sense to do so, but.....

Make no mistake: the white hot anger I felt while generating my response to that Tweet has abated somewhat in intensity, but it has not gone away. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

There will be no rehash of things said in that post. There will, however, be a bit of clarification as to why I went off the way I did.

In the arena of school safety (and, yes, I do have a modicum of professional experience therein), to very blithely state that "talking" doesn't somehow "prevent school shootings" displays a remarkable lack of not only sensitivity, but also a remarkable lack of what it takes to reasonably, analytically, and professionally plan and prepare for such events prior to their occurrence. In other words, the statement by the Colorado Attorney General's Office is a prime example on display in the public forum of willful ignorance.

The massacre known as Columbine is fraught with mental illness issues. That's only one of the topics for discussion that Sue Klebold was trying to address in her interview on 20/20.

Mental illness isn't something to be bandied about lightly by anyone, much less an office of the Executive Branch of a state government. That's effectively what they've done; they've diminished and, for all intents and purposes, devalued the issue of mental illness pretty much by dismissing what Sue Klebold had to say about it and how it affected herself, her son, her entire family, and the Columbine community at large.

Truth be told, the Tweet from the Attorney General's Office should be taken as an insult not only to everyone's sensibilities, but also to their intelligence.

The Tweet, once again:

If, or until, a public clarification and apology are made by that office, I stand by this assertion and hope the Colorado Attorney General's Office will step up and make things right.

The thing is, far too many people have this pervasive perception of mentally ill people as being crazy, especially when it comes to shooters in a school environment.

Would it be too much of a stretch for me to assert the majority of people who've seen the videotaped crazed rantings and ravings of the two shooters of Columbine kinda sorta transfer the mental image they've gotten from those rantings and ravings to others suffering from mental illness? I mean, really think about that.

What's the first thing that comes to mind any time we see something on the news about a mass shooting anywhere? Cogitate on that for awhile. Take all the time you need.

That transference may not go immediately to ALL people suffering from this malady, but, if it doesn't, why even use that label at all? Could it possibly be because those who perpetrate these atrocities on others suffer from a form of mental illness so hideous in its modality it is virtually impossible to comprehend, but because most people do not fully understand or comprehend the complexities of mental illness in general, they transfer their own oxymoronic terminology to anyone exhibiting signs of something not being 'right' by labeling them as 'crazy'? I don't know....I'm simply asking the question, and hoping for some answers here, especially from the Attorney General's Office.

The reality isn't that shooters are crazy, necessarily, but, rather, that this label, this very derogatory, demeaning label, is applied to those suffering from this malady pretty much across the board.

Sue Klebold's son was mentally ill. His mental illness manifested in such a way as to wreck havoc on the lives of others in a virtually unimaginable way. When those 'others' become 'ourselves', that's when mental illness seems to take on another level, another sense of urgency entirely. Up until that point, I'd wager most people pretty much live their lives in a state of complacency, content in the knowledge 'it can't happen to me' or some such fantasy Utopia.

After virtually every single disaster, no matter the type, people say something along the lines of 'I never thought it could happen here', or 'I never thought it would happen to me', or any number of other catch phrases one wants to apply.

We all fill in those blanks when it happens to us. To deny that fact would be to also engage in willful ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

When it comes to school shootings and the perps who commit those atrocities, it seems the angst is magnified exponentially as a direct result because we, as a society, simply cannot wrap our heads around why anyone in their right mind would, or could, do such a thing. Hence the jump, if we're honest with ourselves, to labels being applied, labels that include the term 'crazy'.

Statement of FACT: The vast majority of those who suffer from some form of mental illness will never pick up a gun, go into a school, and shoot it up.

Statement of FACT: The vast majority of suicides in this nation are carried out using a gun.

Statement of FACT: A gun provides the most lethal, most effective means to carry out the act of suicide quickly and immediately. Remember, my first wife's first attempt was via drug overdose which was unsuccessful. Her second attempt...

Statement of FACT: Most people suffering from some form of mental illness have a much higher risk of having violence perpetrated upon their own person than the other way around.

All the above are verifiable, plain, and simple statements of fact.

So, why then are so many who believe themselves to be free and clear of any craziness themselves so quick to blanket label the entire community of those who suffer from mental illness as being crazy?

Don't believe that's happening? Guess again.

I participate in many social media network discussions and message boards. It's something I encounter all the time. The first solution to gun violence offered, especially by more pro-gun advocacy groups is inevitably along the lines of "keep the guns away from the crazies"; invariably, without fail, with no exceptions.

That's my truth. That's my experience. This isn't meant to be, nor should it be construed to be, an advocacy position I hold for more gun regulations. That's not what this is about. Rather, it's about mental health stigma.

When I say I try very hard to discuss how the 'crazy' assertion doesn't apply, it's almost universally to no avail.

So, it is, in fact, a valid question in dire need of being answered simply because it's a stigma those suffering from this very pervasive malady are forced against their will to live with all day, every day of their lives.

Because of this stigma, my first wife, who eventually turned out to be 'terminally' mentally ill, denied her illness throughout her ordeal. That she hallucinated, was delusional, had some of the worst paranoia I've ever had the misfortune to see manifested in anyone anywhere, and took all of that out on others in ways few have any knowledge of besides me was completely lost on her. It wasn't on me, but it was on her.

So, when I see statements being made and directed at someone such as the one made by the Colorado Attorney General's Office toward Sue Klebold, I do tend to get my shorts in a knot very quickly.

The message they sent, if one wants to call it that, is "talking" doesn't "prevent" something from happening which is akin to the oft repeated mantra of those who advocate that gun free zone signs don't prevent those intending to do harm to others therein from doing so.

Both the examples above are what I call 'logical fallacies' in the very strictest sense.

"Decision to talk now doesn't prevent school shootings"

That's what the Tweet said...verbatim.

Let's do a little parsing, shall we?

Does a "decision to talk" by someone actually and physically "prevent" a school shooting, regardless of when that "talk" takes place? 

If so, how does it, or how can it be reasonably expected, to do that? 

Would that "talk" physically have prevented any of the ensuing school shootings if that "talk" had taken place earlier on?

Words have meaning. There's no doubt about that. But can spoken words actually physically prevent something from happening? Simple analytical thought and reasoning should lead us to an obvious conclusion in that regard; an obvious conclusion that the assertion is a logical fallacy, a distraction and nothing more.

Why has this conclusion not been obvious to the Attorney General's Office? I mean, these folks are attorneys, right? Legalese notwithstanding, common sense should enter into this equation at the very least, shouldn't it?

Let's apply this to the gun free zone issue, an issue that's a bit more nebulous.

While it is true that gun free zone signs cannot physically prevent anyone from doing anything if the intent of the perpetrator is to do harm to others, why does it seem to be such an unscalable wall, an impenetrable obstacle for people to understand that gun free zone signs are there for something other than physically preventing someone from doing harm to others?

The sign is for the purpose of letting people know there will be consequences for their actions. That's the purpose of laws, after all...to provide consequences for illegal actions.

Do laws actually prevent someone from doing something illegal? Hardly. If that were the case, there would be no illegal activity in this world at all. That's something those legal beagles in the Attorney General's Office should already know as well, but....

All of this boils down to a simple truth: Talking about things, even if they are after the fact, is a basic premise, a basic standard procedure, a basic necessity following every single tragedy and/or trauma each and every one of us experiences as we go through this sometimes dystopic experience called life. In emergency management, this is what is called 'doing a hotwash'.

The hotwash for Columbine is arguably still going on to this day. Proof? Just take a look at all the blow-back associated with the 20/20 interview with Sue Klebold as prime example number one, both before and after the interview took place.

A hotwash is wherein people talk. They communicate with each other. They listen to each other. They commiserate. They evaluate. And, hopefully, they cooperate in the hope that something positive and constructive might just come out of those discussions even if it happens down the road and far, far into the future.

Life lessons are something we need to look at, listen to, and learn from. Otherwise, we are all, every single one of us, doomed to flail around in the very same confused and willfully ignorant boxes we construct for ourselves until we personally, up close and personally, experience the next tragedy and trauma in our lives.

Colorado Attorney General's Office, you owe it to each and every one of us, your constituents, to explain what you meant by your Tweet. If you somehow realize and accept your Tweet was incredibly insensitive at the very least, then issue a public statement accompanied by an apology acknowledging your lack of sensitivity and lack of good judgment.

Climb out of that hole of willful ignorance you've dug for yourself unless you want to keep working hard to remain stupid, as the venerable Benjamin Franklin put it.

That's my challenge to you.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.