This Month's Top Commentators

  • Be the first to comment.

The Best Voter Lists Available

PunditHouse Store

Thoughts on the LAX Shooting


The shooter at LAX murdered a fellow human being (an unarmed TSA employee), wounded numerous others, disrupted the lives of thousands more and created an emergency situation that wasted tens of thousands of dollars of resources.

Without question this is unacceptable. His actions were a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the private property rights of others.

However, dismissing this person as just another deranged mental crackpot with an ‘assault weapon’ would be a dangerous mistake. One we will most assuredly make. The left will distance themselves from the shooter’s motivations and chosen course of action by placing the blame on the gun, while the right will do so by laying blame on his mental state. Both will vilify him without ever addressing the underlying issues. Social media, the blogs and comment sections will be on fire, filled with ignorance, hatred and division.

Yet, after a week or so the media will turn to the next big thing that sells, life on Main Street will return to normal, and the politicians will gravitate to the next big crisis. Americans, as a result, will be a bit more desensitized to violence and accepting of the creeping authoritarian style now accepted as the normal governmental reaction. It’s for our safety, you know.

According to the Telegraph the shooter was “carrying a note describing himself as a “pissed off patriot” who wanted to shoot “pigs”” and that he “was motivated by extremist anti-government views as well as emotional problems that had pushed him towards thoughts of suicide.”

The note also “claim(ed) he had no interest in harming “innocent people””. This part, at least, appears to be true. One witness told officials the shooter approached him, asked if he was TSA, and then moved on when the witness said he was not.

This last point is very telling in my opinion. Making a written distinction – and acting on it – between what one considers to be the innocent and the guilty speaks to one’s mental state. I’m certainly no professional, but it seems to me a deranged basket case would be more indiscriminate in his victims. Purposefully selecting and then pursuing a target while ignoring non-targets says to me this shooter was in full presence of mind.

So where does that leave us?

“When people have nothing to lose, they lose it.”
– Gerald Celente

Officials know the shooter text-ed his brother the day prior to the shooting indicating he wanted to take his own life. Again in my uneducated opinion, I would say having thoughts of suicide is a pretty good indicator a person has reached the point of believing they have nothing else to lose.

So, from what we know at this point, we have a person “pissed off” at the government who, judging by his actions, was a) in control of his mental state and b) at the same time felt he had nothing to lose.

What would you do if you were very pissed off AND had nothing to lose? You might decide to act out.

And THAT is the point I want to get at here.

WHAT you do – as in the actions you take – under such circumstances would be determined SOLELY by what you perceive are the available options that would most likely be successful in creating the desired result. This is the key point to keep in mind. People ONLY act on options they are aware of with the tools they have at their disposal. Like the old saying goes, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

By giving people additional options (through educating them) to achieve whatever it is they desire we can alter their behavior in positive ways, thus avoiding, if not eliminating, additional such outcomes as we saw at LAX. ¬†Alternatively, by limiting people’s options (through perpetuating ignorance while increasing amounts of control) we breed violence and other undesirable behaviors.

The shooter obviously felt the only option he had to change the government was through the use of armed violence. That didn’t work out so well for him, did it?

The majority feel the way to change the government is by voting. How’s that working out for you?

I, on the other hand, would change the government by starving them of tax revenue via withdrawing my labor and consumption. It’s legal. It’s peaceful. It’s immediate. And most importantly, it’s effective. Of course this requires me to be self-sufficient and without debt in the provisions of my shelter, food, water, and transportation. It also requires being willing to accept that my lifestyle will change (at least in the short-term) “negatively” in the materialistic sense. It will require a vast more amount of physical labor than most of us are used to. And it will require us putting up with others who call us everything from paranoid to whacko.

Others will have even more options for changing the government.

But let me ask you this:  When everything short of withdrawing our labor has been tried and fails, will we Рin an effort to maintain our comfortable, soft lives Рresort to violence just as this shooter did?

I pray we do not.

Donate Now!We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!

Short URL:

Comments are closed