Context does not matter. People are saying this because it is what they have been told to say. They did not come up with it themselves. These are the same people who claim "Mein Kampf" is somehow Marxist. The only logic involved is this:
1. Learn right-wing talking point.
2. Repeat right-wing talking point.
3. Repeat.
He was also an online gamer, enjoyed hardcore music, and was a community college student. This shooting had more in common with such events such as Viginia Tech or Columbine than, say, the typical act of political violence. The guerrilla, terrorist, freedom fighter or revolutionary is a rational person who cares passionately about their cause, but believes traditional means of political expression will be to no avail. They may have personality flaws, mainly a wanton disregard of human life, but then governments have the same flaws when it comes to things such as pursuing foreign policy by military means. A von Brunn or an Eric Robert Rudolph would be examples, as would certain members of the militia movement, the RAF, etc.
The campus killer, on the other hand, is a spree killer. They are troubled folks with mental health histories. It is a form of murder-suicide, with the killer finally obtaining their sought-after importance by racking up the body count, and ending their own suffering, to boot. Laughner certainly would have had suicidal ideations: he simply never got to that part of the plan. He also shares common elements with the various celebrity killers, such as Versace's killer, Andrew Cunanan, Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, and other assassins such as John Hinckley. Laughner combined an assassination with a spree killing, making him fairly unique, but he had the same sort of obsession with his intended victim that all these sorts of folks display. His choice of a youngish, attractive woman as his victim is also fairly unusual.
It's pretty uninteresting to examine his political philosophy, except to the extent that we might be looking for a "smoking gun," something that would show culpability on the part of folks who have dangerously inflamed the political debate. I'm not sure it's that interesting, though. It's a bit like examining David Berkowitz's opinion of dogs, or looking to David Koresh for theology. These folks are seriously ill. Some may become fixated on a political personality, or a celebrity, or some institution that has "wronged" them.
If you'd like some more insight into someone like a Laughner, read the wikipedia entry on spree killers, a subhead under serial killers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerYou'll learn more about this sort of sick person from this than from an inquiry into what he read, or liked, or claimed to have read or liked. I think that the list itself was calculated on his part to make him appear more well-read than he probably was. He also certainly knew that this list would enhance his importance as yet another thing for folks to analyze after his attack. All that is missing is the obligatory Catcher in the Rye reference.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
