Note: This essay is written mostly for a foreign audience whose members may lack a more nuanced view of America if only by virtue of distance or language.

The awful shooting in Michigan recently as well as other shootings in the last several days are a reminder- as if we need it- that this mass shooting business is not a bug but rather a feature of current American culture. It is yet more male violence. So far, Americans have failed to hold males culpable for this trend. The way we raise men in general needs to be rejiggered to produce better citizens overall. Make no mistake, there are a great many good and decent fellas in the US- maybe most of us- but a minority are quite problematic.

Surely there must be a way to address this matter without government interference. This is in large part a civics problem. The question is this: How can we make everyone better citizens, men especially?

A great many US citizens are forced to endure gun violence because any argument that might impede any aspect of anyone’s ability to own a gun is met with howls of indignation and angry hand waving arguments based on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Okay, fine. Conservative politicians are loathe to touch this electrified 3rd rail of politics. Candidates for the US House of Representatives will sometime post pictures of themselves in ads holding a firearm with a flag somewhere in the picture. This is meant to assure conservative voters that they as patriots will uphold the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution. I understand this and I cannot believe that any liberal politician could successfully part gun owners with their guns. There would be shooting. The government confiscating American guns is in no way politically feasible.

I also support anyone’s right to stand in a pool of gasoline and play with matches, barring any violation of local ordinances of course.

For the most part, school killings were unusual prior to the Columbine shootings in 1999. What has changed? One notable change relates to the emergence of smart phones and the internet. According to Wikipedia-

Below is a graphic from the K-12 Shooting Database. Of course, in the USA K-12 refers to the 13 years of basic education all children receive in public and private schools.

Source: K-12 Shooting Database. The Mormon church shooting or other recent shootings in public places aren’t part of this data set.

If you wade into the data, you’ll find that the definition of ‘mass shooting’ might vary a bit. Sometimes the definition refers to 3 or more deaths, but for the most part there is no agreed upon definition.

As a kid I recall exploring with a .22 caliber rifle out in a grassy river bottom. Maybe it is just me, but I was always itching for an excuse to fire the gun at something, maybe even a badger or a fish. I never shot a badger or a fish, thankfully. I’m only saying that possessing a gun and ammo can gave me a sense of power and authority. My imagination tells me that there are others.

These mass shootings are the status quo and usually fail to generate more than a day or two of concern for most Americans. Except for Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers are offered by many, but to no useful end so far. Flowers and stuffed animals are left at the crime scene, but most people return to their streaming episodes of TV with gunplay being central to the show.

Americans have a fascination with murder as a plot line for their entertainment. Hollywood feigns some concern over the violence but continues to bang out more grotesque violence in their creations. As much as actors would like to think, the artistic qualities of film are no more than secondary. A movie project is much like a speculative construction project- plans are made, money is secured, contractors are hired and the building project is begun. The whole thing is based on a fair probability that eventual sale of the building will sell at a healthy profit. It is a wager made by people who believe that they understand the market in the near future.

Investors in a movie or TV series also bet on a spec project where their money is gathered on the guess that the production will be a hit and rake in profits. Whereas a building project depends on scarcity in the real estate market and vanity to some extent, a movie project is all about vanity. Investors believe that they alone can select a project likely to be profitable. Directors and writers believe that their work product will put butts in seats or eyeballs on the TV screens. In film, the artistic elements are complex and expensive. However, the artistic sensibilities of audiences are fickle at best.

All of this leads to a critical point. Spec buildings and movies both rely on the notion that if you build it, customers will come. Buildings can be designed and located in appealing ways to attract buyers. Movies can be produced with stars, popular directors, and the myriad specialists who put a successful film together. So, why would investors back a movie project that lacks large scale appeal to audiences? If gunplay or other violence puts butts in seats, investors may require it before committing funds. Writers, producers and directors understand this and may only go forward with a movie project having a minimum of violent action sequences, car chases and a bit of nudity to dial in some edginess. Very often, though, star power leads the charge to success. Stars are likely to favor certain types of movie projects with ‘action’, where action includes scenes with combat, one-on-one fighting and gunplay which add to ticket sales. Think Tom Cruise, Keano Reeves and many others

Having been in the theater exhibition business, I can verify that people will line up in droves to see a new Tom Cruise or 007 movie. The appeal of shoot- ‘em-up action movies is undeniable and bankable. So, the question is-

Why fund a movie that is less than best effort, where ‘best effort’ means attractive elements known to draw crowds? Why leave out scenes of gun violence when the public expects it?

Our citizens are programmed early on to tolerate or enjoy gun violence. Guns are used to solve conflict. Violence in entertainment is something that we have normalized by sheer repetition leading to satisfying conclusions.

The prevalence of violent video games exposes young men and kids to killing. Some deny that these games promote violence, but the enthusiastic death dealing and mayhem produced by the players is telling. People are immensely entertained by it. I’ve seen where the military even encourages its active-duty soldiers to play games with violent gunplay. That is the job of soldiers. Causing casualties is what they train to do because it is necessary. I get it.

Why were these large-scale killings scarce before 1990? For the school shootings, the hockey stick curve above shows that from about 2010, the incident count exploded until 2018 where it leveled off briefly but rapidly took off again. Has entertainment conditioned us to tolerate or even enjoy gun violence? The actual fallout from untimely death is brutal for family and friends.

Before 1990 there was an internet in its infancy, but no smart phones. Unless you had access to a computer, electronic entertainment and news had limited reach. Unlike today, a great many people were isolated from events and politics. There were only the 3 major networks plus PBS, newspapers and magazines. All suffered from time delays owing to content production complexity. The standards and practices required discipline and ‘proper’ content absent speculation and hype. There were the tabloids like the National Enquirer that indulged in gossip, but their credibility low, at least among educated people.

Today with the 24-hr. news cycle, content is broadcast immediately and most of the entire population are free to take half-baked, poorly content edited news items and crank themselves into a tizzy. Unlike the past, today producers of news content rely on ‘clicks’, ‘likes’, or other indicators of viewing to base their advertising invoices on.

Scrolling through content online is driven by our curiosity and FOMO- Fear Of Missing Out. I can personally add that it is certainly say this is true for myself. While I do enjoy ‘action‘ movies, I must occasionally remind myself that the violence on fellow humans is only a plot element. But like Jane Goodall observed in ape and chimp behaviors, our human primate behavior includes sometimes extreme violence. It’s built in and for many it lurks just below the surface, waiting to spring out.

Much of what we learn is based on observation of other people. Are we saying that civilized social norms can screen out or ignore violence in entertainment? For most mature people, the aversion to violence is strong and a 2-hour movie will not change that. But for some, the application of violence may get considerable thought. The realization that a violent act may be called for. Socially or mentally fragile people may see the application of gunplay as a plausible solution to their problem. To become a social issue, only a very few violence prone individuals are needed.

Gun violence is our own fault as Americans and will only be solved by a concerted effort in America to see violence as an undesirable aberration. We cannot expect a change of heart in the entertainment business. As long as there is profit in violence, they will continue to produce it.