Tag Archives: Gun Violence

Bang Bang, You’re Dead.

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 acknowledge that males as a group have a problem. The way we raise boys in general needs to be rejiggered to produce better citizens overall. Obviously, there are a great many good and decent fellas in the US- maybe most- but a minority are quite problematic.

Surely there must be a way to address this matter without heavy handed interference in people’s lives. This is in large part a civics problem. The question is this: How can we guide everyone to be better citizens, maybe males especially?

I am convinced that the current political conundrum in the USA is in large part due to poor education. The primary responsibility for a child’s education is borne by the parents. However, all too often the schools are held responsible for this. Yes, the expectation is for K-12 schools to properly educate students and prepare them to get along and prosper after graduation. Plainly this model is failing many students.

Presently, many parents seem to want to put the entire responsibility on the school system. Yes, the schools have much responsibility, but in the end the parents must be held accountable for their child’s education. Sitting passively and watching your child fail in school while complaining about it is as far as many can go. If your child is unable to add, subtract, multiply and divide by graduation, you have let your child down.

Having gotten a child through K-12 and college, I realize that remedial home schooling is tricky. In our case, the curriculum for math was alien to me (a PhD in Chemistry) and my teacher spouse (MA in Special Ed). Our kid was required to learn many different techniques for basic calculation and problem solving. Because using methods I learned was not in the curriculum, to instruct using methods I learned would contradict the teacher and the worksheets from the curriculum. To avoid this, I refrained from teaching my methods and tried to absorb the curriculum, which I failed.

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 Congress will sometimes 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 ever separate gun owners from their guns. There would be shooting and violence. The government confiscating American citizen’s guns is in no way politically feasible.

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

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-

If you wade into the language, 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 the grassy river bottom. Maybe it’s just me, but I was always itching for an excuse to fire the gun at something like a badger or a fish. Never shot a badger or a fish, thankfully. I’m only saying that possessing a gun and ammo gave me a sense of power and authority. My imagination tells me that there are others.

These shootings are the status quo and usually fail to generate more than a day or two of concern but ring hollow. Except for Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers are offered by many, but to no useful end. 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.

The prevalence of violent video games exposes young men, women and kids to wanton destruction of human beings. 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.

Military training of combat soldiers focuses on efficient destruction, killing and survival. Could there be any room for civics exposure sometime in the soldier’s hitch? Would it be so bad if converting 1 or 2 hours of heavy physical training per week into learning about how to conduct themselves in the culture they are actually preparing to defend? Obviously, continuous training builds muscle memory and reflexes for maximum readiness, however it seems likely that trainees get into diminishing returns eventually.

We want citizen soldiers to exit the military and become productive members of society. But if they enter the military absent the basics of how a liberal democracy operates, how does nothing but weapons training and military tactics prepare them to re-enter civilian life? As a nation we exploit their best years of youthful energy and enthusiasm like other nations do, but afterwards we bump them out without practical job skills.

Liberal Democracy (from Wikipedia)-

“Common elements within a liberal democracy are: elections between or among multiple distinct political parties; a separation of powers into different branches of government; the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society; a market economy with private propertyuniversal suffrage; and the equal protection of human rightscivil rightscivil liberties, and political freedoms for all citizens.”

If the above definition is “woke” then I’m certainly woke.

A good question is, 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 to 2018 where it leveled off briefly but rapidly took off again.

Before 1990 there was an internet in its infancy, but no smart phones. Unless you had access to a computer, electronic entertainment and news reached a very few people. Unlike today, 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 chores. 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 news items and wind themselves into a tizzy.

Finally, I must say that I’m pessimistic about controlling gun violence in the US. Unless a large fraction of the population adopts something similar to how Japan schools their children, Kids will continue to process the contradiction of problem solving with guns and whatever peaceful examples they see around them.

Violent Death as Entertainment

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.

Machismo and Violence

The present situation is one whereby a large swath of the population, including K-12 students, are being exposed to an increased risk of bloody, violent death sustained by those who fetishize firearms. Whatever you may think of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the fact is that we are prioritizing an originalist interpretation over the lives of school children. We are allowing children to be sacrificed on the alter of the 2nd Amendment in order to satisfy people who idolize the idea of boundless access to metal tubes that discharge high energy bits of metal. We are not officially at war defending our borders in the US nor are we on the verge of a civil war. By far, most guns are not used to hunt. Most Americans lead peaceful lives in their neighborhoods without the need to shoot at people.

The very notion that the US government is going to wrench guns away from citizens in one of the most heavily armed democratic countries in the world is the fever dream of a fool. Any full-scale attempt to do this would lead to armed rebellion and the collapse of the USA as a democratic republic. Widespread gun confiscation is not politically feasible today or in the foreseeable future.

We must tone down and be less tolerant of the image of inflated machismo that guns confer to their users. Both in real life and in entertainment, gunplay is used to resolve conflict. By far, most gun owners do not commit violent acts with their guns. While they should not be penalized for the crimes committed by others, accepted mechanisms like driver’s and pilot’s licenses are a form of limitation and standardization that could be applied to access to firearms. But this reliably produces hysteria among the armed public. Like everything else in society, a few people have to ruin it for the rest of us.

The basic utility of a gun is to deliver crippling or fatal kinetic energy, or the threat of it, from a safe distance. The need for guns for peacekeeping use will last as long as there is dangerous criminality. What the US is presently suffering from is the use of rapid-fire, high-energy projectiles from guns designed to hit as many targets as possible in the shortest time. Man killers.

Sidebar

I took the hunter’s safety course sponsored by the NRA at the age of 9. The truth is that firing a gun is both fun and stimulating. I recall stealthily walking along a muddy creek in the Iowa countryside with a bolt action 0.22 caliber rifle desperately looking for some reason the fire the gun. I spotted fish, turtles and birds but something held me back from shooting at them except for once a few years later. With a BB gun I shot a sparrow perched on a small twig of an elm tree. The bird rotated backwards, still gripping the twig, and hung upside down for a minute or two. Then it released and dropped into an irrigation ditch with a small splash.

I was immediately gripped with regret and sorrow for what I had just done. I had just killed a random sparrow for utterly no reason than to see what happens. Even as a teenager I could see that this was a senseless action. I am sorry for killing the sparrow to this very day and, except for a few mice and bugs, I have never killed wildlife since.

Back to the essay

The point of the story above is that, for me, being in possession of a firearm could sometimes produce a strong urge to fire it. I’m confident that there are others who have felt the same way. The healthy release is to do target practice. Some people enjoy hunting. I do not indulge in this because I prefer the flavor of beef, pork and fish which, conveniently, are already butchered.

Male characteristics can have both good and bad attributes. A measure of focused male aggressiveness, ambition and territoriality can be beneficial for the wellbeing of loved ones and the community. Brute strength can be quite useful in providing for a family. Male rage, however, can be very destructive wherever it is directed, as we all know. A firearm or other weapon is a force multiplier for a raging male. Recent mass killings prove the point. Firearms provide the ability to kill or wound from a safe distance and the value of this is lost on no one.

It is hard to imagine that some restraint in the use of firearms without addressing the cultural and natural phenomenon of male aggression can be successful. We are saturated with violence in entertainment, on the streets and in the news. As long as we seek entertainment violence, show business will anxiously provide it.

I’m neither a Quaker nor a pacifist but I do admire their sincere dedication to non-violence. We need many early adopters of non-violence with considerable social standing and a non-violence vibe across the whole country. Destructive male behavior can be tamed to a great extent, but it has to start early and be immersed in non-violent surroundings. Where is the sign that Americans can summon the discipline to do it. I’m not seeing it.

Something that needs to be said

I completed the hunters safety course back when I was about 12 years old in the late 1960’s. I got a kick out of target practice and plinking tin cans or watermelons just like everyone else. I remember stalking imaginary prey in the countryside along Lizard Creek in Iowa, just itching for a reason to fire the .22 caliber rifle at it. I might have actually hit a bullhead in the creek (properly pronounced ‘crick’) but it got away. In retrospect, shooting at a fish was cruel and pointless. As a high schooler I went elk hunting in the mountains of northern Colorado. We never saw an elk.

Shooting is something that I never latched on to for some reason. Probably because guns weren’t a big thing in my family. My farming parents and grandparents in Iowa never fought in the world wars because of the accident of their birthdates. My father served in Korea, but just after the war. I saw my grandfather shoot a badger once, but only because he was afraid we’d stumble upon it. Today I have a .22 caliber antique Ruger revolver somewhere in storage that I inherited. That is my arsenal.

I guess I’ve been lucky. I’ve never had the fear of foreign invaders taking over North America by anything less than global nuclear war. I’ve never had a fear of a tyrannical government, at least until Trump and his motley band of demented idiots came along. I have never lived where I felt I needed to keep a gun at the ready. And I’ve never had the need to strut around like a peacock in tactical gear packing pseudo-militaristic weapons.

Guns are too deeply imbedded in American culture and in the basements of citizens to ever be gotten rid of by a government ban. There would be a civil war before guns could be confiscated, which I doubt will come to pass.

The great advantage guns give you is the ability to commit severe and instantaneous violence from a safe distance. Since the invention of gunpowder in China, the utility of blasting things at people has been lost on no one. The firearm has long been popular as an enabler of protection, conflict and crime. So popular, in fact, that most Americans are stuck between the brick walls of gun violence and second amendment arguments with no resolution to the conflict coming anytime soon.

There is one thing we can do, however. Something that a civilized citizen of this amazing democracy can easily do. We can urge fellow citizens to simmer down a little. We can show some restraint in the reflex to use, carry or flaunt our firearms in public, especially as a half-hidden means of intimidation, as a first step. On the streets and in the movies.

In American entertainment, guns wielded by attractive actors and actresses are the usual tool for the resolution of conflict. The accurate portrayal of shooting technique and the highly realistic effects of a bullet on the human body have become an art form in US entertainment. Not so in British television I have noticed. There is generally very little gunplay in Brit TV entertainment. And they still manage to tell a great story through well crafted writing. How can a kid grow up in America and NOT come to the conclusion that pointing a gun or shooting someone is the most effective way to settle a dispute?

It has been said jokingly that the second amendment has become the founding document of the angry white male gun club. This may be an exaggeration but we cannot forget that the amendment defines a right, not an obligation to use. It is not an invitation to aggressive, belligerent behavior with weapons. It does not give the person pointing the weapon the right to be judge, jury, and executioner unless in self defense.

There will always be people, some of them fearful, who harbor an unusually large fascination with weapons. Realistically, these folks are probably beyond reasoned persuasion to a lifestyle less oriented to paranoia mixed with weaponry. But we can try to improve this American civilization around them overall to one that more substantially values non-violent means of conflict resolution, either in reality or in the movies. Plenty of other countries can do it, why can’t we?