I am not about to go into wonk mode and start spouting off glib policy prescriptions about how to “solve” our nation’s obvious problems regarding mass violence. This does not mean that there is nothing that can be done; it does mean, however, that social problems are complex problems, with millions of different variables, tradeoffs, and problems of law and rights to consider. To even begin to be realistic or reasonable about such issues, one must be widely read in law, history, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and dozens of other fields. And even then, you will have amassed perhaps .0001% of the knowledge required to “do something.”
So, what can be done in light of the latest massacre? Before we ask that question, these others (and more) must be asked:
1) What is the source of the problem? We’ve had guns in the United States since before the revolution; we’ve had anti-social mass shootings for much, much less time. Even if you advocate gun control, you’re still obliged to consider that fact. What are the conditions under which these anti-social tendencies have been fostered? The Left will say its the alienating effects of capitalism; the Right will say it’s lack of religion and good morality; the libertarians will say that too much government has turned people into zombies without personal responsibility.
The libertarians and conservatives speak a common language, which is why they seldom go to war with one another the way each camp goes to war with the Left, which speaks a vastly different language. The libertarians and conservatives see politics as a tragic game of trade-offs in which the raw material is Kant’s crooked timber of humanity. The Left sees politics as a way of straightening that crooked timber, an endeavor the other two camps see as inherently absurd. We must therefore create a kind of political Esperanto: which common language can make a conversation possible? Is there such a language? I am skeptical about this.
2) Assuming, arguendo, that we can identify the source of the problem, what practical (and practicable) measures are possible? The Left wants gun control. This latest shooter stole the guns he used. This means that the only gun control that *might* have prevented the massacre would have to target not only the mentally ill, but the parents of the mentally ill. What if the shooter had stolen the guns from his cousin? A friend? Gun control would then have to cover extended family and close friends of the mentally ill. Even the category “mentally ill” is nebulous and riddled with all sorts of potential rights violations. Only a small percentage of people with diagnosed mental disorders are violent. How do we preserve their rights, not just when it comes to guns but with other things? How do we prevent “mentally ill” from becoming the starting point from which all authoritarian measures become justified and initiated? How do we preserve medical privacy? How do we keep the United States from becoming a pure surveillance state in which all economic and social transactions are linked and monitored by bureaucrats?
3) What has led to the rise of anti-social attitudes in this country? This is related to question (1) above, but is different because it asks not only to identify the problem but to identify the variables. Is it violent movies and video games? Is it mass consumerism? Is it lack of religion? Is it bad parenting? Capitalism? Socialism? Overmedication? All or none or some of the above? This is an extraordinarily complex question. The United States is a nation of over 300 million people. Which leads me to…
4) In what ways is the United States different from other nations? This is the ultimate question, because many politicians would have you believe that what works in, say, Sweden would work in the U.S. Not true. The population of New York City, for instance, is almost bigger than the entire population of Austria. Austria! One American city almost has more people than an entire European state. What’s more, European countries tend to be more culturally and ethnically homogenous than the U.S. So, small nations with small, homogenous populations have a bigger chance of getting away with gun control and welfare statism than a nation of 300+ million people all with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and different values. I once heard someone say, in jest, that a nation like Sweden could get away with all sorts of crazy regulations that a nation like the U.S. could never get away with–mandating, for instance, that only left-handed people could be teachers and only right-handed people could be cardiologists. And they would get away with it, this person said, because of certain tendencies in Swedish culture, demographics, and history.
What about the United States? What if we banned all guns tomorrow? Would we turn into Germany overnight? No, we would not, and the sooner we realize that the whole is sometimes greater than the sum of its parts, the quicker we might be able to deal with complex social problems.
Finally:
5) Has the United States evolved into a society in which the above questions are not only unable to be answered but unable to be asked? Our political culture nowadays is one in which disagreement is not a sign of simply disagreement, but grievous moral idiocy. Merely saying you believe that taxes should be lower, for instance, brings with it labels as far-reaching as “racist,” “heartless,” and so on. Even within political camps, one step outside orthodoxy is enough to ignite an almost Jacobin response. In other words, we live in a (forgive this phrase) hair-trigger political culture. People are sent flying into rage by the slightest disagreement. This means that certain things are off limits to discussion; thus, a certain degree of stagnation will remain inherent in American politics until that political culture changes.
Therefore, I must draw the sad conclusion that all of the above questions are, at this point, incapable of being asked.
But the advocates of “gun control” (i.e., the disarmament of law-abiding citizens for the benefit of the predators and the State) are unaffected by facts. They regard them as irrelevant and will never, ever grapple honestly with them, because their true agenda differs diametrically from what they want you to believe.
Indeed, consider as a working hypothesis that mass shootings are very much in the interest of the anti-gun Left — that the predictable increase in such events as peaceable citizens are stripped of their weapons is exactly what they want!
Much as they deny it, the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is always the disarmament of the civilian population. They propose “sensible” controls on purchase and ownership of firearms knowing full well that such efforts never accomplish the stated goal, more safety or reduced crime. So every time yet another restriction is put in place and fails we hear yet again their plea for just one more “sensible” limitation which oddly enough winds up only affecting honest folks.
Interesting you should mention Austria. According to the UN crime statistics for 2010 their incidence of violent crimes per capita was four times that of the US. And as for Great Britain with their draconian total ban on handguns and severe restrictions on long arms, their violent crime rate was five times ours. One has to believe that if there is in fact any way to prevent violence in a society gun control is not the answer.
I’ve seen conflicting stats on Austria. Some have it placed among the lowest; others place it just below the U.K. in terms of violent crime.
I never believe statistics until I know the methodology. Radicals still claim infant death is higher in U.S. than in Cuba. Probing deeper shows that counting methods vary widely. Same goes for many violent crime studies. I’ll have to look deeper.
Crime in the UK and Europe may be much higher than the official figures show. There is evidence that in the UK police often don’t bother to arrest people for mere assaults because of the paperwork and how common it is. I’ve also been told by friends living in the UK that murder isn’t counted as murder unless there is a court conviction on the count. In the US, any killing of a person by another, aside from accidents, is automatically counted as a murder, though there are some places that fudge the numbers to make crime seem lower, like Bloomberg’s NYC. The rest of Europe may also play that game.
Then that’s not counting the number of crimes that are simply never reported.That pretty much depends on police ability, how much people trust it compared to how much they fear the local thugs.
Lastly, I’m sure there are parts of Austria and the UK that are very safe. It’s like that in many places in the Western world. Some places are very safe while a block away is a hell hole. Then there are the rural areas which can be very safe, though in the US that is probably because most everyone out there is armed and locals are more inclined to cheer if a burglar gets killed than fret about said burglar’s poor childhood.
A couple of decades ago people with mental problems severe enough to possibly cause harm to themselves or others were placed in healthcare facilities. Youngsters with learning or social issues were given special accomadations with teachers supposedly trained to address such problems. Mind altering drugs were not readily available. Movies and video games did not make it “cool” to blast 50 people to smitherines. But the social engineering geniuses told us the mentally challenged would be better off mixed in with the general population and so the mental institutions and special schools were closed. A lax attitude toward drug use has led to a nationwide epidemic. We have been hoodwinked by the superbia cognoscenti education establishment into letting our kids be taught, at the cost of thousands of dollars, skill that make them barely able to take a job at McDonalds. They do know how to waste half their life texting, posting, and reading millions of meaningless messages from people they don’t know. What we have witnessed is a breakdown of a society that held people responsible for their actions and a moral code that taught that virtue was to be aspired to than personal gratification.
“What about the United States? What if we banned all guns tomorrow? Would we turn into Germany overnight? No, we would not…”
That’s right. We would turn into a Chicago of 300 million people.
Remember the sixty’s when young hoods couldn’t afford guns or couldn’t steal them? They made “zip” guns from materials you can find in your basement.
New Left and those with agendas are quick to place the blame on an inanimate object (in this case, gun(s)). Why not amplify this blame to stick pins, kitchen knives, ice picks, axes, pocket knives,stones, flag stones, sling shots, super soakers, cross bows, arrows, broom sticks, glass, and the list goes on, and on, and on.
Oh! Its the Second Amendment, is it? AHA! Is a political agenda, therefore. Yes, because placing the blame on an inanimate object is rather ridiculous and makes the acuser seem just as crazed as the perpetrator in question.
The problem began in the mothers home. Storage of weapons is a serious matter. She allowed her weapons, easy access to any unauthorized individuals…problem #1. Problem #2, the mother (responsible arms owner) disobeyed a sacred covenant of arms owners…secure all weapons, ammo and clips.
Problem # 3, the mother had numerous weapons, all not in a safe or secure locale.
A sick youth in the house with easy access to weapons, compounded with the youths mental state (probably medication inadequacy) caused this reaction…the weapon was merely a tool, like a nail gun, chain saw or pressure washer. Pray, Amen.
The US has a history of “doing something NOW!” and ending up with an even worse mess. Just look at the Patriot Act. That was written up and rammed through after 9/11 and it is a nightmare. As we are beginning to find out, government has used it to create dossier on all of us of data mined off the internet without permission or warrants and sifted, resifted, reports made and those sifted again. This is done supposedly to keep us safe. Yeah, and I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap.
Do what?
Post 3 armed guards in every school with but one mission:
Protect the children from acts of violence.
Works fairly well in banks, jewelry stores and police stations…and it would provide jobs for our returning veterans.
No solution is perfect, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Do THAT.
It is essential that Obama leads here! That means he should order the Secret Service to disarm immediately. He must also order all those other politicians and celebrities who have bodyguards who carry guns to disarm their guards.
If the average citizen shouldn’t carry a gun to protect himself, his family and his property from evil doers who carry and use a gun, why should the elite have that level of protection.
I grieve for the innocents murdered in CT, but that doesn’t mean that I should drop my guard, disarm, and rely on the good will of the evil doers.
Why do you claim to solve the weapons problem in my neighborhood when you can’t even stop the weekly gun murders in Chicago?