I've done a couple of posts trying to define the problems of violence and mass killings in America in such a way as to make arriving at solutions more likely and more effective. I'm not, however, naive enough to think that anything of the sort is likely to happen. Why is that?
As far as general violence goes, first there's the race and poverty factor. Our most violent neighborhoods tend to be poor and mostly minority populated and I think some of our leaders fear that those characteristics will drive the conversation even though the overwhelming majority of the residents in those areas are not violent at all. It's a reasonable fear, but the solution is to push back against the racists and classists and not muddy the waters by pretending the problem is more widespread than it really is.
Second, for some Democratic politicians and activists it is easier to pretend that the problem is widespread because those neighborhoods are the "left behind" of 50 years of social policies that were successful for many, but not others. The policies that have helped to lift some people out of poverty or right their lives aren't working in most of these violent cities and neighborhoods, yet many Democrats are stuck on the same old ineffective prescriptions. In addition, it's not hard to see that some of the likely solutions are going to involve judgments about behavior and lifestyle that many progressives aggressively resist these days.
Third, I think a few very cynical politicians on both sides love these violent neighborhoods and would hate to see them disappear. For those that are Democrats it's an opportunity to muddy things up and impose widespread controls that aren't really needed. For those that are Republican, those violent neighborhoods are an opportunity to point at them and strike fear into their own constituents.
Then there's the news media. On an individual basis I'm sure nearly all of those who work in the news media were horrified at what happened in Newtown a month ago. As an industry though, they eat that stuff up. It's what they live to cover, and the brutal truth of the matter is that horrors like what happened at that school bring eyeballs, and eyeballs bring advertisers, and advertisers bring money. I don't think that equation goes through the minds of journalists in the heat of the moment, but you can bet your sweet ass that the senior editors and the publishers are always aware of that. They certainly aren't out there promoting violence or mass shootings, but tragedy and controversy sell and clarity often helps to avoid tragedy and diminish controversy. In that sense, clarity is often their enemy and confusion and controversy their friend. Business is business for them just as much as any corporation in the country.
Finally, there's us. When politicians and activists start talking about how violent America is, many Americans recognize the disconnect with their own life, and the lives of family and friends, and dismiss the problem as BS. It would be better if we were to care about the real problem and demand that our leaders focus on those violent hellholes, but reality is that the vast majority of Americans are never touched by that violence. When they talk to their various representatives, if they talk to them at all, I think it's understandable that the violence in some far away neighborhood is going to be the last thing on their mind.
As far as properly defining the problem of mass killings, the biggest obstacles there are the gun control groups who hijack mass shootings to promote broad and controversial gun control measures. They are easy to spot, because their proposals(short of mass confiscation) would have done nothing to stop whatever current or future mass killing from happening. That's because for them it's not about reducing the risk of mass killings, it's about gun control.
That's not say that there's no place for discussing the role of the NRA and other gun rights groups, but they might be less defensive if the gun control groups would be less aggressive and try to build some trust(though the latter is probably now impossible today).
Rob made a good comment this afternoon about people defining problems in such a way that their team wins regardless if the problem actually gets fixed. That's what an awful lot of it boils down to and what I'm trying to avoid here. I think there are some meaningful things we can do to address both violence and mass killings in the US, but we need to have the courage and the integrity to be honest about what problem is being addressed and what kind of impact any given proposal would have. It's a shame, but I think there's is very little chance of that happening.
Recent Comments