In the aftermath of the horrific events in Las Vegas, today’s post suggests that Americans should emulate the British “stiff upper lip” attitude and should work to keep calm in the face of mass violence. This is not easy, given how horrific such events are, and of course such a stoic reaction will likely be unrealistic for those who actually had loved ones impacted by the tragedy. Furthermore, this proposed sense of calm should not involve an illogical and inhumane degree of apathy and complacency in the aftermath of outrageous violence. Nor does it suggest an abandonment of the desire to find policy solutions to address and mitigate the problem of gun violence.
Developing a state of emotional level-headedness and intellectual open-mindedness in the aftermath of such violence would help check our understandable desire for immediate justice with acknowledgement of the reality that law enforcement’s investigation of such events takes time, and that jumping to conclusions about “guilty parties” in the heat of the moment may lead to unjust and unfair conclusions. Furthermore, the attitude I propose acknowledges that mass shootings are a social problem that will take considerable time and strenuous efforts to mitigate, and faces the tragic reality that even with our best efforts, they may never be completely eliminated from modern society.
Above all, the mindful perspective to mass violence recognizes that however emotionally satisfying it may be to lash out at those who politically oppose one’s ideal solutions to the crisis, in reality, pointing fingers at fellow citizens (other than the actual perpetrators of the violence) is not only bad for the American social fabric, but it is also usually counterproductive to the cause of persuading people to adopt one’s favored political reforms.
Discussing the technology of modern weaponry is a departure from this blog’s usual focus on Internet-related issues, but it is another area where the technological advances of recent decades has transformed modern society. Like nuclear weapons at the nation-state level, firearms capable of killing or injuring large numbers of people at a more individualized level has proliferated. We may hope to restrict access to these technologies and to prevent bad actors (such as the mentally ill) from obtaining them, but we will likely never succeed in eliminating these weapons as long as the knowledge for how to make or obtain them is widespread (which is inevitable in a digital age).
Like it or not, American laws have allowed individuals to buy semi-automatic weapons, and even weapons under legal restrictions in the U.S. can often be obtained on the black market with no strings attached. There are millions of guns in America, and in many regions gun ownership is a social norm and even a statement of cultural self-affirmation.
As with a heavy-handed attempt to deport all illegal immigrants, an attempt to confiscate all potential assault weapons (even if this effort was deemed legal and constitutional) might create more violence, oppression, and harm than it would prevent, particularly if it involved law enforcement bursting into every American household in a search for contraband.
Millions of Americans suffer from mental illness, and after the mid-20th Century de-institutionalization of the American mental health system (described in E. Fuller Torrey’s provocative book on this topic), many of these people are not under regular supervision by mental health professionals. Like the gun ownership issue, that problem will take considerable time and effort to solve.
Even with legal restrictions in place, some of these mentally unstable people will obtain weapons. For the record, I happen to think more stringent gun control measures and a more robust mental health system could significantly reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States, but even these policy changes would probably not completely eliminate them. After all, there have been mass shootings in countries with more progressive gun control and mental health policies.
This being the case, it would be better if Americans learned to respond to mass shootings with more solidarity and less partisan positioning and sensationalism. For example, while it may seem that after a mass shooting is the ideal time to make the case for gun control, a Psychology Today article by Prof. Clay Routledge notes that it is at such heated moments that gun owners may be the least persuadable. After all, “dozens and dozens of studies derived from terror management theory clearly indicate that after people are reminded of their mortality they become more defensive of and dogmatic about their worldviews. In other words, thinking about death makes people’s attitudes more rigid, less open to change.” This suggests that mass shootings temporarily make both gun control advocates and gun rights supporters more militant and less open to persuasion by the other side.
Indeed, gun owners are likely to think that the occurrence of such acts of mass violence makes possessing firearms even more necessary for self-protection in a dangerous world. At such moments, they will be even more paranoid and fearful of attempts to restrict them than usual. Understanding the mindset of gun owners is necessary if you ever hope to persuade them to support moderate gun control. Furthermore, blanket statements blaming the kinds of Americans who support gun rights for mass shootings will likely make them angrier and more defensive, particularly if those comments could be interpreted as suggesting that law-abiding gun owners are complicit in the acts of violent madmen.
The 2005 film “Batman Begins” involves villains who attempt to envelop Gotham City in a fear-inducing gas, in hopes that the city will “tear itself apart through fear.” Sadly, the social media responses to mass shootings often promote panic and rage instead of social solidarity. Like the League of Shadows in the fictional Batman films, our all-too-real political adversaries such as Russia love exploiting our political, religious, regional, and racial divisions in an attempt to weaken, destabilize, and “tear apart” the United States. Too often, we Americans fall into their trap and make their work easier.
Bloggingheads founder Robert Wright wrote an insightful article in Vox about how political opponents of Donald Trump should try to use mindfulness techniques to reduce their own outrage, anxiety, and demonization toward political opponents. After all, raging at and berating the unconverted may be cathartic, but it rarely changes minds. Calmness, confidence, and work on behalf of a positive vision are usually a more constructive method of persuading apolitical people, moderate fence-sitters, and even opponents to support your political goals.
This mindfulness principle is true not only for anti-Trump activists, but for people of all political persuasions. It’s better to come together in sympathy and solidarity, to find a positive way to respond to tragedy, such as by donating money or blood, than to engage in irresponsible speculation and recriminations against political opponents. The already-frayed social fabric of this country will be better repaired if we respond to mass shootings by standing side by side and working together, rather than getting in each other’s faces with our rhetorical swords drawn.
There are some reforms that might help address the problem that might provoke less partisan passion than the gun issue, such as the proposals by Zeynep Tufekci, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, that news organizations give less sensational coverage to these shootings. She particularly emphasizes giving less attention to the shooter’s identity and his methods. Many of these shooters are men who feel powerless and ignored, and they seek a sense of significance and fame by engaging in appalling violence to publicize their grievances against the world. By denying them the attention they seek, Tufekci suggests that we may decrease the incentive for other troubled individuals to engage in copycat behavior.
Of course, media reform alone may be insufficient to solve the problem, and common-sense gun restrictions probably are an important piece of the puzzle of reducing mass violence. The problem remains that the “gun debate” is one of the most politically polarizing issues in modern American life. If one is passionate about gun control as a potential antidote to mass shootings, it may not be productive to advocate it through angry social media posts or arguments with family members and neighbors. It would probably be more effective to donate money to advocacy organizations and to join lobbying efforts that engage in the difficult, long-term work of pushing through legislative reforms at various levels of government. It may not have the same immediate emotional gratification as political rants that express your anger about a tragic crime, and it may require a greater personal sacrifice of time and money, but it would be more effective in accomplishing the political goals of gun control supporters.
Sadly, the weapons technology that allows disturbed individuals to engage in mass shootings will not be tamed anytime soon. It would be a tragedy if Americans responded to this fact by shunning public events like sports games, political speeches, and rock concerts, which are among the most satisfying group rituals of modern civilization. Hopefully we can learn to respond to the inevitable occasional outbreaks of violence with more courage, stoicism, and solidarity, and less fear, paranoia, and infighting.