The mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas on Tuesday (24 May 2022) joins an all too long list of incidents in which a deranged—morally, if not clinically—young man—and it is mostly young men—enters a space with a group of people and murders them for reasons that are often difficult to achieve specificity on, but in general involve achieving infamy and settling grievance. The reactions have become predictable, with Democrats in this case calling for bans on this and restrictions on that weapon and Republicans suggesting arming teachers and turning schools into secure facilities along the lines of a prison. One criticism shared across the political spectrum has been directed at the response of law enforcement when the attack came to the attention of officers who then allowed the killer to carry on his rampage inside the school building for something like an hour after they came to the conclusion that they were dealing with a hostage situation or of a suspect having barricaded himself in, rather than one of an active shooter. This is worth attending to, but the problem, of course, is that when the police intervene, the killing has already begun.
As I said, Democrats have been coming out en masse to call for new bans on so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than ten rounds, among other proposals, as at least some kind of solution to mass shootings. The AR-15 seizes their particular attention, given its popularity in this country, but the reality is that handguns are used far more often than any type of rifle in mass shootings. With regard to the claim that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004 produced a reduction in such incidents, the evidence is unclear, though it points somewhat in the direction of showing the assertion to be false. However, there has been a spike in mass shootings in recent years—since 2012, and it is difficult to avoid noting the correlation with the second half of Obama’s presidency and Trump’s term in that office, the latter period having seen the greatest number of incidents by year since 1982, with the exception of 2020 as a consequence of the pandemic.
So I will address that possible connection now. Two events happening at the same time are not necessarily causally linked, but I do find a significance in Trump’s violent rhetoric and bigotry against minorities and anyone whom he sees as an enemy. Trumpist fascism, for all its incompetence, has turned up the dial on tensions in America. That being said, it will probably take decades for social scientists to determine to what extent the hateful spewing of a president and his political party can be responsible for rates of violence. And since mass shootings began to increase in frequency during Obama’s second term, endemic racism stoked by the country having a black president must also be taken into account as a possible driver of acts that would be called terrorism if they were done for political ends.
The problem here is that all of this is too vague to be a guide to any action. In a country that is increasingly diverse in its racial makeup, we are going to have politicians, including presidents, who are not white men. This is not only inevitable, but it is also good, as much as it annoys the hateful among us. We are also likely to have reactionary bigots like Trump rise to moments in the spotlight, though I would like to hope that our institutions are strong enough to stop such people from causing too much damage. Nevertheless, politicians who are the target or the instigators of violence are a fact of politics, whether we are ruled by a king, a priest, or by leaders of our own choosing. We are left still wondering what we can do about mass shootings.
I do not support the gun control approach. With something like a half a billion guns in private hands in this country and long borders that should remain open, gun control is doomed to be a burden on the law-abiding in any case, and it is a violation of basic rights. And even were we somehow able to remove all guns from ordinary Americans, gasoline, fertilizer, panel trucks, and any of an indefinite number of other substances and tools would be available to the would-be killer.
What would make sense is to give serious attention to two common characteristics among mass shooters: partner abuse and threats of violence.
In the case of the Uvalde shooter, for example, there is a long history of threats made against female acquaintances and others that escalate in detail and imminence. He is by no means alone in this. I value freedom of expression as much as gun rights, and in doing so, I recognize that a declaration that “you, specific person, should be shot” or that “I’m going to shoot this person soon” are not exercises of any right. Nor are comments that anyone ought to be raped. Statements of this kind should draw the immediate attention of various levels of law enforcement—and yes, this is the kind of thing that would be appropriate to put on a red flag list after judicial review. An armed society may be a polite society, as Robert Heinlein put it, but a lawful society should also provide a minimal condition of civility that at least makes it clear that threatening criminal violence against one’s fellow human beings is not within the pale.
In the case of violence against a romantic partner, we need major reform across law enforcement. According to the research of journalist Alex Roslin, cops commit acts of violence against a partner at rates much higher than the general population, leaving them open to an accusation of treating other abusers with a “boys will be boys” approach. This lax attitude has improved over time, but the reality is that there is a strong connection between mass shooters and domestic violence, with some sixty percent having a history of such crimes prior to moving on to multiple murder—a history that either has not resulted in conviction or did not get entered into the appropriate databases, since mass shooters typically pass background checks when they buy their guns. If we make it clear that beating up a romantic partner will result in harsh penalties just as will making threats against people generally, we would go a long way toward forestalling mass shootings.
If in addition we were to guarantee healthcare—including addiction treatment—higher education, and a living wage for everyone, we would see rates of violence comparable to those in Europe, rates cited by gun control advocates without realizing what the actual causes of a peaceful society are. That may be too much for right wingers to swallow for now. Perhaps they at least will like the law-and-order solutions that I offered here—enough, anyway, to get them done and thereby reduce the pressure to enact sweeping gun control laws.
"If in addition we were to guarantee healthcare—including addiction treatment—higher education, and a living wage for everyone, we would see rates of violence comparable to those in Europe, rates cited by gun control advocates without realizing what the actual causes of a peaceful society are."
I understand you're coming at this from a more left-wing perspective, but I think you're at risk of equating correlation with causation on these factors.
Many of the larger U.S. cities have versions (sometimes very well established versions) of many of those initiatives, yet we still see concentrations of crime and violence there. Based on the data I've seen for Britain, the likelihood of involvement in a non-firearm violent incident is higher than the U.S. (about 2.5 times higher, IIRC), and from a purely anecdotal point-of-view, my experience (from Ireland, not the UK) I've been amazed at the utter lack of what I call "causal violence" here in the U.S.
Coming from a nation where it's not at all unusual to see such violence as a normal part of one's day, it's jarring to have lived in the U.S. for near 20 years now without witnessing even a single instance of violent public action. Ireland has many if not all of the items on the checklist above, as does the UK, yet violence is clearly still an issue.
Do we have some data that supports the claim that these initiatives are directly responsible for large scale drops in violence?
"...turning schools into secure facilities along the lines of a prison."
Or maybe like we protect banks, airports, hospitals, government buildings and the schools that politicians' kids attend?
Those "prisons"?
It's not helpful to buy into the frankly bizarre hypocrisy of the gun control groups who claim to be concerned with the safety of kids in schools, and who'll support metal detectors at the entrances and "no guns" signs, but who refuse to take an action that seems to be working pretty well in most all of those other places. Do Resource Officers count as prison wardens now, or a vital element in keeping kids safe?
I guess some schoolkids are just more important than the others.