We see it played out again and again in the news; another tragic mass shooting and more calls from activists and politicians to do something to stop the “gun violence”. Yet only a few on either side of the political aisle push for the solutions to stop the every-day gun crimes that plague our large cities and take far more victims to the grave in a matter of weeks than a whole year of mass shootings. But it is the spectacular nature of the crime that draws the attention of the public and pundits alike and many time the proposed solutions for the events split down the political spectrum. Often the Democratic view perceives the problem to be too many guns and too easy access to them while the Republican view, in order to not in any way infringe on lawful gun ownership, seek to address the problem by promoting target hardening and the use of police and the justice system to enforce exiting gun laws.
Typically, liberal Democrats would like to think that simply banning certain weapons (“assault weapons”) and their high capacity magazines will make a dent in the problem but seemingly are unaware that there are over 20 million modern sporting rifles (as second amendment advocates refer to AR 15 styled rifles) in circulation, making them difficult to eliminate. These rifles are also not used in the majority of mass shooting incidents, pistols are, but the labeling of these semiautomatic weapons as “battle rifles” and “assault weapons” would seem to paint them as easy targets for banning and thus affecting mass shootings. Preventing access to these rifles and other firearms through age limitations and “universal” background checks are seen as another way to prevent the mass shootings that have garnered so much attention but yet these proposals have little potential in stopping mass shootings let alone other criminal use of firearms. As background checks currently only apply to licensed gun dealers, trying to impose such restrictions on the private transfer of firearms to others would be difficult to enforce and likely would only provide a another hoop for lawful gun owners to jump through but would not be much of a hindrance to the criminal element. Already, most responsible gun owners who try to sell their firearms on-line make those transfers through FFLs out of a sense of responsibility and a sense of concern over being criminally and/or morally liable if the gun is misused by a restricted individual.
Adding age restrictions would seem to have a negligible effect on gun violence as individuals under 21 are already restricted from purchasing handguns Yet handguns are the most commonly used firearms relating to criminal behavior both in mass shootings and other gun violence, as opposed to rifles that account for a small percentage of all murders as it is. Overly restrictive gun laws seem to have little effect as well. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws regarding possession and sale of firearms but yet it has one of the nation’s highest murder rates. However, this call for restricting rifle purchases for those under 21 gained new impetus following the Uvalde shooting but making policy on the ideas that “this one thing” could have prevented a shooting is ill informed and constitutes legal whack-a-mole in the search for some other thing that could have prevented a shooting after it occurs.
The conservative Republican approach rightly eschews the call for rifle bans because despite the attention mass shootings get, other murder weapons, including the hands, kill more people every year than rifles do and these mass shootings like what occurred in Uvalde typically account for less than 1% of all firearm deaths in any given year. As of this current year, more than 95% of gun homicides have been shootings with only one to three victims. If the key to addressing firearm violence is not the guns but rather than individual, as well as focusing on the everyday firearm deaths and gun violence rather than on one-off events, the conservative path addresses the consistent statistics that show only a small percentage of the population are engaged in violence utilizing firearms, they are typically known to law enforcement as repeat offenders in terms of their criminal behavior, and that the geographic areas of frequent gun violence are limited in size and well known to the police. According to the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, just 4% of city blocks account for the majority of gun violence. A 2017 report by the Guardian found across the U.S., neighborhoods that contained just 1.5 % of the population accounted for 26% of gun homicides. However, in the current social climate such a focus on certain individuals and neighborhoods could be construed as over-policing in minority neighborhoods, and without modifying training and appropriate supervision and documentation, bias does become a salient issue.
But within these perspectives is an approach that ostensibly should provide common ground-that of red flag laws (RFL) that focus on mental health issues. Conservatives do want to bring attention to the fact that many mass shooters suffer from some form of mental health problem and the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Liberals see the path to this through the implementation of RFL. However, conservatives have some concerns, and rightly so, that RFL can be applied very subjectively and limit second amendment rights. Traditionally, mental illness adjudication was necessary to prevent possession of a firearm and the lower standard presented by RFL can allow for the restriction of possession, or removal of firearms, based on reports from family, friends, teachers and other non-mental health professionals. The ability to have firearms returned, and the timeline and criteria for their return, is often rendered unclear and subjective. Having some common, and not necessarily dangerous, mental health issues like depression, anxiety, or anger issues could trigger firearm removal without clear criteria on when these issues actually pose a threat and whether they have been resolved sufficiently to allow for their return. However these non-professional reports are essentially the only way that the authorities can move quickly to address individuals with mental health problems who may pose a danger to others. Vague or non-specific threats can too easily be downplayed or overlooked, as happened in Uvalde (and many other incidents) and when these threats become more concrete it may tragically be too late to enact firearm prohibitions or removals.
The most current gun legislation has tried to address the mental health issue and school safety while trying to limit the prohibition of firearms themselves. Pro-gun conservatives should see this as a win as they can claim taking part in legislation that may give the appearance of having an effect on gun violence without any real prohibitions on ownership and which encompasses a focus on target hardening at schools, which can also fail, like in Uvalde, when school personnel fail to follow safety recommendations and protocols that would have prevented the violence in the first place. However the prospect of more money for the state to address mental health issues and enhanced background checks on young adults have raised the specter of unfair limitations on some ownership.
Liberals bemoan that this new legislation did little to address reducing firearms ownership through some of their main pressure points like universal background checks and the prohibition of certain firearms. As gun ownership has increased so has the pressure to limit or reduce gun ownership with the belief that with more guns comes more violence and crime. Firearm ownership has increased during which we have seen a spike in violent crime in recent years in this country, especially in urban areas. But their belief that more guns means more crime and more mass shootings may simply be a false equivalency. This increase in ownership has been steadily climbing over the past couple decade while the violent crime rate has been dropping over the past few decades. Lawful gun ownership has continually been on the rise and not just with white males. Female and minority ownership has been on the rise, with Black females representing one of the groups with some of the largest increases in ownership in recent years. As socially aware as liberals should be, many of those with an anti-gun viewpoint seem to be missing the point on the causes of gun violence that don’t have a focus on the firearms themselves.
The problem with gun violence in general stems greatly from the social problems that plague the poor neighborhoods of large cities, namely poor educational resources lead to an uneducated populace and poverty. Low levels of education limit the opportunities for upward social movement and good employment. Limited employment workforces and opportunities translates to little incentive to invest economically in these poor neighborhoods leading to even less job opportunities. The strain that the social problems introduce into the populace manifest themselves into mental health issues like anxiety, anger, and depression. The accompanying sense of hopelessness and limited opportunities results in a loss of collective efficacy which manifests into criminal behavior as well as a “code of the street” structure that drives revenge and retribution, stemming from a distorted honor culture that views violence as the way to engender respect and preserve social status. In these conditions, attempts to limit access to firearms does little to stop street gun violence and simply provides a market for additional criminality in the form of gun trafficking.
Access to guns also would seem to have little bearing on mass shootings and gun violence in general and has more to do with both mental health and a sense of anomie. That particular form of strain constitutes a sense of separation from society and the culture at large, leaving young people adrift in a society that appears not to value them, and which being valued is increasingly difficult. When you cease to be part of society and/or view yourself as separate from society and culture the restraints on abnormal or violent behavior become increasing y difficult to recognize and accept.
That sense of anomie may be particularly salient when it comes to the issue of mass shootings. Time magazine recently posted an article examining mass shootings and the gun culture in the Philippines. The Philippines, similar to the US, suffers from poverty , corruption, drug problems, and crime in addition to an authoritarian government regime. When Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972, Filipinos were limited to one handgun and one low powered rifle, both which had to be licensed with the government. But in 2000, President Estrada lifted these bans and allowed citizens to possess as many guns as they wanted, of any type and any caliber. In 2013, some limitations were placed on ownership and carrying in public through individual licensing, such as being 21 and taking a firearms safety seminar but the average citizen could own up to 15 firearms (collectors even more) but licenses were good for 10 years.
Yet, even while not enshrined in their constitution, firearms are an important feature in the culture, and similarities to our culture at large. include relatively easy access to firearms, a high percentage of illegally owned firearms, and a high rate of homicides involving firearms. It is one of the deadliest places in Asia when it comes to firearm homicides. The Philippines murder rate involving firearms is 1 out of 100,00 compared to the US murder rate of 4 out of 100,000.
But despite this proliferation of guns and gun culture the Philippines do not experience what we typically describe as mass shootings. To be sure there have been instances of large body counts but these are connected to politics or criminal gang activities but the “angry loner” type of gun violence that we see in schools, churches, shopping malls and workplaces are very rare. The victims were rarely bystanders and homicides had more to do with monetary gain or reward in a country were a quarter of the population is below the poverty line
While this lack of mass shootings could be due somewhat to the effect of a legal system that may deal harshly with criminal use of firearms more importantly, says Philippine academic Raymund Narag, an Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University, are the powerful social factors that have a restraining effect on indiscriminate violence. They are deterred in part by hiyâ. It is a Tagalog word meaning shame or embarrassment and avoiding it and sparing one’s family and community from it is often described as a core Philippine value. The idea that someone would engage in such behavior of random wanton violence would be seen as unconscionable and a source of shame that shouldn’t be visited on the family, friends, and community of a potential shooter. As with other Asian cultures, the importance of society and culture at large are paramount and the ties to society and cultural are not to be overridden by the individual self. Narang says the strong ties of Philippine kinship means troubled individuals are more likely to be identified before they become mass shooters. In the US “if you have a problem you are expected to go seek out a mental health professional,” though it entails stigma, access difficulty and financial burden, and “are expected to divulge everything there. You don’t talk to your neighbors or your parents (because the US doesn’t have an engaged culture) where one’s problem is everyone’s problem.” Jose Clemente, a professor of social psychology at the University of the Philippines, says the difference in his country is that community is everything. “At an early age we are taught to value our families and our relationships” and that that extends on to valuing their communities and developing close-knit relationships. This then makes avoiding hiyâ an important component of being a member of society.
In looking at mental health issues in this country, the idea of community and society and what is acceptable needs greater reinforcement at a younger age, holding individuals responsible for their effect on society as part of that society, and building those close-knit relationships that act as a form of social control rather than leaving individuals to suffer from anomie, adrift in a society they have weak or distorted connections to. Attention seeking through social media is no substitute for real community connections and a lack of accountability that encompasses more than what is offered by the legal system can lead individuals to have a distorted view of self and community. Trying to fix the problems of a disturbed individual on the cusp of committing violence with a deficient mental health system is a too little too late response. Rather, instilling a sense of community, personal responsibility, and the importance of real life connections to others at a young age may be a more effective response to dealing with the problem of mass shootings.
Like this:
Like Loading...