Recent events have once again resurrected the gun debate, namely whether or not people should have them. Unlike many of my Facebook friends, I don't see this as improper (though perhaps we should wait until the bodies are in the ground before we use them for political points). The way we can turn a negative event into a positive outcome is to examine the event, determine its causes, and decide on a plan of action to prevent it in the future. That formula is as true for a workplace accident as it is for a schoolyard shooting. Most of the issue with post-tragedy discussion, though, stems from an emotional response to a terrible act. We want desperately to do something, and so we end up doing anything, just to appease our feelings. This is folly. So, the purpose of this post is to frame the argument in a rational way so that we can at least have discussions that are meaningful.
Humans are violent creatures. Our superior aggression is one of the primary factors in our emergence as the top species on the planet. It is why it is Homo Sapiens, and not the Neanderthals, roam the Earth as its unchallenged master. This capacity for violence is an innate part of who we are. Of course, being indiscriminately violent would not be terribly conducive to building a world-spanning empire. Fortunately, evolution equipped us with a mechanism of restraint. Humans don't naturally like killing other humans. Hell, most don't even like conflict.
If this seems like a contradiction, consider the millions of Americans, even in the most violent of cities, that manage to get through their lives and never harm another person intentionally. Even bullies and bruisers tend not to fight to kill, but to intimidate and prove dominance. Normal humans under normal conditions do not mortally wound other humans. It isn't in our nature. (For more interesting reading on this subject I recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Grossman) Clearly, though, there are times when this "fail safe" fails. Soldiers are trained to suppress this instinct under certain stimuli, sociopaths have no such block, and even normal humans under extreme duress can tap into their more aggressive natures.
Before it is even brought up, "violent video games" do not cause violent behavior. In fact, the more access to video games a country has, the less likely they are to experience gun violence (with America being a statistical outlier).
Another cause is the ease with which killings can occur when guns are employed. One of the reasons firearms have completely changed the world of warfare (aside from their valuable intimidation functions) is that they enable practically anyone to kill anyone else, regardless of their relative size or strength. Superior aggression will lead the more violent party in a conflict to victory, all other things being equal, but I think there is little doubt that the body count of a school stabbing would be much lower than a similar shooting.
So, we have two causes:
Other factors could be considered: What was the child's upbringing, what was going on his life, was he bullied, was he loved, etc., etc., etc. I would argue, though, that all of these factors are really subsets of issue #1.
But just identifying these causes isn't enough. We must also decide what parts of them we can change or mitigate. Much as a scientist trying to design a better rocket would likely not entertain "lower the gravitational constant" as a solution because it is beyond his power to alter, we must identify what we be changed.
I think it is self evident that the violent nature of humanity has been a constant for millennia and while it may be a noble goal to change this for the future, it is unlikely that any effort of ours will alter this in the foreseeable future. The mechanism that controls it, however, has been demonstrated to be malleable.
It is unrealistic to believe that we will lower the effectiveness of firearms (either by changing the firearm itself or equipping every citizen with armor), or banish them from existence entirely. We could conceivably change the ease with which they could be obtained, though.
Now that we've got a good handle on what we're trying to solve, we can finally move on to the next step in problem solving: Find solutions and compare all alternatives. I emphasize the word all, because the biggest mistake I see happening is the shouted refrain "We can't just keep the status quo! Something must change!" Once again, this sound and feels good to say, but the baseline for any analysis is always option 1: Do nothing. Even if it is not pleasant, if you do not allow the current state of things to be an option then you lack a frame of reference with which to judge other options.
From this point, the solutions we determine are up for debate. I'm not going to set down exactly what I think should happen step by step, because frankly I don't know. Here, though, are some points to consider:
Humans are violent creatures. Our superior aggression is one of the primary factors in our emergence as the top species on the planet. It is why it is Homo Sapiens, and not the Neanderthals, roam the Earth as its unchallenged master. This capacity for violence is an innate part of who we are. Of course, being indiscriminately violent would not be terribly conducive to building a world-spanning empire. Fortunately, evolution equipped us with a mechanism of restraint. Humans don't naturally like killing other humans. Hell, most don't even like conflict.
If this seems like a contradiction, consider the millions of Americans, even in the most violent of cities, that manage to get through their lives and never harm another person intentionally. Even bullies and bruisers tend not to fight to kill, but to intimidate and prove dominance. Normal humans under normal conditions do not mortally wound other humans. It isn't in our nature. (For more interesting reading on this subject I recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Grossman) Clearly, though, there are times when this "fail safe" fails. Soldiers are trained to suppress this instinct under certain stimuli, sociopaths have no such block, and even normal humans under extreme duress can tap into their more aggressive natures.
Before it is even brought up, "violent video games" do not cause violent behavior. In fact, the more access to video games a country has, the less likely they are to experience gun violence (with America being a statistical outlier).
Another cause is the ease with which killings can occur when guns are employed. One of the reasons firearms have completely changed the world of warfare (aside from their valuable intimidation functions) is that they enable practically anyone to kill anyone else, regardless of their relative size or strength. Superior aggression will lead the more violent party in a conflict to victory, all other things being equal, but I think there is little doubt that the body count of a school stabbing would be much lower than a similar shooting.
So, we have two causes:
- Innate violence of humans, and the failure of the mechanism that controls it.
- Firearms function as the "great equalizer" of men.
Other factors could be considered: What was the child's upbringing, what was going on his life, was he bullied, was he loved, etc., etc., etc. I would argue, though, that all of these factors are really subsets of issue #1.
But just identifying these causes isn't enough. We must also decide what parts of them we can change or mitigate. Much as a scientist trying to design a better rocket would likely not entertain "lower the gravitational constant" as a solution because it is beyond his power to alter, we must identify what we be changed.
I think it is self evident that the violent nature of humanity has been a constant for millennia and while it may be a noble goal to change this for the future, it is unlikely that any effort of ours will alter this in the foreseeable future. The mechanism that controls it, however, has been demonstrated to be malleable.
It is unrealistic to believe that we will lower the effectiveness of firearms (either by changing the firearm itself or equipping every citizen with armor), or banish them from existence entirely. We could conceivably change the ease with which they could be obtained, though.
Now that we've got a good handle on what we're trying to solve, we can finally move on to the next step in problem solving: Find solutions and compare all alternatives. I emphasize the word all, because the biggest mistake I see happening is the shouted refrain "We can't just keep the status quo! Something must change!" Once again, this sound and feels good to say, but the baseline for any analysis is always option 1: Do nothing. Even if it is not pleasant, if you do not allow the current state of things to be an option then you lack a frame of reference with which to judge other options.
From this point, the solutions we determine are up for debate. I'm not going to set down exactly what I think should happen step by step, because frankly I don't know. Here, though, are some points to consider:
- We can attempt to strengthen the "violence control mechanism" through better educations about mental health and access to psychiatric care, potentially nipping problems in the bud. Should this be the domain of government? I would submit that the way to fix this is by fixing society, which is possible if difficult. I doubt a government mandate that we all drop the stigma attached to mental health problems would work.
- Unfortunately, even the best system in the world will inevitably miss some. Those that fall through the cracks will go on to be violent, and when someone is intent on harming their fellow man, words often are not enough. Sometimes, the only way to negotiate with violence is with the overwhelming application of violence. The change necessary is that the source of "anti-harm" violence must be nearby and capable of eliminating the threat. Relying on the police alone for this job is, I think, untenable. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
- Outlawing something does not necessarily make it unattainable. If you wish proof, google "Drive-by's in London" (which is a gun-free zone) or look at the statistics for drug use. Laws only restrict those who obey them, and by and large those who obey laws are not the threat. That isn't to say that laws do not have a place, but it is to say that you cannot turn to a new law as some sort of panacea for every problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment