"prayers for the victims and their families"

[mamselle]

Possibly Gabby Gifford is among the members of Congress being referred to, as someone directly affected by gun-inflicted violence.

M.

[secundem_artem]

Here's how this looks to someone who is not American born, but has lived here  in the land of the screed and the home of the rave for 20 odd years.  I think I understand most of the American context, but even so, I suspect I see it differently than most US born.  I don't intend to inflame passions and arguments, but it's possible I may do so.

In my sub-discipline, we are taught to look for upstream causes for problems.  Gun control proposals, trigger locks, liability insurance reforms etc.  are more of a down stream solution.

American culture has always made it clear that this is the most important country in the world.  As a consequence, there is no small number of Americans that have an over-inflated sense of their own importance.

Globalization has done much to winnow populations into winners and losers.  Social media allows winners to find and associate with other winners and losers can find losers.

Between Facebook, Instagram and other social platforms, a whole lot of social media is people screaming to get attention, to go viral, to be an influencer.  Social media took the old childhood cry of,"Hey Mom!  Look at me!" and functionally weaponized it.

Losers with a sense of grievance and with the over-inflated sense of importance noted above, will associate with like minded fellows (they're nearly all white men) and discuss a means of redress.

Gun violence and gun availability are pretty much baked into the cake of the American character.  50 years of movies and television make it clear that guns are the solution to a whole lot of problems.  Toy guns remain a popular childhood toy and send an early message about their value to children.

Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.

The solution to this is probably going to be multi-factorial, but to my mind it should start in the primary school classroom.  If kids learn early how to resolve conflict, if they learn early that guns are not a good way to solve problems, and if our political and economic system does a better job of minimizing losers, and if we can teach kids to be critical and intelligent consumers of internet boards and social media, then perhaps we will see a positive change.  It's going to take 30 years and it may not work.

But the usual arguments we're having have clearly not worked,

I'm not holding my breath on this but it's what I have.

[mamselle]

I'd add to that the narrative of individual self-actualization projected onto "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," and the masculinist view of Manifest Destiny as described in "The Lay of the Land" and conclude that we are in the throes of what is essentially a national type of domestic violence: force, threats, and harm aimed at those who are, truly 'our own.'

M.

[pedanticromantic]

My NP's twitter feed is showing people in El Paso lining up to give blood.

Far better to line up to vote... and of course, vote for the party that promises change on this issue. The NRA has too much power over politicians.
It's so sad. The complete lack of political will to confront the NRA and do something is still shocking to me (as a non-American).

[ergative]

When can the President be charged with inciting violence?

Oh, give me a break.  Should Sanders be charged for "inciting" the violence against the Republican baseball team?  Should the Left in general be charged with "inciting" any and all violence against white people?

If you can draw the same type of direct link between Sanders' speech and the baseball team shooter, then sure! You'd have to decide upon some standard of proof---e.g., screeds that directly copy Sanders' speech, or chants of violence at Sanders' rallies, or direct appeals by Sanders to beat up protestors---but if other politicians are inciting gun violence the way Trump is, then they should be held accountable.

Maybe the fear of prosecution should some wacko shoot up a grocery store in their name will encourage them to get behind gun violence prevention.  Or at the very least it would encourage them to be more moderate in their speech, and to shut down violent tendencies in their public appearances.

I get very annoyed with people acting as if 'What if a Democrat did it?' is some sort of gotcha when I criticize Republicans. It's as if they believe that we don't really think sexual misconduct/racism/financial skullduggery/child sex trafficking/incitement to murder/obstruction of justice/treason are bad; and we just pretend to think that as an excuse to bring down the other party. It's really not. Those things are bad, no matter who does them. I'm glad Frankin stepped down, and I'm very disappointed that people laid off Ralph Northam and he's still in office. How is that hard to understand?

[writingprof]

Here's how this looks to someone who is not American born, but has lived here  in the land of the screed and the home of the rave for 20 odd years.  I think I understand most of the American context, but even so, I suspect I see it differently than most US born.  I don't intend to inflame passions and arguments, but it's possible I may do so.

In my sub-discipline, we are taught to look for upstream causes for problems.  Gun control proposals, trigger locks, liability insurance reforms etc.  are more of a down stream solution.

American culture has always made it clear that this is the most important country in the world.  As a consequence, there is no small number of Americans that have an over-inflated sense of their own importance.

Globalization has done much to winnow populations into winners and losers.  Social media allows winners to find and associate with other winners and losers can find losers.

Between Facebook, Instagram and other social platforms, a whole lot of social media is people screaming to get attention, to go viral, to be an influencer.  Social media took the old childhood cry of,"Hey Mom!  Look at me!" and functionally weaponized it.

Losers with a sense of grievance and with the over-inflated sense of importance noted above, will associate with like minded fellows (they're nearly all white men) and discuss a means of redress.

Gun violence and gun availability are pretty much baked into the cake of the American character.  50 years of movies and television make it clear that guns are the solution to a whole lot of problems.  Toy guns remain a popular childhood toy and send an early message about their value to children.

Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.

The solution to this is probably going to be multi-factorial, but to my mind it should start in the primary school classroom.  If kids learn early how to resolve conflict, if they learn early that guns are not a good way to solve problems, and if our political and economic system does a better job of minimizing losers, and if we can teach kids to be critical and intelligent consumers of internet boards and social media, then perhaps we will see a positive change.  It's going to take 30 years and it may not work.

But the usual arguments we're having have clearly not worked,

I'm not holding my breath on this but it's what I have.

This analysis is quite solid, but the phrase "let him consort with like minded fellows" seems to betray a lack of familiarity with the American political system.  Presumably we're all aware of the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama).

The issue, I think, is not whether such consorting will take place but where.  In my opinion, the Left has erred gravely by erecting a politics of racial identity but driving even the very mildest white-male group solidarity underground.  If the dudebros can't even listen to Jordan Peterson without being told that they're racist and sexist, they will simply recongregate on 8chan in relative anonymity.  If 8chan is disbanded, they will find somewhere else.  This is what happens when the Left bans the argument instead of winning it.  Merely attaching public opprobrium to a point of view doesn't eliminate it; it just ensures that the point of view will be honed out of the public eye, where civilization might have modified it.

[marshwiggle]

Merely attaching public opprobrium to a point of view doesn't eliminate it; it just ensures that the point of view will be honed out of the public eye, where civilization might have modified it.

x1000

This applies in politics, religion, and any other place where people may disagree about anything.

[mamselle]

Largely true, although the performative process of honing arguments about hatred and violence in public has a disproportionately inflammatory effect on those already so inclined, to the point of encouraging same.

Talking about peace and inclusivity probably doesn't have quite the same deleterious effect on the behavior and the mindset of others.

M.

[polly_mer]

Disclaimer: I spend a lot of professional time with military thinkers and other national-security-minded folks.  I am not a party to the actual decisions on policy, yet I do have to understand that mindset.  The following post reflects views that others here are unlikely to regularly encounter.  I provide this post in hopes that more information might help people understand why certain national/state level decisions are not made, even with good people making a lot of effort to have their voices heard by their lawmakers on the importance of being safe in public places.

Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.

When one considers the possibilities available to disrupt the workings of large portions of the US in meaningful ways for at least a year, one human being armed with the best guns money can buy is very low on the scale of disruption.

Even if the goal is a large body count to make a point that will hit the international news, one human being armed with the best military grade guns is still very low on the scale on how many bodies at one time will be downed.

Neil deGrasse Tyson took a lot of flack for pointing out how many other deaths from other preventable sources occurred over the weekend (https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/08/06/critics-say-neil-degrasse-tyson-should-stick-astrophysics-after-his-tweets-about-mass-shootings/).  However, people who do research on what's really possible for a literate human being with 3 months of planning, $500, and access to a grocery store, let alone 20-50 people who have significantly more money and actual backgrounds in some combination of military, physics, chemistry, biology, transportation, utilities production/transmission, and physical/virtual cybersecurity, will never give high priority to the downstream problem of access to guns to achieve safety in public places.

Addressing the upstream problems of why someone acts to kill many other strangers for no tactical advantage is a much better use of resources to preserve the nation's daily functionings, especially if the resources ameliorate other societal problems.  The downstream response of hardening infrastructure against attacks is a much better use of resources if the goal is to keep the daily lives of hundreds of millions of Americans humming along.

That infrastructure hardening is one reason Cybercom was elevated to the same level as Stratcom last year in recognition of the importance that cyberspace plays in normal US daily economic and other functions (http://www.dodlive.mil/2018/05/03/cybercom-to-become-dods-10th-unified-combatant-command/). 

Recent news that didn't get very much attention in the popular media, but is surely circulating in many DC and related high circles include:

• US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has been shutdown for not following protocol.  Those are the folks who work with the CDC to help keep us safe against the next pandemic  https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/cdc-shuts-down-army-labs-disease-research-66235
• The US left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as a direct result of Russia doing recent tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
• North Korea has fired two unidentified missiles, its fourth such launch in less than two weeks https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49244654

Yes, every human life lost this weekend due to violence is a tragedy.  However, gun legislation cannot be a high priority for the big-picture goal of keeping normal Americans safe to go about their lives today and the foreseeable future in a scary world with bad people who want to kill us. 

It's already illegal to kill other human beings in the US; that's why capital murder is a thing.  Another law that addresses downstream will be either ineffective due to how many guns already exist in the US in the hands of private citizens or could push someone to another step on the lethality options available to a determined someone who does a little research on how to kill a lot of people with items that are readily available for commercial sale in the US because they have other valuable uses.

[fast_and_bulbous]

I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

[polly_mer]

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

Yes, resources exist.

Those resources are better used by hardening infrastructure than by passing more gun legislation.  Most people won't be aware of that hardening, because sharing the details publicly means giving information to the very people looking for weaknesses or exploitable gaps. 

Those resources are better used by following up on reports of someone making credible threats than imposing more restrictions on the general population.  Again, sharing the details of who is watching what where and how as well as how many credible threats are neutralized every day means giving that same information to the bad guys.  When the system fails, everyone knows.  When the system quietly succeeds, the public doesn't know what resources were brought to bear to have another day of domestic peace.

The resources are better used to fix upstream problems as  secundem_artem wrote.  It's likely that those resources will not be publicly labeled as "we're addressing poverty in this area by X because that reduces domestic terrorism", but my quatloos are that's one reason certain areas get more public money than they otherwise might.  People who have good enough life circumstances tend to not go to violence.  What good enough means sometimes is "withdraw most of the government and just stop poking the sore spot daily for those folks who want to live on the remote land and be left alone".

The US government has classification guidelines because some information cannot be shared with the US people at large due to the likelihood of bad people using that information to harm the US people.  That's why the White House ignoring the process to get access to classified information was a big, big deal.  People who haven't had adequate training and have oddities in their personal/professional background are generally not allowed access because they tend not to buy into the idea of need-to-know.

[secundem_artem]

Interesting comments here. 

Writing prof - I may have worded my post awkwardly.  It's not as if I think people have to be allowed to consort with each other - I am aware of freedom of association as described in the Constitution.  Anybody who wants to consort with Jordan Peterson is free to do so.

Captain Beefheart (you know who you are) - I just thought Tyson's comments were more clumsy than anything else.  He spends his days using science/data/numbers to help people process risk and this was one example where, even though he is correct, numbers are not helpful. 

polly - It sounds like you've gone to work for Dr. Strangelove! 

I recently had the opportunity to present to "a government agency" on a topic that, on the face of it, did not appear to have much relationship to the business of that agency.  After some thought however, what I was asked to do was consistent with some of what you posted regarding upstream causes - in this case all the way upstream to the headwaters.

As for hardening infrastructure, my cynical self sees much of that as simply a function of there being very good money in doing so.  I realize that a lot of it goes unseen by us hoi polloi but such as I have seen does not inspire confidence.  They've hardened airline infrastructure to the point that it's easier to get a camera into the Kremlin than it is to get on a plane to Albuquerque.

[polly_mer]

polly - It sounds like you've gone to work for Dr. Strangelove! 

We have discussed the salt mine gap!

The airport thing is a hilarious example of wasted resources that are for show to reassure the public and to dissuade the poor planners instead of being effective based on research.  People far less frequently think about access to the water supply.

[spork]

I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."

I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??

Tyson was referring to dread risk. While some mass shootings generate lots of media headlines, publicity of and public reaction to them vary according to location, number killed, characteristics of the killer, etc. But on average there are > 10,000 gun homicides annually. Generally, no one bats an eye. So that's three 9/11s every year since 2001. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a result of policy decisions by the national government, have cost, by most estimates, somewhere between 2.5 and 5.0 trillion dollars to date. As Tyson alludes to, a big chunk of that money could have been spent much more effectively -- in terms of making the U.S. a safer, happier, more secure place, on things like immunizations, suicide prevention, reform of the criminal justice system, education, etc.

Along the lines of what secondem_artum wrote, American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road, and so has its constituent component, American white male exceptionalism. There is an interesting statement in today's IHE column by a New Jersey community college dean, about the difficulty of convincing males in their 20s and 30s to pursue higher education: "Their connections to institutions other than their families tend to be attenuated at best." The title of the column? "Guys in Basements."

[irhack]

Along the lines of what secondem_artum wrote, American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road, and so has its constituent component, American white male exceptionalism. There is an interesting statement in today's IHE column by a New Jersey community college dean, about the difficulty of convincing males in their 20s and 30s to pursue higher education: "Their connections to institutions other than their families tend to be attenuated at best." The title of the column? "Guys in Basements."

They have that phenomenon elsewhere too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori - without the mass murder (maybe, just maybe - because access to guns is more tightly controlled in other countries?)