If not gun control, what then is the answer?

Mainpage

This article is a response to the Friday, April 20, 2007 Los Angeles Times article of James Q. Wilson 'Gun control isn't the answer'.

It was offered to the LA Times but no reply came forth. Admittedly, it was poorly written. A new version is posted below.

If not gun control, what then is the answer?

James Q. Wilson responded in his article 'Gun control isn't the answer' to gun related tragedy at Virginia Tech, 2007. After listing a few internal and foreign sources of criticism on America’s gun policy he proceeds with examining the feasibility of gun control, its possible effects and some pros of gun possession. He concludes that the identification of volatile personalities should be more vigorously pursued instead of opting for an easy solution.

Though Mr. Wilson in his article presents arguments that support his case of gun control not being the answer, he does not for his solution to put more effort in the identification of volatile personalities. Without exploring the merits of this solution it too seems an easy off the batt policy choice.

Basics

Let's get back to the basics. The problem we face seems obvious. Dysfunctional individuals committing violent acts that leave deep wounds in a community. A salient fact is that the vast majority of these events occur in the US. Another fact is the prevalence of guns in the US. However, guns by themselves do not kill people. Killing is a human action. Perhaps these violent acts are the symptoms of an underlying complex problem.
Guns have always been part of the fabric of America. The right to bear arms is a historic right. The Canadians have guns too and far less problems. However they also have much stricter laws in place. 

People make easy conclusions and like quick solutions, no matter the complexity. Various camps can be detected in the discussion about gun control. Proposals range from banning guns entirely to arming teachers. A solution we all agree on seems far off. One thing is clear though, everyone wants these horrible mass shootings to stop. Another is that the vast majority of citizens would rather see guns in the hands of good people then bad.

In order to get to a solution that works we must acknowledge the fact that the issue of gun violence is more complex than it seems at face value. We first must understand the issue before we can propose a solution. We can start by asking basic questions in order to develop a broad perspective of the problem. What, when, why, how, who, were?

Why does U.S. society produce so many gun related incidents? What in any society produces these kinds of people? Who are these people and what happened to them? Has the problem always existed or is it relatively new?

A complete analysis is beyond the resources of this writer. Instead I will mention a few obvious factors and show that from these we can already refine our view of the problem and it's possible solutions from that obtained in the article of James Q. Wilson.

Factors

Western society is based on capitalism. This system works via competition and enterprise as the main engines for creating material wealth. Note that these forces are not limited to the labor market or industry, one can clearly see they are a major part of social life as well. There right clothes, the right attitude, the right connections, the best body, you name it. It’s all on MTV. The good looking winner that takes charge is placed on top of the idolization charts, while the below average loser that lacks initiative is at the very bottom.

In the U.S. competition and success have become virtues by themselves. Cooperation and failure have become vices. For example socialism has become a dirty word. Evidence of this can be found in popular media output, and in the very structure of U.S. society. Compared to Europe for example, the U.S. has few social and economic safety nets and few labor laws protecting the rights of the employee.

Mentioned often in Comedy Centrals' The Daily Show and HBO's This Week Tonight is the subject of taxation versus income and the attitudes of all parties concerned. Taxation is as much the result of competition among social groups as it is of logic and goodwill (T.S. Adams, Ideals and Idealism in Taxation, 1928, The American Economic Review). Since the 80's the rich have secured more income, more capital, lower tax rates and more power as a litigant in the taxation process. The middle class and the poor, almost exactly the opposite. However common people interviewed about the idea of increased taxation with increased wealth, were opposed to this idea. The root cause as supposed in these programs, was that Americans believe in a winner society, and expect themselves to be one of the future winners – completely disregarding the fact that being rich depends on a large group being not - and their chances being slim to none.

In Europe, socialism is an accepted influence on policy making. The idea of the group combining some but not all of the resources of it's individuals to greater effect seems logical. The fact that we all may fall on hard times, often due to forces beyond our control, seems self evident when flipping through the pages of history. Help from the group seems the logical solution and the moral thing to do. Helping makes you part of society.
In the Netherlands being rich is viewed from a very neutral perspective, or so we assume.. It's OK to be rich, to have wealth, houses, cars, companies. However you should not flash it too much, and we can't all be winners. Part of your success comes from commoners. The people making and buying your products. Consequently the richer you get, the higher the tax rate. In addition, we can't all be born with a golden spoon in our mouth. Every person should have access to quality education and healthcare, no matter one's social economic standing. Education gives an individual the opportunity to determine one's own fate. It maximises your chances.

In strong contrast, socialism has been a curse word in American politics for almost it's entire existence. The idea of the government giving money away to those in need seems sacrilege too many on the right. Teaching a man to fish free of charge seems a mute phrase from a long forgotten book. Schools and students do not have equal access to funds and teachers. Telling a unfortunate person to just work hard seems to be the only rhetoric that goes around. If you are poor, it is your own fault. Those who want handouts are moochers. Any opposition to this ideology is marked by a special curse word that mutes all conversation: socialism. Example: the discussions of ObamaCare. Surprising attitudes for a Christian nation.

In summary, Americans place less value on social behavior in the interest of the community and more on individual strive.

Next, western society is based on individualism. We value the individual, the person as a single valuable entity capable of making its own choices independent of others and responsible for its own accomplishments. With that comes a respect for personal space, even extending towards our children who are largely allowed to live in their own individual world at school and on social media. Varying from parent to parent there can be little or no oversight at what actually goes on in the childs social world. These social worlds can be highly competitive and cruel at times, and people do find themselves in the outcast spot, or are simply ignored all together if they can’t play the social game. After school, individuals may face similar circumstances at college and work.

Furthermore we usually live in a single family household with few relatives having any strong presence in our lives. Most relatives have few options for social control, if any. The Mom and Dad of the modern familiy are often at work.
In combination with the ideal of the beautiful achiever this individualism without oversight can have devastating results.

Asian societies in comparison are largely based on collectivism where the individual is subservient to the group. Family values and loyalty play key roles. Every individual is subject to a high degree of social control in the extended family, at school and at work. Any developing problems can be detected and dealt with early. Competition in countries like China is as strong as in the US, if not stronger. However this competition is mostly limited to economic, scholastic and gymnastic achievement, not so much social achievement. There is little pressure to be a cool winner in the way we perceive one, and a lot of pressure to be an athletic nerd, devoted to family goals. Those individuals that do suffer a breakdown and slip through the detection grid, often commit suicide. One could ask the question that if guns were available, would they act out against others?
In summary, competition among western teens is more focused on the social sphere, while in Asia it is more focused on scholastic achievement. There is also a higher degree of social control.

In all societies mental illness exists. However, the degree of detection and the availability of treatment varies. Compared to many European countries and Canada, the US has less effective detection, and lower availability of care.

The history of gun ownership in North America is longer than the history of the United States. The pioneers had access to firearms. They were used for defense and hunting. The militia played an important role in overthrowing the British rule, and in the civil war. Gun ownership by citizens has been part of the fabric of the nation, and has played important historical roles. Gunshops are everywhere and acquisition is easy. Anyone can get a gun, no matter their criminal or mental health records, let alone their possible extremist views (Aaron Smith, 2015, money.cnn.com). I have no data on gun violence in Canada. I do know however that non-criminal gun related incidents are more common in Finland and Germany, where guns are available to the public, than in the Netherlands, where they are not.

Doing the math

Were there are winners there are losers. Opposite to success there is failure, and when the world around you values success to an extreme level, failure can create high negative emotions such as stress and depression. These troubled individuals are created because of the stress of living in a competitive society, sometimes in combination with preexisting psycho-pathological factors or extremist views. Because of a lack of early detection and prevention they simply slip through the cracks of society and are allowed to fester in their own misery until they explode. Their existence is a function of society; the way we live together, the demands we make of each other and our willingness to help. Simply put, the problem will not dissolve by means of any single quick ‘solution’.

The fact that guns are widely available to anyone in the U.S. is certainly a facilitating factor. In other societies individuals like the student at Virginia Tech might exist, but being unable to procure a firearm they would have to act out their frustration using less lethal weaponry. However as we now can see guns are certainly not the sole cause of the problem.

What do we have available in solutions if any?

For one we could decide to drastically alter our society. Instead of 'capitalist values' we could get the media and school systems to put more stress on social values. Parents could be advised on how to raise their children. Churches could preach the way of Christ more diligently to their congregations. Large scale social safety nets could be put in place, both economic in nature and in ways of mental health care. Nobody gets left alone and no one will have to feel dissatisfied with their environment. That would most likely significantly reduce the number of violent (non-criminal) persona.

However we could ask ourselves if it would really be wise to so alter our society just to solve this problem. Are there any benefits to the way it currently is?

The competitiveness of American society in all facets of life does make it the strongest nation in the world, leading in most economic and scientific fields. The competitive nature of its people provides it with a constant supply of new initiatives and improvements to the quality of life, even if this quality is not always widely available.

The cost of a complete overhaul of US society solely to eradicate the occurrence of gun incidents such as one at Virginia Tech would be high, both in terms of economics and freedom. Also it would not be a quick solution. It would however be feasible. If Canada can do it, it is likely the US can also do it.

This writer then too arrives at Mr. Wilson’s quality of solutions. We know roughly where the problem stems from. We also know not a lot can be done to prevent it completely, unless we are willing to change a great deal. The cost of realizing a trouble free society in combination with public gun ownership would be high.

Creating and improving detection systems to deal with the fallout of our individualistic society seems far more cost effective than alteration. However, this might be more difficult than at first glance. You can't simple install something that operates like a metal detector for mental health in every public place. Even if that were possible, it still would be expensive, and you can't secure streets with it.

Other cost effective solutions would be effective background checks and fixing the gunshow loophole. We could make safe gun storage mandatory, perhaps even require owners to store their guns at local collection points, such as shooting ranges.

Ultimately, completely banning guns from a society of 300.000.000 people and 300.000.000 guns would solve the problem and still be less complex than changing society.

Conclusions

Gun violence is a complex issue. We can't have gun ownership without incidents in our current society. There are a number of easy solutions available that would stem the flow of incidents. The hard solution could achieve a more peaceful society in harmony with public gun ownership. However fears can be raised that we might lose our competitive edge if we govern and act more like ''socialists''. Perhaps the true question we need to examine is this: is there a way to have a nicer society without losing our edge?

Addendum

This text is only intended to encourage thinking about the issue, and appreciate it's complexity. Not all questions are raised, not all factors are discussed, not all answers are given. Such as: has the problem always existed or is it relatively new? What in any society produces these kinds of people? Who are these people and what happened to them? Food for thought.

Mainpage