By now, I’m sure you’ve heard about the horrible shooting in Aurora, Colorado. A few quick thoughts on the event:
(1) As tempting (and predictable) as it might be, it’s pretty unlikely that this event will motivate any kind of sweeping reform in our country’s gun laws. So I hope you weren’t expect that. It’s a losing battle. Rest assuredly, fighting assiduously to legislate the availability and purchase of assault weapons would only lead to a blossoming underground gun market. In the end, the only ones hurt by aggressive gun laws are the ones not nutty enough to shoot up a movie theater.
There is a notable shortage of strong evidence suggesting the effectiveness of aggressive gun control. Some studies have findings that are inconclusive, while other studies show how certain models work and how other models don’t; neither of which having strong enough research designs to explain the phenomenon. I know what some of you (mostly my liberal friends, I’m sure) are thinking. But I think it’s entirely possible to question the efficacy of gun control laws without necessarily conceding to the powerful gun lobbyists. Sometimes, common sense simply trumps the visceral response that comes from a mass shooting tragedy.
(2) After this story – and countless other shootings like this – I think it’s time to change the narrative as it relates to violence and cultural identity. When black people commit violent crimes, it becomes an indictment on the entire culture. Arabs who commit violent crimes are considered terrorists. When whites commitment violent crimes, it gets folded into the mental illness discussion. I will say this, isolated killings in the ‘black community’ can be considered different (to some degree) than a single, massive killing in a place like Aurora. Perhaps that motivates the perceptions and takeaways from the incidents. But I suspect there’s more to it.
(3) As a student of public policy, I tend to question the sensationalized discussions that come immediately after a tragic episode of violence like the one in Aurora. The shooting in Colorado was horrible, to be sure. But gun violence occurs every single day in this country. This shooting will only be the latest in the file away in the national media’s frenzy. But people will die today at the hands of a gun. Per capita, my hometown of Flint is considered the most violent city in the entire country, where homicides are on pace to break our annual record. There were over 250 homicides right in President Obama’s old backyard of Chicago. Philadelphia has clocked over 200 homicides. None of this has captured the country’s attention. I suspect this is the due to two things: first, most violence takes place over an extended amount of time, rather than in one mass killing and second, the fact that most of those victims are African-American men in urban areas. The issues contributing to this epidemic of violence (poverty, racial isolation, insufficient resources to address mental health, and lack of jobs, an absence of educational and economic opportunities) are socially systemic and can’t be solved by gun control laws.
(4) If it ain’t guns doing the killing, something else will. As I just mentioned, save the occasional Aurora, most homicides take place one at a time. Often in those cases, something other than a gun is used. Many of these killings were stabbings. Or vehicular. Or strangulation. Or beatings. Or guns small firearms. All that said, shaping the narrative around assault weapons and gun control may help to reduce the number of random and mass killings. But it won’t do a thing to address individual killings, which continue to grow.
Thing is: I ‘m not against sensible gun control. I agree that it is a very necessary thing. However, I AM against the mechanized and predictable policy discussions that always seem to emerge after a mass shooting. Supporting gun control should not preclude advocacy of other responses to violence. Conservatives need to ease up on the defending all gun rights, especially since it’s clear that even though guns don’t kill, people with guns do. Liberals don’t have to always subscribe to their failed policies either. Perhaps it’s time for us to rethink longstanding policies to accurately reflect AND address today’s climate. I don’t claim to have the answers here. But I can identify the ideological problems pretty easily. Based on that, I’ll end my rant on this note: even if gun control can help in curbing some violence, it’s certainly not the only viable solution.
(5) Side note: I saw the Batman movie last weekend myself. The sheer awesomeness of the movie aside, I’ll admit I found myself occasionally wondering at which point of the flick the shooting took place. I imagined what scene those victims were watching the moment before they experienced undoubtedly one of the most frightening things in their lives. I shuddered a couple of times.
My thoughts and prayers are with the folks in Aurora and every person/place impacted by violence; whether the country is paying attention to you or not.
- ACL
Hey Dre,
A lot of great points here as unusual. For some strange reason ( I could guess why) the press always focuses on the guns and ignores the bombs like the ones that James Holmes had in his car and home. In the Columbine Shootings, the two losers had 95 BOMBS! Yet the media ignored it for the most part and the Michael Moore propaganda movie “Bowling for Columbine” walked right past it. They see what they want to see and promote what they want to promote. I have a question; why is it that when Muslim terrorists attack us we’re very concerned as to why they are so angry at us, but when young white males go off like this we never seem to ask or care what’s got them so angry. We just write them off as nutcases or start blaming guns or videos. Are we afraid of the answer?
Hey HC,
“I have a question; why is it that when Muslim terrorists attack us we’re very concerned as to why they are so angry at us, but when young white males go off like this we never seem to ask or care what’s got them so angry. We just write them off as nutcases or start blaming guns or videos. Are we afraid of the answer?”
My only guess (and this might be a stretch, considering the Columbine gang) is that a lone gunman like this Holmes nut is not affiliated with an organization with an agenda, thereby making his actions more psychotic in nature; as opposed to him being a terrorist. But I’m being nice here. I’d call that little bastard a terrorist in heartbeat…and torture his ass. Later for all that psyche evaluation stuff. That’s the conservative part of me coming out.
I’m not sure if you’re completely correct, Dre. Remember the Flint stabber? Even after it was revealed that he was of Arabic descent, people weren’t calling him a terrorist.
Hey Dre,
I didn’t mean to equate him with a terrorist organization, I simply meant that we don’t seem to be looking very hard into what’s setting all these young, white males off as a group. A lot of straight young white males are telling me very passionately that they are tired off be
ing blamed day in and day out by their schools, mainstream media and non YWMs for every ill that has befallen every group in this country. I don’t think most non white males know what it’s like to never be the victim and always be viewed as the perpetrator. It seems that everyone is bent on turning women, blacks, hispanics, gays, etc. against us as a group. I know a lot of people will just say “So what, it’s your turn.”, But this feeling of low self worth coupled with constant attacks by the media is breeding anger. I just think we may be missing something when we don’t even ask why they are so angry.
@Calvin,
Your right Calvin, even after it was revealed that he was of Arabic descent, people weren’t calling him a terrorist. They were, however, calling him a white male before he was arrested and some were even calling him a WM afterward. Much like they referred to George Zimmerman as “White” or “White and Hispanic” even though on his Myspace page he self-identified as Hispanic/Latino.
*LOL, I meant “as usual”…Sorry.
Good post, Dre. But let me ask you a question. What if this happened at a rap concert and the shooter was black? Do you think the media coverage would be the same?
Absolutely not. If a black guy shot up a bunch of people at a Jay Z concert, the media would’ve reported this as a stinging indictment of urbanization, rap, and the culture of violence in the black community. There’s no way on the planet the media would’ve allowed the term “mentally ill” to enter the discussion if the shooter was black.
Hey Dre,
The press actually did try to say the D.C. sniper, Lee Malvo (who was black)was mentally ill. They claimed that John Allen Muhammad brainwashed him.
http://articles.boston.com/keyword/lee-boyd-malvo
I totally agree with you Andre and I love that fact that you express your opinion. It’s great and I look forward to more. I would also like to add “Those who possess the power are those who set the rules.”
I don’t have a problem with logical gun control. The reason that we are where we are is because of the refusal of states to give it’s citizens the right to carry concealed weapons for their personal protection. If law abiding citizens were allowed to carry a weapon for protection there would be less objections to gun control.
Good point Finch,
I saw on the news that there were several “no weapons allowed” signs at the theatre. I have to wonder if that played into his choice of crime scenes.
You could argue that we ALL have some kind of issues, since none of us are perfect. But to say a man pursuing a PhD as an honors student was mentally ill, is a lie and a cop out. This guy isn’t crazy. This is just his way of trying to cleverly cheat the system. A mentally ill person can’t perfectly “booby-trap” their home. If they let him off on mentally ill charges, it does show a form of racism, preference, and unfair judgement. Even if a black male was not a drug dealer, or a drug addict. they would still charge him with 1st degree murder, in a week. The country would go insanely crazy if it was a Muslim. Sadly, it IS true that what a person looks like impacts how they are labeled and judged.
To the people calling for gun control, let me ask you: How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use when he terrorized Oklahoma City? What about Dahmer, Bundy, and Kazinsky? I’ll give you a hint: it’s a number lower than one. Guns aren’t the problem. Psychopaths are.
Silly conservative. Politricks are for kids.
This shooting and all the other ones before it should force us to re-examine the 2nd Amendment; and for the first time, those two words “GUN CONTROL” jump out, but are always ignored by your types.
I mean, come on dude. The Constitutional framers you romanticized wrote laws about muskets that took FOREVER to load, not weaponry that can spray out hundreds of bullets a minute. They had SOMETHING in mind, other than what we have now … which is an ongoing string of random mass murders by guns blazing psychopaths, with increasing frequency.
And even if contemporary forms of gun controls aren’t exactly what they had in mind, it certainly seems to me to be WAY MORE than enough of a valid constitutional basis for having some rational controls in place, to avoid further scenarios like Aurora. How you can’t see that is beyond me.