Framing the Debate
Once past debating the seemliness of talking about policies that could prevent mass shootings, I think it is helpful to have some sort of framework to recognize what underlying causes each proposal is addressing. I’m no expert on violence, but I believe we can obtain a fairly accurate framework by breaking down the problem into a few propositions
- From time-to-time, certain individuals will lose their sanity*.
- A set of the insane will have violent tendencies.
- Some of the violently insane will have the means to inflict great damage.
- Some of the violently insane will have the opportunity to inflict great damage.
The key to understanding the myriad policies, and to evaluating them, is to weigh which ones will address the most significant of the four steps to tragedy.
By far the most ridiculous is the knee-jerk anti-immigrant argument. I’m unconvinced that immigrants are more likely to go insane than the rest of the population, so this would not address proposition 1. (One might argue fewer immigrants would mean fewer people going insane, but this is pointless; fewer people generally would, taken to its limit, eliminate the need for politics altogether.)
It is fairly uncontroversial that we ought to have more mental health screening, which would help us to catch those on the verge of insanity (1) and action (4). We now know there were warning signs at VT, and other plots have been similarly foiled by paying attention. Uncontroversial, however, does not mean noncontroversial. It would be costly, and there are non-trivial opportunities for abuse.
Some have suggested that our culture is to blame for violent tendencies, and it follows that were we more genteel, individuals not in full control of their faculties would be less likely to lash out (2). I’m not familiar enough with this argument to debate its merits (ok, this one is bunk), but any policy prescription would take generations to pan out.
Gun-control advocates clearly have proposition 3 in mind. The violently insane may always find some means of hurting others, yet without firearms, the results would probably be less deadly. It bears reminding, though, that many mass shootings are premeditated; someone seriously committed to mass murder may look for other means.
Gun-control opponents have proposition 4 in mind. I believe this is less intuitive, as not everyone recognizes that an unarmed public represents an opportunity for violent insanity. For those who fear guns, arming the public would seem to exacerbate both propositions 2 and 3. Further, we have vivid illustrations of the latter yet few of armed citizens stopping a gunman. Josh notes one below, though the “citizen” in question was also a trained law enforcement officer. For a different perspective, the counterfactual in the case of the Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre is plausible.
Greater security directly addresses proposition 4. This can be situational policies like placing public spaces into lockdown, or more general precautions like metal detectors, eliminating public spaces by making them limited-access, increased presence of security personnel, and so forth. Some of these steps will seem like common sense; others strike me as intrusive, wasteful, and a bit creepy.
It would probably be helpful to keep in mind which proposition each policy proposal seeks to address, whether it would be successful, and whether that proposition is the most significant underlying cause.
*Here, I pass over the legal definition of insanity for a more vulgar sense of ‘mentally disordered.’
4 Responses to “Framing the Debate”
I don’t have much to add right now, but just wanted to compliment you on this post. Tight, well reasoned, seems to faithfully seek to articulate the positions of various groups. Nicely done.
The two criminal experts on the NewsHour last night disagree with the idea that the types of individuals who do these mass killings are insane. Deeply troubled, yes, but are usually quite aware of what they are doing.
It seems to me the real issue here is about guns. It might be nice to have and honest debate about them without individuals on both sides losing their sanity…
The way I always come back to looking at events like these is the asteroid metaphor. There is always a finite chance that a large asteroid or comet will unexpectedly strike the Earth tomorrow, killing billions. So, what should we do about it? Should we maintain a constant supply of a hundred thousand people buried below ground or in space just so that the species always survives even in the event of an unexpected impact? Should we horde food? Or should we spend a small amount to try to make sure we see them coming in advance?
There are hundreds of millions of people who go to work or school every single day in this country without incident. In 2005, for example, there were a grand total of 5 murders on college campuses in this country according to the FBI. For literally millions of students, 5 murders on campus. That number in 07 is clearly going to be inflated some, but at some level, a cost-benefit analysis is appropriate.
If we start taking major steps, what is going to be the benefit? Is it worth making public buildings much harder to enter on the off chance that cutting down public spaces will stop the 1 in 10 billion chance of a recurrence of this event? Is it worth installing metal detectors on every building in America, regardless of the fact that a person like this could shoot his way through them or just move outside? Is it worth the hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, or in the case of gun law changes, additional lives lost otherwise?
Perhaps there is some law that should be changed or some step that shoudl be taken because of this event. IMO, the main breakdown happened when this person failed to receive any treatment beforehand, despite the fact that his behavior was recognized, and perhaps a failure by the campus to act after the first shootings. But we should make no mistake…turning every single building in America into a fortress would not stop a person like this, merely slow them down.
Regarding opposition to gun control laws, I do think an outright ban on handguns would somewhat exacerbate the rates of crimes like mugging and rape.
But to me, the best argument against restrictive gun laws is that criminals ignore them and simply obtain their weapons on the black market. Gun control has a major affect on law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, but only a marginal affect on criminals’ ability to arm themselves.
That said, I think that being committed to a mental health facility should disqualify a person from ever legally owning a gun–as should being convicted of a felony.