Wooden crosses in front of Robb Elementary School -Uvalde, Texas. Getty Images
With democracy on the line, passing gun legislation cannot simply be about saving lives by stopping mass shootings. It also must be about protecting our democracy. But Democrats must win elections to eliminate additional causes of mass shootings. If Democrats try but fail to pass even minor legislation, independents and suburban Republican voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats may find them weak and ineffective and vote for Republicans. Similarly, if Democrats join Republicans and pass legislation that only nibbles around the edges of mass shootings, they may discourage the disheartened Democratic base from going to the polls. And, if Republicans can pass minor legislation, it may boost their standing with that part of the Republican base that is uncomfortable with inaction in the face of the increase of mass shootings.
Although the responsibility to stop mass shootings falls on many – parents, teachers, and others in the community, politicians are the only ones who can make laws to help prevent mass shootings. However, politicians have demonstrated that they do not fully understand the causes of mass shootings.
Many Republicans believe that mass shootings occur because of (1) mental illness, (2) unsecured school buildings, and (3) cultural disruptions such as the lack of prayer in schools and legalized marijuana. Alternatively, many Democratic politicians believe that mass shootings are due to (1) the easy availability of guns to 18-year-olds, (2) the presence of a culture that fetishizes guns, and (3) the failure to regulate the possession of guns like assault rifles. Republican solutions do not include limiting access or the availability of guns, even though politicians cannot effectively address many of the possible causes that Republicans blame. For example, stress-related episodes cannot be predicted with background checks.
Although the responsibility to stop mass shootings falls on many – parents, teachers, and others in the community, politicians are the only ones who can make laws to help prevent mass shootings. However, politicians have demonstrated that they do not fully understand the causes of mass shootings.
Many Republicans believe that mass shootings occur because of (1) mental illness, (2) unsecured school buildings, and (3) cultural disruptions such as the lack of prayer in schools and legalized marijuana. Alternatively, many Democratic politicians believe that mass shootings are due to (1) the easy availability of guns to 18-year-olds, (2) the presence of a culture that fetishizes guns, and (3) the failure to regulate the possession of guns like assault rifles. Republican solutions do not include limiting access or the availability of guns, even though politicians cannot effectively address many of the possible causes that Republicans blame. For example, stress-related episodes cannot be predicted with background checks.
Democrats have made the abundance of guns – especially assault weapons the focus of their proposed solutions. They highlight that the issues of mental illness, cultural issues with violence in games and movies, and temporary rage are situations experienced in every country. They explain that the difference is the profusion of guns in our culture. No other country has the horrendous record of mass shootings that the U.S. has. Presumably, Democrats do not believe they can implement relevant solutions to reduce the easy availability of guns for political reasons. For example, gun safety opponents will argue that ideological shooters who kill out of animosity for other groups are unlikely to be discouraged by regulation or access. But these are just arguments between parties – arguments without evidence. Empirical research does not exist that would provide irrefutable evidence about the causes of mass shootings. For decades the U.S. Congress has underfunded and limited research on the effects of mass shootings and the ways to prevent them. Thus, the current weak and flawed research cannot convince sceptics that any proposed solutions would effectively prevent mass shootings. Given that there are so many plausible causes for mass shootings, it seems reasonable to try and reduce the number of mass shootings by eliminating or ameliorating any of these causes. Gun proliferation must be considered among the likely causes.
Just as Eskimos can distinguish between more than 50 types of snow, we are beginning to differentiate between different types of mass shooters. One shooter targets a particular group because of an ideological belief that expresses animus toward that group. When the mass shooter targets the members of a specific group, his purpose is to kill the victim and terrorize members of the group. For instance, the mass shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando targeted LGBTQ patrons, the mass shooter at Tree of Life Jewish Synagogue in Pittsburgh targeted Jewish worshippers, and the mass shooter in Charleston at Mother Emanuel church targeted African Americans. This ideologically driven type of shooter is acting out of a shared belief with similar others, possibly on social media. Stopping these shooters will probably require incapacitating the groups with whom they identify.
Mass shooters who kill without consideration of the social characteristics of their victims seem filled with rage against all people. They target anyone who happens to be in range. The mass shooters at the Texas First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Las Vegas Strip concert, and the Aurora, Colorado theater seemed more interested in expressing their all-encompassing rage than targeting a particular group. They seem to be saying the death of their victims is compensation for the pain the world has caused them. There are other types of mass shooters, such as those seeking infamy or copycats. Discussing two types of shooters will illustrate some of the considerations involved in mass shootings.
By definition, a mass shooting event requires the death of at least four people. So, the frequent events with multiple people shot but fewer than four dead are not categorized as mass shooting events. Both ideological-based and generalized anger types of mass shootings reflect the shooter's rage and result in the death. The momentary rage-filled shooter may be able to pass background checks and thus may purchase guns legally. The shooters in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs purchased their guns legally. They may be suffering from some form of mental illness, but it is also possible that they are experiencing a temporary stress-induced episode. Professionals, family members, and others may not identify them as more mentally ill than many other sometimes-angry people. Of course, all types of mass shootings must be stopped. It is well understood that the best way to prevent a problem is to eliminate its cause. While attacking extremist groups, many of whom dominate social media, may be the remedy for ideological shooters, restricting access to firearms, either permanently or for some time following a stress-induced episode, perhaps the way to stop temporary rage-induced events.
If Democrats were better at messaging, they might be able to win the support of voters by either nibbling around the edges or making a solid, if doomed, effort to reduce mass shootings. They would need to clearly, aggressively, and repeatedly state that they are working to save Americans' lives and make everyday events like grocery shopping and school not seem so threatening. But since Democrats are what they are (hesitant, overly analytic, and ununified), it may be the safest bet is to appeal to the base to keep on hoping. Democrats can bring practical efforts to curb mass shootings up for votes in the Senate and demonstrate to voters how contemptuous Republicans are when it comes to protecting the public as they vote against every effort.
Just as Eskimos can distinguish between more than 50 types of snow, we are beginning to differentiate between different types of mass shooters. One shooter targets a particular group because of an ideological belief that expresses animus toward that group. When the mass shooter targets the members of a specific group, his purpose is to kill the victim and terrorize members of the group. For instance, the mass shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando targeted LGBTQ patrons, the mass shooter at Tree of Life Jewish Synagogue in Pittsburgh targeted Jewish worshippers, and the mass shooter in Charleston at Mother Emanuel church targeted African Americans. This ideologically driven type of shooter is acting out of a shared belief with similar others, possibly on social media. Stopping these shooters will probably require incapacitating the groups with whom they identify.
Mass shooters who kill without consideration of the social characteristics of their victims seem filled with rage against all people. They target anyone who happens to be in range. The mass shooters at the Texas First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Las Vegas Strip concert, and the Aurora, Colorado theater seemed more interested in expressing their all-encompassing rage than targeting a particular group. They seem to be saying the death of their victims is compensation for the pain the world has caused them. There are other types of mass shooters, such as those seeking infamy or copycats. Discussing two types of shooters will illustrate some of the considerations involved in mass shootings.
By definition, a mass shooting event requires the death of at least four people. So, the frequent events with multiple people shot but fewer than four dead are not categorized as mass shooting events. Both ideological-based and generalized anger types of mass shootings reflect the shooter's rage and result in the death. The momentary rage-filled shooter may be able to pass background checks and thus may purchase guns legally. The shooters in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs purchased their guns legally. They may be suffering from some form of mental illness, but it is also possible that they are experiencing a temporary stress-induced episode. Professionals, family members, and others may not identify them as more mentally ill than many other sometimes-angry people. Of course, all types of mass shootings must be stopped. It is well understood that the best way to prevent a problem is to eliminate its cause. While attacking extremist groups, many of whom dominate social media, may be the remedy for ideological shooters, restricting access to firearms, either permanently or for some time following a stress-induced episode, perhaps the way to stop temporary rage-induced events.
If Democrats were better at messaging, they might be able to win the support of voters by either nibbling around the edges or making a solid, if doomed, effort to reduce mass shootings. They would need to clearly, aggressively, and repeatedly state that they are working to save Americans' lives and make everyday events like grocery shopping and school not seem so threatening. But since Democrats are what they are (hesitant, overly analytic, and ununified), it may be the safest bet is to appeal to the base to keep on hoping. Democrats can bring practical efforts to curb mass shootings up for votes in the Senate and demonstrate to voters how contemptuous Republicans are when it comes to protecting the public as they vote against every effort.