A Holistic Approach to Ending Mass Shootings
Unfortunately, there was another firearm related tragedy last month as an angry young man opened fire on people at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California. Three people, including an innocent young child were killed, and a dozen were reported as injured. Then, there were shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. Dozens were killed and injured in these attacks. The emotional, mental, and spiritual toll from these heinous acts will never be able to be fully accounted for.
Almost immediately after each of these events, the crisis chorus on the political left swelled with calls for increased gun control. After every single mass shooting event, there are cries from people demanding more gun control. After all, as Rahm Emanuel infamously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” To give most of the general public the benefit of the doubt, they are reacting emotionally to a horrible, tragic event. Emotions run high after a mass shooting; grief, anger, and sympathy are all very understandable reactions to tragedy.
On the political right, the responses to these evil events vary, but those on the right are generally more likely to talk about mental health, much smaller increases in gun control, ending gun free zones, arming teachers, concealed carry reciprocity and occasionally the economy. Yes, some people make the claim people would be less likely to commit these mass murders if they only had productive jobs. Only the unemployed or underemployed become killers, right?
There are a lot of proposed solutions out there. Some may work to reduce gun crime and mass murders. Some may not. Either way, many of the proposals are based on politics and emotion, not practicality or principle. While there is often the discussion of “comprehensive” and “common sense” gun control, perhaps the best solution is more appropriately termed holistic.
Safety professionals use what is commonly known as the “Hierarchy of Controls” to help reduce or eliminate hazards in the workplace. While workplace hazards are a much simpler issue than gun violence, it would still be instructive to use this model to guide us in our search for potential solutions to the problems of gun violence and mass shooting events.
Elimination and Substitution
Looking at the inverted triangle, the top level is “Elimination”, meaning to physically remove the hazard. “Substitution” is the second level. In our look at firearms, elimination of guns would essentially be synonymous with substitution because substitution would be replacing a hazard with something less hazardous. In the workplace, if a chemical will cause severe burns if it touches your skin, a substitution can sometimes be made to replace it with a chemical that will only cause mild burns, or sometimes a chemical that will not harm you at all. If we eliminate firearms, many people will simply replace the firearm with something else. This could be something less lethal such as a knife as we have seen in places like China and the United Kingdom where guns are strictly regulated and restricted. However, it does not guarantee knives will be the weapons of choice. Someone determined to try to kill as many people as possible might turn to explosives or biological or chemical weapons.
Eliminating or substituting firearms is also problematic because of people’s rights. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right to bear arms” and that it “shall not be infringed”. However, our true human rights are simply ours by virtue of our existing, living, and being human. The right to life is universally one of the most basic and recognized human rights, although there are admittedly many different perspectives on what the right to life means and how far it extends. The Second Amendment does not confer a right. Instead, it is meant to guarantee the state will not infringe upon what people might choose to use to protect their life. The Second Amendment is about life and self-defense, whether that defense be against a robber committing a home invasion, or an oppressive government. By taking away, or limiting a tool for self-defense, we limit people’s ability to exercise their right to defend themselves, and jeopardize their right to life.
Additional problems in eliminating or substituting guns arise because of the black market. Prohibitions often cause more problems than they solve. Looking at the period of alcohol Prohibition in the United States, because the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited, a black market was created and moonshine consumption, which had been dropping in popularity, increased once more. Additional problems resulted as well, with people drinking other more toxic liquids, leading to deaths and health issues like blindness, and a rise in organized crime. The War on Drugs has similarly played a significant role in the expansion of drug trafficking, gang activity, high incarceration rates, family separation, and a host of other problems. Furthermore, with the expansion of 3-D printing, firearms are now printable. Individuals with a 3-D printer can manufacture firearms at home for sale or use. New Zealand recently banned most firearms after the Christchurch mosque attacks, however out of an estimated 300,000 banned firearms in the nation, only 530 were turned in.
One area in which we can make an appropriate substitution is in our news coverage. As a society, we can make it more difficult for people seeking examples, justifications, and validation to find what they are seeking. This can be specifically advanced by the news media by limiting information about the killers. Don’t reveal names or faces. Do not let them have publicity. There is legitimate reason for these things, their motives, manifestos, etc. to be accessed, but perhaps content providers could do more to limit access to them, such as putting the information behind a password or paywall. Individuals can help by not sharing the hate or adding to the notoriety of killers, and only focusing on being sympathetic to those affected by the crimes.
Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) also uses “an updated version that assists us in addressing non-traditional, but very real occupational hazards, such as stress or sleep deficiency.” Their hierarchy is perhaps more applicable in regards to this issue because it focuses more on behavior. The bottom three levels of the traditional hierarchy are engineering controls, administrative controls, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). In the updated hierarchy, these are replaced with redesign, educate, and encourage.
Redesign
There are multiple things that could be redesigned to address the issue of mass shootings including the process of purchasing and owning guns, and the firearms themselves. “Smart” guns that would only unlock for the biometric signature of certain individuals have been suggested and discussed in recent years. However, they are not ready for the market, and hardly anyone is working on them. One of the reasons, if not the primary reason they are not being worked on is because of politics. New Jersey wanted to ban any guns that aren’t smart guns once the smart guns came on the market. The NRA was against this, and so they have pressured manufacturers not to develop smart guns. Nearly 60% of Americans would consider buying a smart gun if they were available, but they aren’t, and won’t be in the foreseeable future because of political interference in the marketplace.
Other areas ripe for redesign are how we purchase guns, how we are responsible for guns, and how we limit them. While it isn’t fair to hold a gun owner responsible for a murder committed with their firearm after it is stolen, we could use the market and civil litigation to encourage gun owners to store their guns responsibly. For example, banks could refuse to do business with retailers that don’t do background checks. Retailers could refuse to sell firearms to consumers that don’t have liability insurance for their firearms. Insurers would want to reduce their risk, so their insurance rates, or whether they chose to insure someone or not, would likely be based on the history and behavior of a gun owner. People with a history of violence might pay a higher rate or be uninsurable. On the other hand, those who have taken firearms safety classes, have gun safes, and use trigger locks might qualify for discounts. These insurance policies could cover the guns against loss, and also serve as liability insurance if the firearm was used to harm someone. Likewise, if someone didn’t have their gun locked up in a safe they shouldn’t be held liable for crimes committed with it after it was stolen, but they could be vulnerable to civil litigation for being negligent in how they stored their firearms. All of these solutions would be market based, not based in government mandates or prohibitions. Competition and market based incentives would be effective in changing how our system works, without involvement by the State.
Many of the mass shootings take place in “gun free zones” such as schools. The political left insists gun free zones are effective. The political right insists they prevent the ‘good guys” from having guns and being able to prevent or stop a shooting in its early stages, before dozens of children are harmed. Much of the debate since President Trump’s inauguration has been whether to continue to have gun free zones, and whether to arm school teachers and administrators. A simple solution, freedom based solution would be to let individual schools or districts decide how they want to approach the matter. Perhaps one school or district wants to ban guns. Another might let teachers carry if they want as long as they notify the principal and can show documentation they have been trained in firearm safety. Maybe another school or district wants to let staff carry or not without any specific guidelines. Let there be competition. Let private and charter schools differentiate themselves from the public schools. In the manifesto reportedly left by the murderer in El Paso, he encouraged others specifically to attack gun free zones and “soft targets” because they are less protected.
While we don’t necessarily want to intimidate or frighten the general public let alone the students, more widespread use of measures such as metal detectors could also be beneficial.
Some on the right, including President Trump, have pointed the finger at “mental illness” broadly without clarifying their meaning. Mental illness is more widespread, and less dangerous, than most people think. Estimates vary, but generally speaking approximately 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 people experience mental health issues, or less delicately put, mental illness. This is a huge number, and the vast majority of people experiencing mental health issues do not commit mass murder. People experiencing mental health issues are in fact more likely to be victims than to commit an act of violence.
Educate
Education would be next, and is potentially the most important and impactful area where we can make change. Education is about learning, whether that learning takes place formally in a school setting, informally in the family, in a counsellor’s office, or wherever. People, especially young men, need to feel and understand that emotions are normal, and shouldn’t be blocked off and hidden away in a little lock-box. People need to understand how their actions might affect others. People need to be learn not only to acknowledge their feelings, but to accept them and work through those things that need to be dealt with. The stigma associated with counselling and other mental health needs to be eliminated posthaste. Innovative schools can and should expand their education around mental and emotional health. Insurance companies should better cover mental health as well.
Reportedly, while the Gilroy Garlic Festival killer was shooting people, someone yelled out to him the question, “Why are you doing this?” and his response was “Because I’m really angry!” This response is so telling! Like far too many people today, he did not know how to deal with his anger. Perhaps if there had been more education about how to handle his anger, he would not have gotten to the point where he was willing to commit this atrocity.
Anger nowadays is almost a badge of honor. If you’re not angry about whatever your tribe tells you to be angry about you don’t fit in. If you are angry, that anger is encouraged to grow and become a catalyst. Anger and hate go hand in hand.
It’s also being widely reported that the murderer from the Garlic Festival had recommended a book associated with White Supremacy shortly before his heinous act. The purported manifesto by the El Paso Walmart shooter also indicates he was a White Supremacist, but his politics were on the left, not the right. Hatred spans across political ideologies! The division and anger inherent in society these days encourage hatred. The political left hates President Trump. Antifa hates those they consider fascists and famously feels it’s acceptable to “punch a Nazi” or in other words to be violent and harm people because you hate them. Those who are racist hate people of other races and ethnicities. Religious bigotry and hatred is seen on an almost daily basis. Extremists on the right who often identify as Christians hate LGBTQ+ people. Guess what? None of this hatred is ok! We should be respectful towards those we disagree with and treat everyone with love. That is how we make a better world!
Over the last couple decades as we have dealt with these mass shootings, especially school shootings, guns have been vilified. Guns are a tool, but an effort has been made to remove them from our society and demonize those who use or own them. Until a few decades ago, it was acceptable for high school students to have their hunting rifle in their truck in the school parking lot while they were in class. Many schools taught firearms and marksmanship classes. When people are familiar with a tool, when they have been taught how to properly use it, taught not to fear it, and taught the harm that can come from misuse, people are more likely to use a tool responsibly. Instead, most teens and young adults are only exposed to firearms when they play video games or watch movies. All they see is the glory and excitement associated with violence and aggression.
Aggression is never the right answer. When aggression happens, it should be dealt with according to the principles of restorative justice. According to the Wikipedia definition: “A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further harm.” The idea is that people learn how their choices affect others. They are to take responsibility, understand, make restitution as much as possible, and discourage them from hurting people again in the future. A big part of what this comes down to is helping an offender learn to have sympathy and concern for others. When people have learned to think of others, when they have sympathy and love for them, they will not want to hurt them.
We also need to educate ourselves as a society. Rather than respond with knee-jerk, emotional reactions based on how the political winds are blowing in relation to our political ideology, our solutions should be informed by, if not based upon, actual evidence and empirical evidence. A recent study of all mass shootings since 1966 and every shooting at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999 identified 4 commonalities among the perpetrators of almost every one of these incidents:
- The vast majority of shooters experienced exposure to violence and trauma in their early years. These included “parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying.”
- Nearly every one of the perpetrators had reached “an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months” prior to the shooting. For those who attacked their workplace, a change in their job status was often the trigger. For others, often problems in a relationship, rejection, or loss could be identified.
- Most of the shooters had studied other killers and sought for examples, justifications, and validation.
- They (obviously) had the means to carry out their heinous act.
Encourage
The last piece of the updated Hierarchy, is to encourage. Encouragement is wrapped together with Education in this discussion. As we educate, we encourage people to do what they have been taught. We give reminders, subtle or otherwise.
Personal Protection
Alternately, the final part of the older, more common version of the Hierarchy is PPE, which stands for Personal Protective Equipment. Should we face the unthinkable moment where someone is attacking us, there are ways we can protect ourselves. Body armor is generally available, although it is added weight and may not be comfortable to wear. Other items are being made to be bullet-proof, or at least protective, including children’s backpacks. Many people subscribe to the theory that what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If you would rather not carry a firearm, other less lethal methods of defense can be carried such as pepper spray, blowguns, slingshots, stun guns, batons, and a variety of bladed weapons. Another means of protecting yourself without carrying defensive weapons or wearing body armor is the avoid areas where shootings are more likely to take place: parties, clubs, schools, fairs, festivals, etc. Mass casualty events take place where there are a lot of people, so if you limit your time in crowds and spend more time in small groups, especially with trusted people, it is less likely you will be at risk of being in a potential mass casualty event.
Be Proactive
The authors of the study mentioned above offer one last suggestion that doesn’t quite fit cleanly in any part of the hierarchies, which is that society needs to be more proactive. Government is reactive, but society can and should be proactive. Just like the Abolitionist Movement, Women’s Suffrage Movement, and Civil Rights Movement were well ahead of action by the State, we should be out ahead of things now in a concerted effort to end gun violence and mass killings. To reluctantly borrow a phrase from the War on Terror, “If you see something, say something”. The principle is sound. For many of the killers, there were signs well ahead of time, but they were not taken seriously, or even, in many cases reported. Reports need to be made, then handled appropriately. When we see warning signs, make the effort to get someone into counselling, or to have a mentor, or whatever they need that is appropriate. If we help their mental and emotional needs to be met, for them to heal from their wounds, if we teach and encourage them to love and to have empathy and compassion for others, they will be much less likely to commit any murderous acts.
Mass shootings and killings are a horrific plague in the American body politic. There are things we can do to reduce the risk of them happening again, but violating people’s rights and working through the force of the State are not good options. They may make sense to some, they may seem quicker and easier, but they do not address the root cause of the problem. Other means that do not take away people’s rights are more appropriate, and would be more effective. The American people have many challenges in front of us, but gun violence and mass shootings are, like most if not all of them, things we can take on and overcome if we only work together and take the right approach.
Garrett Leeds is the founder of the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness Project
