The terrible shooting in a Conencticut elementary school has again provoked highly predictable screeds against gun ownership, and calls for more restrictive gun laws. Buried in all the gun outrage and other predictable articles was the one I was looking for- the gunman 'was thought to have a personality disorder'.
It is quite simple to blame gun violence on guns. Guns are a tool of intended lethality, making them fundamentally different from cars, to which they are often compared. But like cars guns are not lethal except in how they are used, and are extremely helpful deterrents to certain types of crime. Just as all car accidents involve cars, all gun crimes involve guns. But just like car accidents, in the very large majority of cases there is another issue at work. With car accidents it is all too often alcohol, or texting, or youthful inattention or fatigue. In gun crimes it is, again and again, 'personality disorders'.
I have many times recommended abook called 'The Gift of Fear' by Gavin de Becker. De Becker has made a career out of predicting and avoiding threats for movie stars, wealthy executives and politicians. His methods are simultaneously subtle and obvious. He uses what he calls 'JACA' and 'PINS'. JACA stands for Justification, Alternatives, Consequences and Availability. A person will not commit violence unless he (and most violent offenders are 'he') feels justified, feels there is no alternative, has no fear of consequences and has a readily available means for violence. Guns in this system are merely a means. It is the lack of fear of consequences, the lack of perceived alternatives and a sense of justification that drive the violence.
Even more interesting and helpful are his PINS- Pre-INcident Signs. Society likes to paint these events as random monsters walking into schools and killing people, but that most definitely is not the case. This fantasy, played out again and again in our media, allows us to actually ignore signs of incipient violence while simultaneously keeping us vaguely worried. Sort of a bogeyman effect that we ignore. That is all pure nonsense. It is striking and upsetting how extensive the history of violence is for the overwhelming majority of violent killers. the history of violent behavior goes back into childhood for most. typically there are stories of assulating playmates, or of being ostracized for odd behavior from mid childhood on. A highly non-trivial proportion of these men are undignosed schizophrenics, whose disease becomes apparent in notes left behind. The Va Tech killer is one of these, as is the army Major whose violence is being conveniently blamed in Islam.
There are often many other PINS. These killers often are fascinated by violent games, like the Columbine kids, who simply acted out a version of the game 'Doom' in their killings. And like guns these games are not to blame. It is the manner of play, where isolated, angry or thought disordered young people retreate further and further into a world of pretend violence and self justification, until they act out lethally. But the signs are there, typically for years before any action.
In this case the killer is described as a nerd and a loner, highly intelligent but unsociable. He played at LAN parties, a type of gathering where people all play the same electronic game vai a small LAN. He became a goth as he got older- very thin, dressed in black, etc. Every bit of this is consistent with the emotinal descent of an incipient killer and probable anti-social eprsonality or schizophrenic.
When I or others say this a chorus of apologists immediately begins. 'Oh, he was like his peers', or 'he was always so quiet. He never fought with anyone'. Exactly. When he didn't fit he withdrew. And withdrew. And started getting fascinated with guns or violent games. Or kept a journal filled with rage toward his parents/school/peers/etc/etc. And everyone ignored his behavior because to say overtly that a person is mentally ill still carries a terrible stigma. Even worse than saying Merry Chrstmas. Sorry, couldn't resist.
As long as we pass off the odd behavior of schizophrenics and antisocial personalities we will have to accept these horrific events as the price. This is no different than a junior flight officer or attendant failing to challenge an aircraft captain's obvious fatigue or impairment, then passing off the accident as 'pilot error'.
It isn't pilot error and this violence is not the random act of a monster. It is highly predictable behavior that we as a society are choosing to ignore, and then wail like children when we are faced with the consequences of our dissociation from reality.
In that sense the gunman is not responsible. We are, until we have the collective strength to call for intervention for the obviously troubled. Until then, we don't need more gun laws and we don't need more articles bewailing the deaths of children. We need to look in the mirror and get past the political correctness that prevents us from getting help for those who need it.
Ted
It is quite simple to blame gun violence on guns. Guns are a tool of intended lethality, making them fundamentally different from cars, to which they are often compared. But like cars guns are not lethal except in how they are used, and are extremely helpful deterrents to certain types of crime. Just as all car accidents involve cars, all gun crimes involve guns. But just like car accidents, in the very large majority of cases there is another issue at work. With car accidents it is all too often alcohol, or texting, or youthful inattention or fatigue. In gun crimes it is, again and again, 'personality disorders'.
I have many times recommended abook called 'The Gift of Fear' by Gavin de Becker. De Becker has made a career out of predicting and avoiding threats for movie stars, wealthy executives and politicians. His methods are simultaneously subtle and obvious. He uses what he calls 'JACA' and 'PINS'. JACA stands for Justification, Alternatives, Consequences and Availability. A person will not commit violence unless he (and most violent offenders are 'he') feels justified, feels there is no alternative, has no fear of consequences and has a readily available means for violence. Guns in this system are merely a means. It is the lack of fear of consequences, the lack of perceived alternatives and a sense of justification that drive the violence.
Even more interesting and helpful are his PINS- Pre-INcident Signs. Society likes to paint these events as random monsters walking into schools and killing people, but that most definitely is not the case. This fantasy, played out again and again in our media, allows us to actually ignore signs of incipient violence while simultaneously keeping us vaguely worried. Sort of a bogeyman effect that we ignore. That is all pure nonsense. It is striking and upsetting how extensive the history of violence is for the overwhelming majority of violent killers. the history of violent behavior goes back into childhood for most. typically there are stories of assulating playmates, or of being ostracized for odd behavior from mid childhood on. A highly non-trivial proportion of these men are undignosed schizophrenics, whose disease becomes apparent in notes left behind. The Va Tech killer is one of these, as is the army Major whose violence is being conveniently blamed in Islam.
There are often many other PINS. These killers often are fascinated by violent games, like the Columbine kids, who simply acted out a version of the game 'Doom' in their killings. And like guns these games are not to blame. It is the manner of play, where isolated, angry or thought disordered young people retreate further and further into a world of pretend violence and self justification, until they act out lethally. But the signs are there, typically for years before any action.
In this case the killer is described as a nerd and a loner, highly intelligent but unsociable. He played at LAN parties, a type of gathering where people all play the same electronic game vai a small LAN. He became a goth as he got older- very thin, dressed in black, etc. Every bit of this is consistent with the emotinal descent of an incipient killer and probable anti-social eprsonality or schizophrenic.
When I or others say this a chorus of apologists immediately begins. 'Oh, he was like his peers', or 'he was always so quiet. He never fought with anyone'. Exactly. When he didn't fit he withdrew. And withdrew. And started getting fascinated with guns or violent games. Or kept a journal filled with rage toward his parents/school/peers/etc/etc. And everyone ignored his behavior because to say overtly that a person is mentally ill still carries a terrible stigma. Even worse than saying Merry Chrstmas. Sorry, couldn't resist.
As long as we pass off the odd behavior of schizophrenics and antisocial personalities we will have to accept these horrific events as the price. This is no different than a junior flight officer or attendant failing to challenge an aircraft captain's obvious fatigue or impairment, then passing off the accident as 'pilot error'.
It isn't pilot error and this violence is not the random act of a monster. It is highly predictable behavior that we as a society are choosing to ignore, and then wail like children when we are faced with the consequences of our dissociation from reality.
In that sense the gunman is not responsible. We are, until we have the collective strength to call for intervention for the obviously troubled. Until then, we don't need more gun laws and we don't need more articles bewailing the deaths of children. We need to look in the mirror and get past the political correctness that prevents us from getting help for those who need it.
Ted
If I might be permitted to play the devil's advocate, the role of the gun in the deaths of these children should not be minimized. If this fellow had showed up at the school with a hammer or knife, the death toll would not have been even close to what it was with the use of a gun.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, the same day that this gunman murdered 27 people in Newtown, Connecticut, a 36 year old man in the village of Chengpeng, China, went to a primary school and with a knife stabbed 23 people, 22 of them being children. So far, the number of fatalities is zero.
Both cases involved young men with mental disturbances. Both involved violent attacks of primary school children. Both resulted in twenty plus victims.
What was difference? One used a gun, the other a knife.
Death toll: 28 vs. 0.
Guns are not merely a means of killing someone...rather, they a far more proficient, far easier means of killing people.
In the equation "people + weapon = potentially lethal violence," to attempt a remedy of this outcome it is important to focus on the "people" part of the equation, as this blog entry mentions.
But focusing on the "people" part of the equation should not mean excluding focus on the "weapon" part. This is not an "either/or" choice. Rather, it should be a "both/and" choice, as in focusing on BOTH psychological help AND limiting the access to highly efficient killing weapons (like guns).
Looked at like this, BOTH parts of the equation are important. To focus on only one or the other would be like focusing on EITHER the "2" OR the "3" in the equation "2 + 3 = 5."
Practically speaking, identifying which mentally disturbed people could turn out to be killers and which merely remain non-killing mentally disturbed people (the vast majority) is just as tricky a business as limiting access to guns in a nation where illegal arms possession is common.
Ah, it's a sad business: we Homo sapiens have been killing innocent people for millennia. When we attack unsuspecting citizens in large numbers, it gets sanctioned as empire building. When the attack is made by an individual acting on his own, it gets called murder...
David