Here We Go Again

Every time there is a "mass shooting" (which really just means a multiple homicide committed with a firearm that the media takes an interest in), the question of "Will this be the incident that brings about change?" comes up. But what sort of change? The expectation that any given mass shooting will be the straw that breaks the back of pro-gun and second-amendment absolutist "single-issue voters" is a fantasy. The subset of the American public for whom access to firearms is their number one priority aren't frightened that the next mass shooting might be in their neighborhood. They're afraid of crime and/or some version of a police state coming to their neighborhood. And that's fear motivates them to demand that anyone who wants their vote hold to their views.

So will the reaction of the broader public to mass shootings change? I don't have an answer for that, mainly because it would take more study than I have time for. I am, after all, simply a random blogger and not a working social scientist. What I do perceive is that the media coverage doesn't change. It's the same mix of story after story, with personal anecdotes thrown in; here and there someone seeks to make a name for themselves with some sort of political grandstanding. Experts are consulted and officeholders are recorded making solemn proclamations. It all may as well be scripted. The Onion simply runs the same headline every time. It's a habit that others might as well emulate.

For my own part, I think what needs to change is the idea that the nation is entitled to a solution, and therefore, one should be forthcoming. The idea that the arc of history bends towards justice, I suspect, leads people to think that they don't need to put any effort into bending it in the way they want it to curve. The idea that "The United States can do something about this" has to, at some point, actually mean some significant number of the people of the United States working together, rather than simply hoping that politicians will one day get around to imposing a solution on people who are adamantly opposed to it.

Democracies, whether direct or representative, or terrible vehicles for answer questions of right and wrong. They're much better as deciding on an implementation of agreed-upon goals. And the reason why there's no consensus in the United States is that there is no agreed-upon goal. There's just a few days of recriminations.

It's possible that, as a society, the United States has allowed the issue to become too partisan. Where someone stands on the question of "gun control" is a fairly good indicator or political identity, which is never a good thing. Partisans have a difficult time in ever seeing themselves as unreasonable, let alone wrong, and tend to see their opposite numbers as openly evil. Which is, generally, a poor basis on which to attempt compromise.

American culture when it comes to guns, or, more broadly, violence as a solution to problems, can absolutely be changed. But it's at the end of a long road of other changes, rather than the beginning.