A Different Approach to School Shootings

So yesterday morning as my sweetie-wife and I were en route to my day I caught a very interesting piece on NPR’s Morning Edition. They were interviewing writer Malcolm Gladwell and he proposed a radical take on the growing phenomenon of mass school shootings. The interview was prompted by a piece Gladwell had written for the current issue of the New Yorker Magazine and can be found here. It’s worth the time to read.

What he says and the sociological theory of riots he applied to school shooters all make sense to me and maps fairly well with what I know about these events. To be clear, these are a very different from workplace shootings and also very different from politically motivated mass killings. Gladwell avoids the simplistic approach of mental illness and looks at a much more frightening mechanism. The mob effect and in my opinion the status seeking motivation.

Particularly upsetting it the idea that traditional mass media is no longer a relevant factor as a status conferring mechanism. The internet drives a lot more of this now. This matches with what I do know about these schools shooters. They often, if not always, obsessed on-line over previous events, often analyze the shooters methods and outcomes, and seek to — for lack of a more apt word — improve on the results.

I have confided privately to a friend that my personal belief is that this wave is going to continue to a generation, perhaps two while our culture deals with the shock waves induced by massive change. (It is not a coincidence that the shooters are nearly always young men. The only except I know is the Brenda Spencer case and that’s more than 40 years old.) My friend if a gun collector and I predicted that it was likely the US would see more and more restrictive gun laws passed and that these would likely have little to minimal effect on the wave. (The laws that are possible, assault weapon bans, background checks, magazine capacity limits, are unlikely to make any serious change to these sorts of killings and a total gun ban is simply unrealistic for this country.)

However, this article sparked an idea. The problem is identifying these gunmen and killers before they act. More and more they have no history of serious mental illness that could be used in a reliably predictive manner. A position I hear repeatedly from psychiatric professionals on this matter. there simply is now way to screen to the vast population of angry young men and sort out the shooters from the non-shooters.

But they may be sending up flags we can use. On-line. If they are obsessing on-line about previous events, sharing information in forums and chatrooms, and leaving a digital trail of their intentions then it should be possible too use that information to identify, isolate, and prevent them from acting on their murderous fixations.

In order words, treat them like the terrorists they are and utilize the full power of the intelligence agencies to deal with this problem.

Share

2 thoughts on “A Different Approach to School Shootings

  1. Brad

    I’ve done some research into gun control and the 2016 presidential election. The problem as pointed out by 538 is the tricky nature of gun control polling. 538 suggested using the metric of gun ownership rates as a proxy for support or opposition to gun control, which sounds reasonable to me. According to 538, the national average rate of gun ownership was 29% in 2012.

    So would pushing gun control help or hurt the prospects of carrying swing states during the 2016 election? Hard to say. I did an analysis which assumed a higher than national average rate of gun ownership in a state would harm the prospect of carrying that swing state, while a lower than national average rate of gun ownership would help carry that swing state.

    In 2012, Obama carried all but one of the 9 swing states, North Carolina which has 15 electoral votes. Of those 8 remaining swing states 6 of them have higher than average gun ownership rates and two have lower than average gun ownership rates.

    The six swing states which Obama carried in 2012 with higher than average gun ownership rates have a total of 73 electoral votes, enough votes to make the difference in winning the electoral college.

    Looking at all the swing states regardless of who won them in 2012, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina with lower than average gun ownership rates have 37 electoral votes, while those swing states with higher than normal gun ownership rates have 73 electoral votes.

    Now of course many factors will determine who will win the 2016 presidential election, but overall at this time it looks to me like pushing gun control loses more electoral votes than it gains.

    Since Ohio is such an important swing state and in 2012 supposedly had a considerably lower than average gun ownership rate of 19.6%, I was curious how gun control is fairing there, and I found this December 2013 story from The Washington Post.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ohio-momentum-favors-gun-rights-forces/2013/12/11/d41e7d96-61c6-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

Comments are closed.