The most offensive opportunistic politicization of the recent shootings

As events unfolded in the Connecticut shootings, many people took to Facebook to express their horror at what had happened. Some of it was surely the same attention getting grief that we saw with Steve Jobs, but it’s clear that no one found any pleasure in any of these events, to say the least. However, this supposed grief didn’t stop anyone from politicizing the issue from whatever angle they could. Gun advocates said teachers need to be armed. Gun-control advocates said we need better laws. Others said we need to move beyond all that for just a moment. Still others said this is the time to discuss these issues. I tend to agree with that last one. We might call that politicization, but we can’t just ignore what’s happening; I don’t find those sort of discussions offensive. What I do find offensive is illogical, sexist attacks:

Through history, there have been a lot of suggestions as to the cause of mass shootings. In the 60s, it was the permissive culture. In subsequent decades, it’s been the teaching of evolution, working mothers, birth control pills, and “evangelical jockocracies.” The interesting thing about all of these suggestions is that they may point indirectly at a much more plausible explanation. To begin with, we must ask who is offering these explanations in the first place. Overwhelmingly, the answer is white males. Most likely not coincidental is the fact that since 1982, one very specific type of mass shootings has been almost entirely perpetrated by white males.

Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It’s called “aggrieved entitlement.” According to the authors, it is “a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine.” This feeling was clearly articulated by [the Columbine shooters], the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. [One of them] said, “People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts…” A group of girls asked him, “Why are you doing this?” He replied, “We’ve always wanted to do this. This is payback… This is for all the sh*t you put us through. This is what you deserve.”

This is ugly in is stupid simplicity. From a response I saw on Facebook:

That’s all very interesting but this theory fails to account for the Asian kid at Virginia Tech. The Fort Hood Shooter. The D.C. Sniper and his accomplice. Race is incidental in these crimes. Why should it be any different with white men?

And what about mental illness? What about emotional instability? What about the specific experiences of these shooters? This isn’t some black and white issue (no pun intended). To pretend that it is is nothing more than an awful, disgusting excuse to pursue one’s pet agenda.

Let’s point to our gun culture. Let’s point to the way our media glorifies these shootings*. Let’s point to our mental healthcare apparatus. And let’s not make our points mutually exclusive with one another. There’s a lot going on here.

*I have edited out specific names of shooters. They don’t deserve the personalized attention we give them; CNN has noticed this and, though they are far from perfect, they’ve made an effort to only utter this most recent shooter’s name once per broadcast. For more, watch this:

3 Responses

  1. Mike Huckabee’s claim that this shooting was related to the separation of church and state was a close 2nd.

  2. What frustrates me is the “assault weapons” ban, at least more than anything else. The ban enacted in 1994, the same being talked about being revived now, was based almost entirely off of appearances, instead of certain features and functions. The reason is quite plain to me, there is no such thing as an ‘assault weapon”, it’s made up. The high capacity magazine thing is just as bad.

    Honestly, I doubt many gun owners really care if they ban these things or not. I really don’t, because as I said, there are no functional characteristics even being talked about. The same thing goes with the magazines.
    It’s frustrating because none of it will effect violence, but it will give some people a false sense of security. People actually believe these things are effective despite there being almost nothing but evidence to the contrary.

    It’s frustrating because better mental health tracking probably would have an impact, screening could be done in schools, they screen for other things (the spine thing, the term is floating just out of reach), why not mental health?

    It’s frustrating because the focus is pushed off of the real problems, negligence regarding proper storage and security, accurate data regarding those who have lost their right to bear arms, gun free zones that only remain so until a mass shooting occurs. The non-issues are concealed carry, waiting periods, and registration schemes, messing with any of those things will have no effect at all.

    It also bears mention that looking at the 6 million people with concealed carry permits as a group, they/we have a murder rate that would be the lowest in the world 0.2 per 100,000 as opposed to 4.2 for the country as a whole and 1.4 in the UK.

    I’m all for addressing things that would increase safety, but I am 100% against proposals that only impact those who are not going to commit crimes, it’s mistaking motion for progress. Ineffective gun laws like those being proposed now, distract from real solutions.

  3. Scoliosis, that’s the word I was searching for. As far as I know they still do it, middle school I think.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: