Written by Bennett Kirschner
Since the two gruesome mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo unfolded within days of each other last month, much of the country has once again become fixated on gun laws – or the lack thereof – in the United States. At this point, it’s all part of a predictable political cycle: a mass shooting occurs, the nation becomes outraged and insists on meaningful institutional response, and after weeks of pandering from political figures who refuse to sign on the dotted line, our collective attention shifts to another issue and away from the national pall of gun violence. Politicians like Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott tactfully bide their time with platitudes of “thoughts and prayers” and manicured photo ops, while their expressions of compassion for the bereaved belie a hard-to-swallow truth – millions of dollars in political funding, especially for Republicans, comes from a gun lobby whose raison d’être is to sell as many lethal weapons as possible.
After enough time, the media moves on to the next pressing topic, once again rewarding these tried-and-true tactics, and institutions like the NRA go back to quietly pouring money into impressionable politicians’ coffers. Then, months later, it all starts over: tragedy gives way to outrage; outrage gives way to political dialogue; and political dialogue leads to little, if any, substantive change. Today, we’re already moving on from last month’s shootings to focus on the January 6th Congressional hearings and inflation, but all we have to show after weeks of conversation is a gun safety bill that only takes minor steps to limit the public distribution of military-grade assault weapons.
In a country where it feels impossible to enact substantive institutional change around this issue, it’s hard not to feel resigned to the inevitability of these cycles. Sometime in the next few months, we figure, another tragic shooting will happen and it will start all over again, with similar, if not identical, results. Legislative action, at least for the time being, appears all but impossible. The most we can hope for is that those intractable politicians who refuse to come to the table will be voted out, giving us the chance to pass sensible gun reform laws. And while it’s certainly a, if not the, pillar in the effort to put a stop to gun violence, there are other, more grassroots-oriented efforts that can help us create a culture that nurtures before it alienates, that fosters compassion and, in the process, helps to reduce violence of all kinds. The desire for guns and the desire to use those guns are, after all, reflections of the society that we are actively building every day. So as powerless as we may feel to stand up against the entrenched interests of the gun lobby, we can still find ways to support the people around us and mitigate gun culture in the process.
Here are three everyday priorities that can help us tilt the scales towards a more inclusive, less polarized, safer society:
Flip the Script on Masculinity: The vast majority of violent crimes, both in the United States and elsewhere, are committed by men. Surely, engrained expectations of men – as protectors, as aggressors, as conquerors – are at least partially to blame for this trend. As we hear again and again about mass shootings, an archetype of the assailant starts to emerge: they are men under the age 40 who feel alienated and misunderstood, who believe it’s their responsibility to take up arms to protect some vitriolic cause. So much of this is rooted in conventional narratives that paint the ideal man as stoic, impregnable, and committed to his convictions. Having subscribed to this distorted ideal, those who eventually turn into assailants are made to feel like they should not seek help, since it would be a sign of weakness, and weakness, of course, an affront to their virility.
In a world where the greatest mark of masculinity is emotional self-sufficiency, it becomes virtually impossible for so many men to open up and process their struggles, which, when left unaddressed, often give way to violent impulses. Their anger and angst compound as they continue isolating themselves and becoming resentful of a world that tells them not to ask for help. It’s our responsibility, then, to start painting a more holistic portrait of what it means to be a man and the ways in which emotional vulnerability can be a sign of spiritual strength. By fostering a culture in which men try to process their feelings instead of repressing them, we can equip those at risk with the emotional tools they need to seek help before they lash out.
Draw Attention Away from the Narratives of Assailants: Thankfully, this step is already being taken by a media machine that for many years fueled public fascination with mass shooters’ personal narratives and intentions. It’s easy to see how a young, vulnerable person might come to view the perpetrators of mass shootings as martyrs in such a cultural climate: for years, the faces of these shooters appeared on TV screens across the country while their personal lives were scrutinized by the public at large. Only in the past few years has the media started to acknowledge that naming the shooter – much less profiling them and posting their manifestos – could perversely inspire some to follow in their footsteps in the hopes that they, too, could become a figure of public curiosity. By rarely mentioning perpetrators’ names and instead focusing on the victims and their broader cultural context, we can reduce the chances that mass shooters will have any sort of posthumous legacy. And while this resolution applies to mass media most of all, it’s also vital that we avoid glamorizing and fetishizing mass killers in more personal contexts as well. By placing thoughtful parameters around our conversations about mass shootings, we can cultivate a culture that condemns violence but doesn’t motivate it.
Support the Disenfranchised: It’s no coincidence that gun violence disproportionately takes place in poor, disinvested neighborhoods. Without livable employment opportunities, people find themselves caught in systemic feedback loops that force them into debt or prison and lead directly to higher rates of localized violence. This study from the Brookings Institute demonstrates “the promise of micro-level place-based interventions (such as rehabilitating vacant lots or increasing the number of community organizations) in significantly decreasing violence within these neighborhoods.” It explores the many ways people can provide these kinds of support to disenfranchised communities: by donating funds to community-based programs, by getting directly involved in those programs, or by hiring underserved individuals through one’s own business. Instead of complacently accepting the socioeconomic stratification that has only gotten worse the past few decades, more financially stable individuals must take it upon themselves to help poorer communities gain access to the same resources and opportunities they have. While governmental support is an essential component of such initiatives, grassroots work can also go a long way towards uplifting those who are most in need.
While we continue to hold our elected officials accountable in the hopes that meaningful gun reform will eventually see the light of day, we must also focus on the ways we can take direct action in our own lives to support the people around us and reduce violence in our communities. Consider this a call to arms – while we must not give up the fight in advocating for safer gun laws, we must also find ways to nurture those most at risk of getting caught up in gun culture, from the isolated young white man reading bigoted blogs to the former convict who can’t catch a break. Even as our elected officials continue to fail us, we can still find hope in our own lives and the collective power of community.
