Guns, Culture, and the Media: It’s the Culture Stupid! – Guest Post By Mark Amagi

The mass shooting of elementary school students, teachers, and administration at Sandy Hook has brought out the usual suspects with their panacea for more gun control as a solution for mass shootings. Interestingly enough, some of the same politicos that advocate gun control are also proponents of drug legalization. The facts would indicate that neither prohibition works very well if at all. Do people really think that if certain guns were outlawed that organized crime wouldn’t come in and fill the void? Or take gun manufacturers: Do we really think that if America outlawed gun manufacturing that some other country or foreign cartel wouldn’t come in and supply the demand? It was interesting that on one of the Sunday morning talk shows a couple of weeks ago, the Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, was one of the more moderate voices, saying that it wasn’t right to penalize law abiding gun owners. Instead, he advocated controlling or eliminating gun shows, where guns could be traded with no registration or license. While I am an NRA member, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to place some limitations on the right to bear arms: After all, do we really want an angry neighbor owning a rocket launcher? Of course, if he (or she) is a member of a gang or terrorist group, he’ll find a way to get one, laws or no laws. The fact of the matter is that restrictions on gun ownership will do very little to change the patterns of violence in American society.

Then there was all this talk about mental illness: if only our mental health system was better funded these wackos would get the help they needed, or get locked up before they acted out. What this indicates, to someone who has worked in the mental health profession for over 25 years, is a profound lack of insight and knowledge about the capabilities of such professionals to prognosticate whether an individual will commit an act of violence in the future, in the case of individuals who have no, or very little history of violence in their background. We don’t have a crystal ball into the future as part of our repertoire. What we can predict is the kind of violence perpetrated by repeat offenders, such as the street violence in Chicago or Oakland. But most anyone with half a brain can do that. With tougher laws and increased incarceration rates, violent crime has decreased in the nation as a whole, and places like Chicago and Washington, DC, with stricter than usual gun control laws, have fared far worse than average. But there is really no way to accurately predict the propensity for violence on the part of an individual with no criminal record or history of violence, mentally ill or not, short of an ability to read minds (remember: some people do have a tendency to tell lies).

My response to the Sandy Hook tragedy is for all Americans, particularly the political and pundit classes, to look in the mirror. Ask yourself whether or not America has become a more violent culture, and to what extent you may or may not be complicit. Most of the very same celebrities, who appeared in an infomercial advocating gun control following Sandy Hook, have made movies where violence is deemed the solution to all of life’s problems. One of the movies that I saw following Sandy Hook was Wanted (2008), with Angelina Jolie portraying a member of a team of assassins, who train an office boy, bored with his drab life (played by James McAvoy) to become one of the team. What a perfect metaphor for the young bullied nobody, who decides to take out his frustrations with life and become somebody famous by breaking a mass murder record. How inspiring! I heard someone say that we shouldn’t publicize the name of the perpetrator, and in a way that makes sense, because these mass shootings at schools and colleges have all the markings of a copy-cat crime. And guess what: schools and colleges are “gun-free zones,” in other words, a great place to target practice on innocent victims without the risk of getting shot back, at least for 20 or so minutes.

Movies, video games, American foreign policy, crime in the streets, all serve to make America a more violent country. Unfortunately, the only way to stop a bad guy or a whole bunch of bad guys with guns is with an armed citizenry and that thin blue line of law enforcement, or by extension to international relations, with a well-trained military. But ask yourself, why could farm boys in the early Twentieth Century bring their hunting rifles to school every day with few if any incidents of gun violence in that arena? When I went to high school in the early 1960s, there were fights and even occasional brawls after football games, but no gun violence. What’s changed? I’ll offer an opinion: What’s changed is that we’ve let the genii out of the bottle. There were good things that happened in the 1960s, like civil rights and more personal freedom, but there was also a surge of violence, drug use, and societal and familial breakdown. All natural and social restraints were set aside by many that included a majority of the agents of cultural transmission, i.e., movies, media, schools, and colleges. The mores and religious traditions of America’s past were cast aside like so much excess baggage. Heinous crimes, unheard of in earlier times, cascaded onto the national stage. What had been unthinkable before, beyond the frame of reference of the average American’s psyche, suddenly became permissible or at least thinkable. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, we had “defined deviancy down.” This is not to say that increased personal freedom is a bad thing, but any honest appraisal of the culture that emerged from the 1960s and 1970s would have to admit that it’s been a very mixed bag. Like so many things, to evaluate the consequences of freedom: it all depends upon what you do with it. Ironically, at the same time that Americans enjoyed more personal freedom, there was a decline in the mediating institutions of family, community, church, and neighborhood, and an exponential increase in the power of the state. Thus, every time the American psyche goes off kilter with outrage at the latest atrocious crime, the American people, led by their pundit class, scream for another law to “stop this outrageous violence.” But nothing really changes folks, because the last thing we want to do is look in the mirror and ask, what kind of culture have we bequeathed to our children? It’s so much easier to just pass another law.

About GM Roper

Retired Mental Health Counselor, deeply concerned about the direction of this country.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Guns, Culture, and the Media: It’s the Culture Stupid! – Guest Post By Mark Amagi

  1. John Moore says:

    GM… I have to disagree with you a little bit on the mental illness aspect. While it’s very hard to pinpoint every mentally ill person who will commit violence (since even most severely mentally ill will not), a number of recent mass murderers were not that hard to spot. Many were frankly psychotic and that was known to others. Some people who are now out on the streets (and committing a disproportionate share of violence) suffer easily diagnosable severe mental illness (usually schizophrenia) and institutionalization (or a system that forced them to take anti-psychotics) would benefit them and us.

    Back when farm kids were taking their guns to school (which, at least in my town in Kansas, extended into the ’60s), a lot of these people were locked up. Clayton Cramer recently wrote a book on the subject of the history of institutionalization and de-institutionalization of the mentally ill that I recommend: My Brother Ron. Ironically, Cramer is also a long time gun-rights advocate whose scholarship was used by the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

    • markamagi says:

      John: While it’s true that de-institutionalization has been a factor that has resulted in millions of homeless and untreated mentally ill, I don’t think that the civil rights establishment in this country will permit a return to massive institutionalization of the mentally ill. That said, just because a person has Schizophrenia does not guarantee that they’ll be locked up and/or treated. Everyone is entitled to their delusions as long as the pose no immediate threat to others. Under current law, for a person with a history of violence or who makes violent threats against others to be conserved, they usually must meet strict criteria (in California) of grave disability (be unable to take care of him or herself due to a mental disorder), and any threats to others must be a result of mental illness. Anyway, the point being that even in a vastly expanded mental health system it’s doubtful that the recent violence by the alleged mentally ill offenders could have been prevented. Someone would have needed to have brought the case to the attention of authorities before a crime was committed, and then the case would have had to have been made that they met criteria as a danger to others due to a mental disorder.

  2. John Moore says:

    I agree that the civil rights establishment won’t allow that, to the detriment of society and some of the mentally ill. Cramer covers that pretty well in his book.

    As to its efficacy in stopping mass shooters… I’d guess that some would be stopped. But the mass shooters are the tip of the metaphorical iceberg. There are a lot of killings and acts of violence by the mentally ill that do not make the headlines. I watched a family go through that a few decades ago, in California – unable to get coerced treatment to a violent paranoid schizophrenic who wouldn’t take his meds (but who was completely functional when on meds). He never killed anybody, but it wasn’t for lack of trying.

    Again, the disclaimer… most seriously mentally ill do not kill people.

    As to “entitled to delusions” – I guess that depends on the consequences of the delusion, and I don’t know where to draw the line, but it’s somewhere towards more coercion than we have today.

    • markamagi says:

      I concur. It would be helpful to have laws that are a little more coercive towards getting treatment for those who do or could pose a threat to others. Still, I stand by my statement that mental health professionals are not all that good a predicting violent behavior. As for being “entitled to delusions,” in my humble opinion, most so-called normal human beings are prone to rampant delusional thinking. For example, think Hitler, Stalin, radical Islam, Obama: such ideologies and leaders would never come to power in a society of clear thinkers. Or for that matter, Keynesian economics and the National Debt!
      Thanks for the comments: It’s helped me to clarify the weak points in my argument, as I’m thinking of publishing this in a local paper.

Comments are closed.