Mass-Shootings and the “Forest-Trees” Problem

Mass-Shootings are all the rage around the nation of late, and in the worst sense of phrase. The frequency and number of deaths has become a daily news topic; and resurfaced as a political issue that both the Democrats and Republicans are struggling to respond to in a manner which doesn’t compromise their individual political constituencies. Of course, in not compromising their ideological dependent positions on guns, the compromise legislation expected from the partisan ‘bi-partisan’ committee is anticipated to be a poor and enfeebled shadow of anything of substance. So, the political profession will continue in their unbroken streak of ineffective and inept leadership around the nation’s gun issues, as they are with virtually every other issue of consequence and importance to the nation and the public.

The news media is awash in their coverage of all the mass-shootings that have erupted in rapid-fire succession especially after the Uvalde, TX elementary school shootings. Just this past weekend there were 10 mass-shootings around the country. And our news media is presenting the public’s reaction to this insanity for all it’s worth. Even the entertainment news shows are providing coverage and commentary on the surge in gun violence.

What is missing in the reporting, the coverage, the commentary, and the politics is what is always absent: an critical perspective on how to understand these shooting events objectively. The 10 mass-shooting events that occurred over the past weekend (June 3rd to June 5th) illustrates some important facets of how these tragic events are seen through the lens of politics, the news media, and public reaction.

While politicians nor the media will be taking this test, you could consider in your own answers what you think your politician or news entity would present as their answers.

Question 1: Mass-shootings are defined as an incident where how many individuals are killed or wounded by an assailant using a gun?

Question 2: While any shooting is a tragedy, do the characteristics of the individuals who are killed or injured cause some mass-shootings to be more tragic than another? Note: In responding to this question, you should not use the number of individuals killed or injured as a factor. Assume for the purpose of this question that every event had the exact same number of victims.

Question 3: Do the intentions of the shooter(s) make some mass-shootings qualitatively different than other mass-shootings?

Question 4: Is it important to classify mass-shootings into different categories versus treating all mass-shootings as the same?

Question 5: How well do politicians understand the issues related to guns that they are expected to deal with as the representatives of the American people and as the leaders of our legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government?

Answer to Question 1: A Mass-Shooting is generally defined as four or more people killed or wounded by a shooter with a gun.

Answer to Question 2: This is a sensitive question to answer, so a little context is needed to help avoid causing additional harm to survivors, family, or friends of individuals killed or injured in a mass-shooting incident. For those personally affected by these events, it is very unlikely that they would see the death or injury of anyone else as more tragic than that of their own loss(es) and consequences. From a very objective economic perspective, the value if one life is seen as the equivalent of another to the extent no other factor(s) are relevant. If you are curious, your life is valued at about $10M by the government in general. Yet is it difficult to not consider that the life of a child has no greater value than the life of someone over 80 years old. This is not without some social precedents. In a situation where not everyone can be saved we have used a principle like: Women and children first. Then there are the difficult but ethically approved processes which are applied in various medical situations which prioritize the treatment that some patients will receive based on their likelihood of survival versus withholding treatment of individuals who are less likely to live when there are insufficient resources to treat all patients. Are there characteristics of mass-shooting victims which make them a greater tragedy than others? There may be no definitive answer to this question; however, I cannot equate the death of adults to being as tragic as that of children.

Answer to Question 3: This question gets to the point which is not usually considered in regard to mass-shootings. There are some mass-shootings where the shooter(s) are intentionally targeting a group. There are some mass-shootings where the shooter has no specific targets but where they are using a situation or opportunity that offers random targets. There are some mass-shootings where there is a target or targets who are present in a much larger group of individuals that the shooters have no interest in, including not caring if these individuals are collateral damage. There are some mass-shootings which result from some unplanned, unintended dispute between two or more individuals. Not all mass-shootings are the same when examined from the perspective of the intentionality of the shooter(s). This doesn’t change the horrific consequences that result, but it does demonstrate that there are different types of mass-shootings. This is important because recognizing those different factors would lead one to consider if the actions, efforts and processes that would be effective in reducing or preventing mass-shootings will be different to some extent because of the factors which cause the shooter(s) to initiate an attack. There is some speculation that some mass-shooting events are attempts to get attention that they have seen others get from the mass-shootings that they did.

Answer to Question 4: Yes, mass-shootings need to be understood in regard to the contexts which create, enable, or promote the shootings. By being able to see mass-shootings through a lens that helps inform us about what causes them, we would hopefully recognize that the actions, efforts, and steps that we take to address some causes of mass-shootings will only have an impact on those mass-shootings that are in the category where these actions apply.

Answer to Question 5: Politicians do not understand the issues related to guns; but they are not alone. The continued failure to find even modest policies that can help reduce gun-violence in America is a reasonably good measure of how badly politicians and their supporters are in dealing with the issues. Yes, there are groups that oppose any and all efforts by those on either side, but isn’t that also a measure of how poorly politicians are at handling the issues? It may be that politicians have a different definition of success on gun issues; but then they should make it clear that they either find the deaths and injuries acceptable or that they can’t make a difference.

The complexity of the issues around guns requires the same level of reasoning, judgement, and intelligence that is required of other complex problems. Meeting those requirements, or failing to meet them, may be the best explanation for the failure of our politicians, officials, parties, and entities that so far have not made meaningful progress toward protecting the public and nation from those who would harm the nation and our way of life.