Before the end of January this year the Associated Press reported on the shocking number of six mass shootings (when will this no longer be “shocking”?):

“In the wake of the worst massacre in Los Angeles County history, the California governor was meeting gunshot victims in the hospital when he was pulled away and briefed on a mass shooting at the other end of the state.

Word that a gunman had killed seven people at mushroom farms in a scenic coastal stretch of northern California came just hours after Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke of his fatigue and frustration with mass shootings.

‘I can’t keep doing them,’ he told reporters earlier Monday in Monterey Park, where 11 people were killed at a dance studio. ‘Saying the same thing over and over and over again, it’s insane.’

His voice brimming with anger and emotional at times, Newsom said he consulted notes he used at past mass shootings: the slaying of 12 at a Thousand Oaks country and western bar in 2018; the killing of three and wounding of 17 at the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival; the slaying of nine workers at a San Jose rail yard in 2021… ‘What the hell is going on?‘”

What was the response from politicians?

To be politically partisan of course.

No solution in sight… not even considered.

No conversation; no mutuality; no end to mass shootings.

What Is Going On?

In this month to consider the place of violence in our times, we do not appear to have found a vaccine for the social contagion of gun violence. The more there are mass shootings, the more they are reported, and then the more there are mass shootings. The more there are mass shootings – the more there are mass shootings, and it goes on…

And just like the misinformation that spreads about vaccinations, there is misinformation like the message I received last year to “The Making of a Hero in 15 Seconds” from Hedgemaster1982; it is representative of the distorted logic that gives licence to the breezy accumulation of guns designed for human harm:

“Human history has never demonstrated that the presence or absence of a particular type of weapon influences the expression of violence positively or negatively by an individual determined to project violence on another individual. Cain killed Abel with a rock, David killed Goliath with a rock. Same tool, different motivations of the heart. Guns exist. They’re common technology today. The number of guns in the world will not increase or decrease the amount of violence in the world. It is an inanimate object. It is only the intentions of people that increase or decrease the amount of violence in the world. It is unfortunate, but the only effective deterrent to someone intent on foisting violence on others is responsive violence [emphasis added]. Pray for peace. Desire and work to change the hearts of those prone to violence. Promote the value of all life. There is nothing inherently wrong or unjust in being prepared with the best tool available as means to protect innocent human life.”

This was my Response:

“Hi Hedgemaster1982 – thanks for your note and for the tone of your engagement on this topic about which we see differently. I have heard the line of reasoning you are using before, and while I agree that rocks have been used as weapons and understand they are everywhere (and we are not likely to restrict access to rocks), it is also true that rocks have never been implicated in 589 mass murders as of the posting of this article. In a way your comments are a variation of the “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” argument. But it is more accurate to say – “Guns don’t kill people – it is people with easy access to the kinds of guns that can kill many people who kill people.” In deed the number of firearms is positively correlated with the amount of gun shootings, woundings, killings, accidental firings, and suicide deaths. Somehow restricting, registering, and/or otherwise licensing guns whose design is intended for human harm would actually impact the obscene number of mass shootings the U.S. experiences (along with accidental firings and suicide by gun).

Though I don’t agree that the only effective deterrent to violence is more violence (you may note this if you read any of the many articles I post every November under the rubric of “the place of violence in our times” https://moreenigma.com/tag/the-place-of-violence-in-our-times/). Rather violence begets violence, and I am encouraging reflection on what a community can do to make itself feel and be safe. So I don’t agree that being “prepared with the best tool available to protect innocent human life”, because I don’t agree that a gun designed to kill people is the best tool or the best way to protect oneself/family/neighbours.

For the record, I make a distinction between guns used for hunters/farmers/sports shooters (I grew up in a rural community after all); rather it is guns whose primary design is to kill people that is troubling.

While I agree there is “nothing inherently wrong with being prepared” – may I suggest looking at the issue from the vantage point of 40,000 feet, as it were, in order to think a little differently about the amount of gun violence and different perspectives. You will note that I had nothing disparaging to say about Eli Dicken who became the “hero” who killed the shooter who had equal rights to openly carry a gun and who’s first victim was also legally carrying a gun. I will restate that my problem is with “a society too quick to make this the narrative of heroism when there is no reflection on why so many people feel the need to be legally packing heat in the first place.”

Thanks again for your comments, and though I am fairly sure I have not changed your mind, I will invite you to read virtually any of my other posts on the topic: https://moreenigma.com/tag/the-place-of-violence-in-our-times/.”

So… What is going on?

I welcome informed and thoughtful responses to any article. Ad hominem attacks and vitriol will not be welcomed or helpful. In other words, to the extent that I can prevent it, I will not accept any violent speech.