School shootings

Let me state the obvious before I get to my point. The recent school shooting, like all such events, in Uvalde is a tragedy beyond measure. It is also an act of incomprehensible evil: an important reminder that such a force exists in a world that often denies anything that can’t be observed under a microscope.

My wife and I prayed aloud for the families that will never see their children walk through the front door again. As a father, I cannot begin to image the pain and emptiness they must feel.

Of course, all of that is quickly forgotten by people that have easy political points to score.

Which brings us to the immediate debates that rage in the wake of such events. I’d like to raise a few points about these debates, not to necessarily weigh in for one side or the other.

First, it is important to remember that no matter how loud or passionate any individual is, most people with a strong pro- or anti-gun stance will never have to pay the price for being wrong.

We can hypothesize all day about what more or fewer guns would mean for our society. The anti-gun crowd can point to countries with stricter laws and fewer shootings. The pro-gun crowd can point to the irony of Chicago, where guns are banned, and homicide rates are through the roof. There is ample data to support any preconceived notion that you have.

But would you put your life on the line for this belief that you are shouting from the mountain top? What if, as a thought exercise, the deal was this: we will enact precisely what you propose as a solution to the issue of gun violence. The catch is that if, by some pre-defined metric, it doesn’t work, you spend the rest of your life behind bars.

It’s a dramatic point, perhaps. But with conflicting evidence all over our country and world as to what might work best, are you really so arrogant as to believe you know the answer to an incredibly complex challenge in a nation full of firearms? I hope not.

If you are wrong and things get worse, you pay no price. Talk is cheap, but the consequences may not be. Remember that.

Second, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. 

We could take away all guns. But perhaps criminals would have greater incentives to commit crimes with the knowledge that their victims are unarmed. It’s a reasonable outcome to consider.

Or perhaps we give teachers guns. Now we have guns within arm’s reach of kids, sometimes going through massive hormonal changes at their most emotionally vulnerable stage of life. Is that a good idea? Maybe. But maybe it’s a terrible idea. I don’t know. Do you? 

Don’t be so damn confident that what you propose wouldn’t have unintended consequences. Nearly every important decision does, and only a fool would fail to appreciate this. 

Whatever “solution” seems obvious to you, know that it will come with tradeoffs somewhere downstream.

Finally, the closest thing I have to an opinion on this.

I’m taking “more guns” or “fewer guns” off the table as an option because I think either is equally likely to make things worse.

First, we obsess over broad policy decisions at the Federal level in response to any challenge or unfortunate outcomes. Since when has the Federal government intervened in a meaningful way and objectively, and I mean truly objectively, improved a situation?

It didn’t happen with the introduction of sex education in the 1960s. Minority groups are statistically worse off in nearly every way since the advent of the welfare state designed to protect them. All of the worst market crashes and bank failures have happened post-creation of the Federal Reserve. If you believe that government edict is the answer, you probably aren’t a student of history.

That said, let’s assume there is a government intervention that could help. Does it have to involve massive regulatory or legislative changes around firearms?

Our Federal government wastes billions of dollars each year on, for example, foreign aid to countries in which we have no economic interest. As an American, you are covering that cost either through direct taxation or inflation (a hidden tax).

What if we instead moved that money into protecting our schools? Armed guards, metal detectors, limiting entrances and exits, more active shooter drills, commercial-grade pepper spray for teachers? I’m brainstorming, not prescribing anything specific. But you see my point.

I don’t know the costs, but I suspect we could come up with enough waste in our Federal budget to re-allocate toward a meaningful increase in school safety. That would make this type of event a lot harder for someone to pull off.

That is the closest thing to a government-imposed “solution” I suspect we could have without major potential downside or one side feeling like they lost on an important issue. Again, there would be tradeoffs. But none would infringe on Second Amendment rights or leave the anti-gun crowd feeling as though nothing was done to protect vulnerable kids.

My best estimate, though, is that something resembling a solution (since there are no “solutions”) is more likely cultural than political.

Family dynamics have eroded over the last several generations. Anyone born in the last 20 years was likely raised under at least a few of these conditions:

1. With constant attachment to a screen (phone, TV, or otherwise)
2. With less engagement from parents, who are equally attached to screens
3. With little exercise and time outside
4. Hyper-aware of their social media “likes”
5. In daycare or with a non-parental caregiver 50%+ of the week
6. More socially isolated than kids from previous generations
7. Over-protected from disappointment or suffering
8. Exposed to an unending stream of sexual and violent entertainment

I’m probably missing 20 other points. And my argument isn’t that any particular point is categorically “bad,” though I think most would agree that some are, generally.

Two-income families, for example, are becoming normal because they are becoming necessary. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that kids are increasingly raised by others who have less of a vested interest in the child. It’s not a criticism of anyone’s decisions. It is an observation of our world.

But these conditions do not add up, one on top of the other. They multiply. Is it any wonder that, in light of such conditions, more and more people are struggling with mental health? Or that some are increasingly prone to violent outbursts? 

Perhaps if we stopped idolizing a government policy that would be sure to have unintended consequences and we focused instead on ourselves and our families, we could make progress. 

The appeal of government decree is that we don’t have to take personal responsibility: someone else can legislate away our problems. But it doesn’t really work that way, does it? Real responsibility is a heavy burden to bear and if we can avoid it, we often do.

At the end of the day, we each have a relatively tiny sphere of direct and significant influence: namely over ourselves and our families. No president or boss or celebrity or anyone else gets to determine the quality of your thoughts and the lessons you share with those whom you love.

So get yourself in order. Shed any lingering hatred you have for others. Kick your social media-induced dopamine addiction. Workout until you sweat. Teach your children to love everyone. Pull them away from the TV. Force them outside and make sure they get dirty. Build their character brick by brick, day by day.

You can’t fix people that shoot other people. But you can fix yourself and your family. And you and your family can then be the light that shines upon others. And perhaps those whom you touch will touch others and the light will grow.

The only path to peace begins at home.