Don’t Let Them Manipulate You About School Shootings; Learn To Think Objectively

Public figures are doing their best to manipulate you in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, TX. Both self-serving and well-meaning public figures are trying to manipulate you all the time. You may even be trying to manipulate others without realizing it. Manipulation is the great evil of the Information Age. So it’s of the utmost importance to become strong against it. That means learning to think very objectively, especially about contentious issues.

I wrote this article to practice thinking objectively about school shootings myself, for my own benefit, and to help others who are interested in learning to do the same.

I have used these questions to focus and organize my thoughts in assessing the situation as realistically as I can (challenging my own assumptions, not jumping to conclusions, not seeking easy answers or indulging irrational emotional reactions):

• What are the possible paths forward? (Emphasis on possible)
• What level of certainty do I have that a given course of action would have its intended result?
• What undesirable consequences can be anticipated?
• What can I learn from people’s emotional responses?
• How can I make a positive difference?

Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge the valid emotions people are experiencing in response to this tragedy. These include outrage, disgust, sadness, terror, and anxiety. All of these are natural, valid emotional responses and it is appropriate to express these in any way that is basically respectful of others.

And for those of us that want to learn how to problem solve very effectively, it’s important to move beyond emotional expression and think very objectively about the situation.

POSSIBLE PATHS FORWARD

1. Enact new legislation on buying and/or storing guns to:

• Ban assault weapons
• Require background checks in more situations
• Standardize / close loopholes in the background check process
• Allow criminal prosecution for unsafe storage in the event it leads to injury or death
• Require a waiting period between the time a gun is purchased and when it is received
• Increase requirements for gun safety training
• Increase government oversight/accountability of weapons dealers
• Increase jurisdictions covered by “red flag” laws
• Require guns to be manufactured with a fingerprint scanner or other identification security system to prevent unauthorized use.

2. Commission study groups to investigate risk factors and make policy recommendations.

3. Increase measures to prevent armed individuals from entering school buildings/grounds.

4. Increase presence and/or training of armed security personnel in schools.

5. Increase availability of social support services.

6. Develop surveillance or monitoring programs that can predict an increased likelihood of violent behavior which can then be addressed in some way (whether through offering targeted social services or restricting weapon purchases or both).

I think that covers the proposed responses I have heard of.

Now, let’s go through this list and consider how certain we can be that these actions would result in the desired consequences and what undesirable consequences we can anticipate from such actions, as well.

1. Enact new legislation on buying and/or storing guns:

• What certainty do we have that these measures would result in decreased rates of school shootings and/or decreased casualties?
• In order to predict this, we would need to know some things, like, how often do school shooters use weapons that they obtained by exploiting deficiencies in the background check process or because they were improperly stored? How often do school shooters use guns that belong to someone else? If assault weapons were banned, how difficult would it be to obtain one illegally or to modify another weapon to attain the same result? Has similar legislation been enacted in the past and what results were observed?
• The answers to these questions and related questions are not common knowledge. For the most part, I don’t know the answers (although I have read that analyses of the effects of a previously enacted ban on assault weapons have yielded mixed conclusions). So, personally, I will leave these questions open and allow people who have studied the issue in depth to present data before I draw conclusions.
• For people who have studied these questions, there may be a much clearer answer. I have a few vague guesses to make, for example, that “red flag” laws are likely to prevent at least a few shootings sometime in the future. But the difference made might be so small it’s not statistically significant. So I’m going to say that the level of certainty that these measures would significantly decrease school shooting rates or casualties is very low.
• Looking at undesirable consequences that we can anticipate from these actions, I would imagine:
• Irritation of people who want or need guns for legal purposes and have to jump through extra hoops in order to get them.
• Irritation of people who want to own assault weapons for fun and can’t buy new ones.
• Maybe some rare instances of “red flag” laws being abused as a way of spiting someone
• Rare instances in which someone needs an assault weapon for a serious purpose (not just for fun) and can’t get one (the only situation I have heard of in which this is the case is people who use them to kill invasive wild pigs)
• Instances in which someone needs to use a gun in self-defense and is not able to unlock it in time because of a malfunction of the biometric scanner (I have noticed, for example, the fingerprint scanner on my phone does not work if my hands are damp).
• Instances in which someone needs to use a gun for other purposes and is not able to unlock it in time because of a malfunction of the biometric scanner.

2. Commission study groups to investigate risk factors and make policy recommendations

• What level of certainty do we have that this would lead to the desired outcome? I think it depends on how the study group goes about its work. And that will depend on who is part of the study group. And that will depend on who puts it together. So, I think the level of certainty is not high.
• What about undesirable consequences?
• Could be a waste of money.
• Researcher biases could lead to faulty recommendations.

3. Increase measures to prevent armed individuals from entering school buildings/grounds

• Level of certainty that this would have the desired effect: I don’t know. Results of research on this question are not common knowledge. So, I’m going to say low level of certainty.
• Undesirable consequences:
• Making the people in the school feel like prisoners.
• Spending more on security measures leaves less money in the budget for other things.

4. Increase presence and/or training of armed security personnel in schools

• Level of certainty this would achieve the desired effects: Again, research on this question is not common knowledge. I don’t know. Low certainty again.
• Undesirable consequences:
• Again, making those in the schools feel like they’re in a prison or war zone.
• And again spending more on security measures leaves less money in the budget for other things.

5. Increase availability of social support services

• Level of certainty this would have the desired effect: Research on this is not common knowledge. I don’t know. Low certainty.
• Undesirable consequences:
• Depends on the program. One can probably design programs very thoughtfully such that significant undesirable consequences are very unlikely. It can also happen that poorly designed programs or maybe just highly experimental programs end up doing unintentional harm.
• Some programs might be a waste of money that could have been better spent on something else.

6. Develop surveillance or monitoring programs that can predict an increased likelihood of violent behavior which can then be addressed in some way (whether through offering targeted social services or restricting weapon purchases or both)

• I don’t really see people advocating this openly, maybe because it sounds like that movie, Minority Report. But I put it here because it looks to me as if this is the way that we are heading, eventually.
• Level of certainty it would lead to the desired outcomes: I don’t know. Low level of certainty.
• Undesirable consequences: invasion of privacy, infringement of liberty, abuse of the system to promote a political ideology and/or to indulge petty malices.

Okay, so, I am not going to make any judgements here. I am just practicing and trying to help you practice really looking objectively without jumping to conclusions or indulging wishful thinking or trying to confirm personal biases.

I will pose the question: is it obvious what can and should be done to decrease school shooting rates and/or casualties or is there a great deal of uncertainty?

LEARNING FROM EMOTIONAL RESPONSES

I have seen a lot of people expressing outrage that stricter gun control measures have not already been enacted in order to prevent school shootings.

And I have seen some people expressing fear that politicians will manipulate the masses into accepting increasingly strict gun control measures so that they can more easily suppress political dissidents.

Strong negative emotions are very important indicators that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. They are also very likely to distort people’s thinking.

Outrage over lack of gun control measures yet taken is an important indication that our leadership has failed to address this issue adequately. This is a valid concern which I hope people on all sides will acknowledge. Our leaders are failing to take appropriate action.

How might this understandable outrage distort people’s thinking? Anger does influence some people to adopt simplistic, partisan views on what action needs to be taken.

Self-serving leaders are exploiting people’s emotions, peddling one-sided narratives in hopes of winning votes whereas the kind of leadership that is genuinely needed in this situation would demonstrate careful thinking, meticulous and honest research, and responsible communication.

Fear that gun control measures will lead to suppression of political dissent is an important indication that power is dangerously concentrated in the hands of a few–and they will be motivated to exercise increasing levels of control in order to maintain and/or strengthen their position. Again, I hope this much can be agreed upon by people on any side.

Fear of gun control as a means of political suppression can distort people’s thinking such that they fear even gun control measures which do not endanger political freedom at all.

A much more real and present threat to political freedom is that the elites who are in power are manipulating the masses into a “left versus right” mindset when what is really called for is the solidarity of the non-elite majority in holding accountable for their corruption all of our leaders (not just those on “the other side”).

HOW CAN I MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE?

1. Possibilities for individual political action include:

• Voting on state-level gun control measures
• Voting on state- or district-level measures designed to increase social support for students/families
• Contacting your political representatives advocating one or more response strategies
• Serving on your local school board
• Trying to start a state-level legislative initiative
• Participating in a social influence campaign
• Starting a social influence campaign
• Donate to and/or volunteer with a political action group

2. Work toward greater understanding of the risk factors for school shootings and the most promising strategies for reducing school shooting rates and casualties

• Study the existing literature
• Share important findings with others
• Support research initiatives

3. Work toward provision of social support for students/families outside of legislative action

• Volunteer with an organization that provides support to students/families
• Develop supportive relationships with students/families informally (these could be relationships with neighbors, extended family members, etc.)
• Work toward transcending and healing the partisan hostility that prevents us from finding and implementing effective solutions

So, of course, this article represents my attempt at being objective, but it does reflect my biases. If you think you have detected errors in my understanding, or if you have something to add, I’ll be much obliged if you leave me a comment explaining such errors or additions as objectively as you can. Thank you!