December 21, 2012

The lethal mix of aggrieved masculine pride, suicide and easy access to guns in Columbine, Virginia Tech and other mass shootings -- Newton, too?

Ever since details emerged about how Adam Lanza massacred 20 first graders with a military-style rifle at a Connecticut elementary, I’ve been thinking back to that group of gun-toting Bay Area Open Carry members who came to Walnut Creek in 2010.

Remember them?

They came to a restaurant in Plaza Escuela. As you can see in this photo at left, they wore their weapons—unloaded—and ammo strapped to their belts, to demonstrate their right at the time to openly wear handguns in public. (They’ve since lost that right under a state law that went into effect earlier this year.)

Some proudly and defiantly displayed their semiautomatics, including Glocks, which have become known as the weapon of choice for mass shooters in recent years, including the assault on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona last year, the Aurora, Colo. movie theater rampage and now the massacre of students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary. 

While Adam Lanza killed his young victims with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle, loaded with ammunition "designed for maximum damage," he also carried Glock and Sig Sauer handguns that his gun enthusiast mother, and first murder victim, legally purchased. 


I remember the Open Carry guys being friendly. Their talk about being responsible, law-abiding citizens sounded convincing. But their rhetoric revealed a mindset I tend to hear when I listen to the hysterical commentators on Fox news and conservative talk radio.

They sounded aggrieved, defensive, maybe a bit paranoid, and in possession of a sense of entitlement about their gun rights. "It's time for citizens to arm up," said Gus, a 50-year-old guy from Antioch said. Gus, who had introduced his two kids, starting at age 8, to firing guns, said it was especially important for citizens to arm up because of all the murder, raping, maiming and other mayhem that is occurring in our communities.

Again, he was speaking to me in downtown Walnut Creek. At the time I didn't recall lots of murder, raping, maiming and other mayhem happening recently. I don't think brawls breaking out in downtown bars -- as dismaying as they can be -- reached that level of civil unrest. Antioch may be a tougher town than Walnut Creek, but even it does not fit the image he summoned of armed and dangerous streets and roving bands of criminals. Maybe that image fits the worst parts of Oakland, or Richmond – or Los Angeles, during the Rodney King riots. Actually, it sounds closer to the landscape of post-apocalyptic horror fantasies. Yeah, I could see that possessing a stockpile of weapons would come in handy for a Walking Dead-style zombie invasion.

I don’t mean to make light of any discussion about firearms in the wake of the Sandy Hook rampage. But it’s hard not to be mystified when some gun proponents talk about the need to arm schoolteachers or how any new gun control laws would hinder their ability to protect themselves and their families.

Suburbanites—especially white suburbanites—who constantly express fears about being victims of violent crime seriously need to get over themselves. I’ve felt this way ever since covering crime in Richmond nearly 20 years ago. Now, there’s a place where people have good reason to fear being robbed, beaten or shot, notably if they are young men of color and they live in certain neighborhoods. 

Some brave gun owners are speaking up publicly in the wake of the Sandy Hook rampage and have dismissed the idea that anyone needs a Bushmaster or a Glock or any other semiautomatic to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes.  The main reason  anyone wants to own a Glock or a Bushmaster--weapons once mostly limited to armed forces personnel and law enforcement--is because they are fun to shoot, these gun owners say. 


 “I am a gun owner. I am an avid hunter. I have a weapon in my home for protection. I support — for the most part — the Second Amendment," writes John P. Lopez, a Texas radio show host. “But never has it been more clear that the United States should ban and buy back semiautomatic weapons. They kill. They kill children. That is their sole purpose — to kill.”


Lopez says that he has many friends who will argue that semiautomatics are their hobby and passion, and they like to shoot the guns in remote locations. “I hope they enjoy shooting these weapons at trees. Because having that right also gives disturbed individuals the right to kill children”

This love for the culture of guns and for shooting big powerful weapons, embraced by some of the Open Carry guys I met in Walnut Creek in 2010, fed into the thinking of the perpetrators of murder-suicides at three U.S. schools since 1999, according to a 2010 study “Suicide by Mass murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement, and Rampage School Shootings.”

The study’s authors, Rachel Kalis and Michael Kimmel, with the Department of Sociology and SUNY Stony Brook, examined three mass shootings that ended with the perpetrators killing themselves as law enforcement moved in: the 1999 Columbine High School shooting that left 12 dead and 21 wounded; the Virginia Tech shooting that killed 32 and wounded 17; and the 2008 rampage at Northern Illinois University that killed six and wounded.

The shooters in the three tragedies share several characteristics, according to Kalis and Kimmel,who is one of the world's leading researchers on men and masculinity. With Stonybrook's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities, he was awarded a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation grant. 


“All the perpetrators were males, all were students in the rural or suburban schools they terrorized, and all evinced a self-justifying sense of righteousness to their actions,” the authors write. “Feeling aggrieved, wronged by the world – these are typical adolescent feelings, common to many boys and girls. What transforms the aggrieved into mass murders is also a sense of entitlement, a sense of using violence against others, making others hurt as you, yourself, might hurt.”

Connecticut police are still sorting through the remainders of Adam Lanza’s life, interviewing people who knew him and his family, to try to figure out what he was thinking in the days and months leading up to his mass murder and suicide. Was there something going on in his world or in his head that told him he had to kill other people, then end his own life? There are reports that his mother talked about wanting him to get out of the house more, or that she planned to move the two of them to Washington state. 

In any case, his actions show someone who wanted to make a point with his death, by targeting a school filled with young children. Connecticut authorities say he went to Sandy Hook elementary with enough ammunition to kill everyone in the entire school.

Not only are school shootings done to get a point across, access to high-powered weapons was crucial to carrying out their plans.

“These young men were all socialized to see violence as a way to prove their manhood,” Kalish and Kimmel write. “Additionally, they were socialized in an environment that provided access to firearms.”

We know that Adam Lanza was definitely socialized in this environment. His mother helped teach him how to shoot, and he lived in a community populated by gun owners, hunters and assault weapons enthusiasts. The rural, hilly areas outside Newton was home to scores of shooting ranges, including some operating under the radar.  The sound of gunfire, exploding at all hours, had become a common sound in otherwise bucolic Newton, according to the New York Times

Contrary to what some gun proponents argue, it’s not likely that Harris, Klebold, Cho, Kazmierczak, or even Lanza would have planned suicides that involved killing other people had they not been able to arm themselves with guns:

“The access to guns proved a crucial element of their trajectories, since without such availability, it is unlikely that these young men would have made the same decisions,” Kalish and Kimmel write. “They may have wanted to end their lives, but without access to guns, their suicides would likely not have been preceded by mass murder.”





6 comments:

Joe Burge said...

Typical twisted logic and flawed posting designed to portray legal gun owners as mentally deficient and socially paranoid. The Second Amendment is not about possessing socially acceptable defense, with the oversight and regulation of the government. It was intentionally crafted to allow individuals to be responsible for their personal defense and defense against tyranny.
Sandy Hook, while a tragedy, had nothing to do with your paranoid portrayal of a gun-culture. Legal gun owners obey laws. Criminals, intent on breaking several laws, do not. Continual appeal to uneducated masses in quoting "assault rifle, military-style, and semi-automatic" like those buzz-words are magic (though generally wrong) is intentional attempts at inducing hysteria.
Existing laws are not enforced. When they are, they would prevent these incidents. Until they are, any further Law will have absolutely no effect on the lawless.

JWB said...

Joe Burge,

I would consider your response as exhibit A for Martha's hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

Mr Burge has nailed it. And JWB's response is typical of the overly emotional response to the tragedy in Sandy Hook. The simple truth of the matter is that the more people are armed the less violent gun crime there will be. Cowards that commit mass shootings only do so because the gun gives them power over other people that they would not otherwise have in their twisted mental illness. Despite being mentally ill, these people would NOT commit such crimes if there was a higher chance that their victims were surely armed and that they likely would be shot during their rampage. You CANNOT legislate morality and that is what this topic boils down to. More laws will only hurt law abiding gun owners and will not stop mentally ill persons that want to commit such tragic crimes. You can look down on the "open carry" types all you want. I'll take them any day as a "good guy" with the means to protect himself and other innocent persons that might be victimized. Right to carry states have succeeded in dramatically reducing violent crime but this fact has been conveniently overlooked by the media since they do not favor guns.

Thud said...

I always feel safer in an armed America than here in the unarmed (except for criminals ) England.

Anonymous said...

We actually feel safer here if you Thud and your gun toting kids stay away from America.

http://overthewaterx2.blogspot.com/2012/08/make-my-day.html

Anonymous said...

Roving bands of armed suburbanites - the founding fathers would roll in their graves at the thought. Joe Burge, the govt won't bother taking your little guns, hon, they'll just turn off your smart phone then hit you with a drone. Why didn't I hear this level of discontent when the govt took away our freedoms with the Patriot Act?