Men, Guns and Society

Why do men shoot unarmed civilians - girlfriends, ex-wives, co-workers, students, shoppers, spectators, children? What drives them to kill masses of innocent, law-abiding Americans?

The common claim is that mass shooters are mentally ill. And, to be sure, anyone who would use a gun against unarmed church goers and school kids is ‘crazy’. But mental illness occurs throughout society. If it were a significant cause, we’d see girls, grannies and grandpas blasting away in malls and theaters. But we see only men. And those men are almost always between the age of 15 and 50. So, it would be vastly more accurate to place blame for mass shootings on masculinity than on mental illness.

Masculinity, as measured by testosterone levels, increases rapidly until the age of 20, and then declines 1.25% per year. Men 15 to 50 have high levels of testosterone - levels that are associated with most mass killers.

Does that mean high testosterone levels cause mass shootings? No. But a high level of testosterone is present in all mass shootings. The only other factors present in all mass shootings are masses of people and guns. Men with loaded guns among people – even among close friends and family - is a lethal combination. A gun in a home is seven times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

Until this millennium, society needed men who were killers. It needed them for military service, as fighters and warriors, as protectors and defenders. Aggressive, belligerent men have been essential to our well-being, prosperity and survival.

But what do we do when the killers, when those whom we’ve trusted to protect us, turn their testosterone-fueled aggression against us, when they turn their anger and hatred against the very people they’re supposed to protect? What can we do when we find ourselves in the cross-hairs?

Very, very few men actually turn their semiautomatics against the innocent and the unarmed. Compared to the number of high-testosterone men who own guns, the number who injure, maim and snuff out unsuspecting citizens is miniscule. “So,” men would say, “there are a few bad apples. What’s the big deal?”

One “bad apple” kills, on average, fifteen people. From among the 9,400,000 men who stockpile weapons, ‘a few’ is too many. But even more alarming is the high percentage of the 9.4 million who turn their testosterone-fueled aggression against the public in open forums, in court cases and through contributions to organizations that make it easier for killers to buy weapons and go on killing sprees. What appalls us, and frightens us, is the large segment of the male population that sides with the killers against society. We say, “Protect us,” and men reply, “No! We would rather protect the shooters.”

We cry out, “Hundreds of our friends have been slaughtered by men with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. High-velocity bullets have splintered children’s bones and scrambled brains. Neighbors have been threatened, crippled and butchered. You are the men. You are the strongest, richest and most powerful segment of society. You are supposed to protect us – women, children, everyone. Instead, you are a major threat, a major cause of fear and death.”

Unmoved by our pleas, men respond, “We have a right to arm ourselves.”

“Of course you do,” we say, then ask, “But tell us, against whom do you arm yourselves? Against an attack by toddlers? Geezers? Wives and mothers?”

Men answer, “No. We must protect ourselves from men, from men with guns.”

It’s at that moment, perhaps, that gunmen will see they’ve been duped into believing they are a solution when in fact they are the problem.

Malheur Standoff and LaPierre

The standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge points out the absurdity of NRA chief Wayne LaPierre's statement that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The armed trespassers in Malheur believe they are the good guys. Which means they believe it's OK to shoot any armed men who try to remove them from the Refuge, including the police and FBI. The police and FBI, however, see themselves as the good guys. Who's right?

According to LaPierre, the only way to find out may be for one group of gunmen to shoot the other group of gunmen. Those still alive after the shootout have proven they're the good guys. The winners write the history. Might makes right. But what else could we expect from the NRA?

Let's consider a Gandhian alternative. Bundy has said his men will not shoot first. So, give them no reason to shoot. 1) send the trespassers a list of crimes with which they'll be charged and the likely sentences if convicted. 2) tell the trespassers that unarmed officers will enter the Refuge the next day to arrest them for those crimes. 3) tell the trespassers that if they commit more crimes, such as resisting arrest, they will be charged accordingly. 4), send in the unarmed officers (equipped with cameras) to handcuff the trespassers and lead them out.

The unarmed officers would, of course, have to be volunteers. Studies suggest that females would meet less resistance.

A Reply to SWAG

Dear SWAG (Student Writers Advisory Group)

I enjoyed your additions to the gun debate. As fate would have it, the day after they were published in the LO Review, eight gunmen killed 129 people in Paris. The problem of gun violence, while especially acute in the US, is global. If we have any "hope for a solution," as Olivia Fuson wrote, then let's seek one that is universal and serves all humanity. To find it, "we simply cannot . . . avoid the many important conversations," wrote Kristi Rastogi. "Perhaps it is time for us to open our eyes . . . "

To what must we open our eyes?

First, to the very fact that the major American mass-murderers during the last five years - Chris, James, Adam, Dzhokhar, Tamerlan, Seung-Hui, Eric, Dylan, Kip, Dylann, Elliot, Aaron, John, Andrew, Wade, Scott, Jared and Omar - are all males. Contrast these with the names of the SWAG contributors - Olivia, Kristi, Nina, Serena, Ava, Talia and Anna - and you'll know where to look for a solution to gun violence.

Serena Zhang writes that male violence results more from social expectations than genetic influences. She may be right. But if we accept that conclusion without challenge, we might disregard the genetics that created our social expectations. After all, human genes came before human society.

Men's genes direct them to compete for dominance. A major goal of a male-dominated society is to encourage competition in order to make strong leaders for the future. This encouragement exists on all levels. So, yes, Serena, our society does foster the "toxic masculine ideal." But here's the catch: men love it. Men thrive, work harder and more creatively when challenged. Society advances. We all benefit.

Sounds ideal, right? But there's a downside, which is the young man who has a strong, biological drive to compete and dominate, but lacks the skills or education to reach his goal. In most cases, he accepts his lot. Occasionally in America, he buys a gun, and for a brief moment is absolute dictator.

The male solution to the problems caused by men with guns has remained unchanged for millennia: give more guns to more men. In the end, the male solution to gun violence is more gun violence, i.e. war. Is this stupid or what?

Woman's time has come. For the first time ever, humans have filled the planet. The world is a global village. Male exploitation and belligerence endanger our families and our future. Male competitive activities to achieve dominance destroy the natural world and obliterate our home. Women have always set and enforced the rules of the home. Now is the time to unite and do so globally.

How, you might ask, can women in a male-dominated culture shift the culture's emphasis away from competition, dominance, violence, war and guns, and toward a female-oriented culture in which children, education, health and environmental preservation take precedence? Men dominate every human enterprise and institution. How can women prevail?

Women can find a solution to male violence in the realms that are purely female, in the realms men can never invade, can never take from women, and can never dominate. If women unite around the idea of establishing a female-oriented, violence-free, healthy world, I have no doubt it will happen.

Over-population

(Letter to the Oregonian)

Regarding Mark Matsushima's article on our hostility toward immigrants, I sympathize with his argument that these are people who just happen to be of other ethnicities and races, and that we should treat them fairly because they will eventually fit into our culture and add to it. He is absolutely right. However, he misses the point. Race and ethnicity are irrelevant to many people's discomfort with newcomers. They are crowding our spaces. If the eleven million illegal immigrants in this country were blond, blue-eyed Swedes, their presence would still reduce our freedom to move in much the same way as more people in a room does. Our parents may have entered America as immigrants, but that does not mean America can add immigrants forever and still guarantee the un-congested cities and open countryside we value and enjoy. We limit the number of people who can ride in a car. Why not set a limit to the size of the US population? Why not begin to deal with the procreation choices individuals make that exacerbate environmental and social problems world-wide? Why not talk about over-population?

Roseburg

The Oregonian's headline, "STATE AND NATION SEARCH FOR ANSWERS," implies that the reason for the mass shooting in Roseburg is a mystery, as though Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, Virginia Tech and Charleston had different causes. The cause, my dear friends, is always the same: a man with a gun.

Hundreds of people have been murdered not by grannies, toddlers, geezers or girls, but by young men. Males between the ages of 13 and 30 commit 85% of the homicides; they commit all mass shootings. There's something in the male gene that compels many men to form gangs, join ISIS, chain-saw forests and employ financial weapons against the poor. Many young men are biologically driven to hurt others, and given easy access to guns, they'll buy guns, or steal guns, and go on a killing spree.

America's gun laws make it easy. America has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - 88 guns per 100 people. The positive correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides is well documented: those states with the highest gun ownership have the greatest number of gun deaths. The same is true for countries. Reports CNN, "When it comes to gun massacres, the United States is tragically exceptional: There are more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world." With 5% of the world's population, the US commits 31% of the mass shootings. The NRA's argument that we could stop gun violence if more men had guns is absolutely false.

What can we do?

First, admit the facts: at the core of all bloodshed world-wide are men with guns.

Then, in this country, restrict men's access to the frightful objects. Other countries have proven the effectiveness of gun control. "In Scotland, after Dunblane, in Australia, after Tasmania, in Canada, after the Montreal massacre—in each case the necessary laws were passed to make gun-owning hard, and in each case… well, you will note the absence of massacre-condolence speeches made by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, in comparison with our own President." (Gopnik, The New Yorker)

As to the constitutionality of gun control, lets look at the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The two words in this Amendment that gun-rights advocates steer us away from time and again are "well regulated." The framers of the Constitution intended guns and militia to be "well regulated."

As to the other half of the violence equation - males - let's make it a felony for any male under a certain age, say thirty, to have a gun unless supervised by an adult female or a male over 30.

Similarly, let's make it a felony for any person to give a male under that age access to a gun, whether intentionally or accidentally.

Do you think such laws would sober people up? I do. And good lord we need some sobriety when it comes to guns. Rationality, not heated rhetoric, saves lives. You'd be hard pressed to find any rationality in the gun-rights camp, however. In fact, if you want a clear example of "mentally ill," just mention gun control to a male, concealed-carry gun zealot. Then be prepared to run for your life.

Alimentary, my dear Watson, alimentary

The Columbia River runs through our region in much the same way as the alimentary canal runs through the human body. Liquids go in one end and come out the other. We do the best we can to ensure that the liquids going in are free of herbicides, pesticides and other toxins because we want our bodies, and the river, to remain healthy.

Now, let's suppose that one day a man came to you and asked, "How would you like to make money transporting toxic substances from point A to point B?"

You might ask for details.

He would say, "It's easy. All you need to do is swallow these balloons filled with cocaine and then carry them from here to there. After you get safely to the other side, we'll separate the bags of cocaine from your excretions, and then we'll remove the cocaine from the bags."

You might ask, "And why would I do this?"

"For the money, of course."

"How much money?"

"Enough. But most of the money will go to people far away who don't care a hoot about you or your health."

"So, if one of the bags were to break, if there is a leak, what would happen to me?"

"You'd probably die," the man would say. "But rest assured, that won't happen. We double-bag the cocaine. Those bags can't break. We are very, very safety conscious."

You weigh the hazards against the rewards, say "No, thank you," and go about your business.

Now let's suppose that on another day another man came to you and asked, "How would you like to make money transporting toxic substances from point A to point B?"

Once again, you asked for details.

The man explained, "It's easy. All you need to do is give approval for trains filled with coal and oil to run through the Columbia River Gorge."

You might ask, "How would this benefit me?"

And he'd reply, "It will provide jobs to train engineers and to workers at the terminal. If you have one of those jobs, you'll benefit directly. Otherwise, the region will benefit indirectly. Most of the money will go to people far away who don't give a hoot about you, the river or Oregon. "

"If one of the containers were to break, if there was a spill, what would happen to the river? What would happen to the animals in the river?

The man, if he were honest, would not mince his words. "The river would get very, very sick. And if the spill happened during a salmon run, the entire species might be wiped out. But let me assure you, there is absolutely no chance of a break, and absolutely no chance of a spill. Everything is double-hulled. We are very, very safety conscious."

The man might add, "We also want you, the Oregon tax-payer, to give us money to rebuild the terminal in St. Helens where we unload coal."

Last week, the Oregon Transportation Commission had to vote on this issue. Ambre Energy, a coal and oil shale company headquartered in Brisbane, Australia, and Salt Lake City had asked for a subsidy of $2,000,000. On Thursday, March 19, the OTC turned down Ambre Energy's request. Thank you OTC and, in particular, thank you Tammy Baney, Chair.

Competition

Ah, the noble fight. The well-deserved victory. Give praise to competitors and the competitive spirit! How could America and the free-market have thrived if rivalry had been reined in by regulations and rules?

As an example of achievement, let's look at the most American of sports, football, and in particular the NFL, the most successful sports franchise in the world. No one doubts that the teams of the league are highly competitive. The games are exciting. The desire among the players to win is intense. And the franchise makes tons and tons of money. About as capitalist as can be, right?

Actually, what makes the NFL so successful is that the profits of the NFL are distributed according to the rules of socialism, that is, evenly: the losing teams make as much money as the winning teams.

"Foul!" you might cry. "Outrage!" "Un-American!" And you'd be right. The way the NFL works is un-American. How could anyone think that rewarding the losers would do anything but make them lazier and more dependent?

In fact, it does just the opposite, and here's how. Since every team receives the same amount of money, every team has a more or less equal chance of getting good payers, and therefore a more or less equal chance of having a good team and making it to the play-offs. Of the 32 NFL teams, all but 4 have played in the Super Bowl during its 49-year existence. Because the teams are more or less equal, competition is stiff and games are more exciting than if one or two teams took most of the profits, bought the best players and won all the games.

Strong rules work. In football, boundaries are clearly defined. The number of players allowed in the game at any one time is fixed. Play lasts for a pre-determined duration. Actions by players are restricted, and the rules governing those restrictions are enforced by referees who have the authority not only to penalize the entire team for an individual's violations, but also to kick the player out of the game.

Imagine football without rules. Chaos. A coach could put more players onto the field to overpower an opponent. Players could run outside the lines knocking down photographers and spectators. Contact between players, which already leads to fisticuffs, would escalate to unchecked mayhem. In effect, there'd be no game.

Now, think of an economy with few rules, or weak rules, an economy in which referees are powerless to enforce the rules that do exist. What might such an economy look like? As you might expect, there'd be gross inequalities in power and wealth. The big-shots would run roughshod over the smaller players. The largest competitors (the multi-nationals) would ask Congress to eliminate rules that restricted their ability to take advantage of uncompetitive and powerless taxpayers. The most competitive individuals (CEOs) would demand extraordinarily large salaries, thereby depriving their employees of a livable wage. High-income individuals would fight increases in taxes that are so essential in supporting the indigent and unemployed, that are so essential in keeping the whole system competitive, and therefore healthy.

Some say that taxes on high incomes punish success. And yet, when high incomes are not aggressively taxed, the super-wealthy monopolize the game and the land of opportunity ceases to exist.