on gender and guns: america’s gun problem inside the home
America has a gun problem. It is known and understood, shamed and punished, yet cultivated and revered, and it lurks in every American’s life. Familiar as it may be, no one denies its effects. It spreads across the map as so many news stories detail an epidemic that kills over 30,000 every year. When viewed through the lens of domestic abuse, patterns emerge suggesting our culture drives gun violence and its consequences. Reducing gun violence requires recognition of this in order to respond effectively.
One particularly troubling aspect of America’s gun problem is the prevalence of mass shootings. A mass shooting is defined as an “incident in which four or more people were shot and killed, not including the shooter.” From 2009-2016, there have been 156 mass shootings in the United States. It is usually the case that only mass shootings with “active shooters” get national coverage. In her paper Mass Shootings and Offenders' Motives: A Comparison of The United States and Foreign Nations, Vanessa Terrades defines “active shooters” as “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” These shootings are widely covered by mass media because they are the deadliest, most tragic, and most threatening to the average citizen.
Mass shootings can take many forms, and often it is the public sphere shootings that receive media coverage, however there is another kind of mass shooting which is more prevalent. 54% of mass shootings are a result of domestic or family violence, and these usually take place in the home. Although these shootings are not covered in the media, they plague America. We hear about the citizens that are shot at random in public, however we don’t hear about the wives, children, and families that are targeted in private. These shootings are the result of a combination of unfortunate circumstances, but the driving factor is most often intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is defined as “violence committed by a current of former boyfriend or girlfriend, spouse or ex-spouse… that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm,” by Monica Modi in her article The Role of Violence Against Women Act in Addressing Intimate Partner Violence: A Public Health Issue. Intimate partner violence is tragically common in America, as 1.3 to 5.3 million women fall victim to it annually, and 30% of women will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Private mass shootings are often the result of exacerbated intimate partner violence and “when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the likelihood that a woman will be shot and killed increases fivefold.”
While the public may sense a difference in threat between public and private shootings, the dynamics that underlie both are the same. When mass shootings are reported in the media, mental illness is usually considered a driving factor. However, when we look at the perpetrators of America’s most tragic mass shootings, relatively few have been confirmed mentally ill. In fact, there are more dominant predictors. First, the vast majority of public shootings are perpetrated by men. Second, many public shooters of the past have had histories of intimate partner violence. In his article America's domestic violence problem is a big part of its gun problem, published by Vox, German Lopez explores the link between public shootings and intimate partner violence. The most recent major mass shooting took place at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, at the hands of 26-year old Devin Kelley; he killed 26 people. Devin Kelley was also “court-martialed and convicted of domestic violence in 2012 for assaulting his spouse and their child”. Same is the case for Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando in 2016. Mateen also “beat both his ex-wife and his second wife”. Other mass shooters with a history of intimate partner violence include "Robert Lewis Dear, the alleged 2015 Planned Parenthood shooter; John Houser, who killed two and injured nine in a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana, in 2014; and James Huberty, who killed 21 people at a California McDonald’s in 1984.” As Lopez points out in the article, the best predictor for future violence is past violence. But what drives this violence in the first place, and how does it get as far as it does?
Violence in America is rooted in violent masculinity. Domestically and internationally, being a man means many things, including power, dominance, and privilege. In America it also means violence. In his book, Guyland, Michael Kimmel lists the “Real Guy’s Top 10 List,” which are the rules men feel define manliness: the list includes phrases like “Boys don’t cry,” “it’s better to be mad than sad,” “don’t get mad — get even,” and “nice guys finish last.” Having socialized men to be dominant, society fails to equip men with the tools to cope when they are not. When men slip from dominance, they often feel that the only way, or perhaps the easiest way, to regain it is through violence. Kimmel describes this phenomenon, saying that for many men and boys, “Rage is the way to displace the feelings of humiliation”. Violent masculinity manifests itself in a number of ways. As Henri Myrttinen points out in his article Pack Your Heat and Work the Streets': Weapons and the Active Construction of Violent Masculinities, violent masculinity can be “direct or indirect, verbal or physical, structural or cultural…armed or unarmed.” While violent masculinity comes in all shapes and sizes, there is one common factor: the belief which “equates ‘manliness’ with the ‘sanctioned use of aggression, force and violence.”
Violent masculinity comes out in all aspects of American society. It manifests in homes, schools, malls, and movie theaters. It can take the form of hazing, bullying, and schoolyard fights. It is normalized by our parents, peers, and politicians. It is glorified in music, TV, and movies. American society tells boys that it is ok to be violent, and that sometimes violence is good and necessary. This is not to say that all American men and boys are violent, but that our society tells them it is acceptable to be. America is not the only society that socializes boys and men to be violent. The difference between violent masculinity in America and in other countries, however, is that violent masculinity is more lethal in America because of our right to bear arms and the prevalence of guns.
Mass shootings, intimate partner violence, and America’s gun problem are not facts of life that we cannot change. In order to address these issues, we have to address the role our culture plays in driving them. Changing culture is not light work. However, our attitude toward guns and gun violence could change if we had stricter legislation. One organization that radically changed cultural attitudes is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Not so long ago, drunk driving was acceptable and masculine in the United States — as it was deemed unmanly to give up your keys. But, my generation doesn’t seem to carry this attitude — likely because we have grown up with more severe consequences for drunk driving. MADD went through congress and state legislatures to pass laws that raised the drinking age to 21, established a no tolerance policy on underaged drunk driving, and made .08 BAC the legal driving limit. By establishing stricter, low tolerance legislation, MADD changed the American culture around drunk driving. While drunk driving cannot be eradicated in its entirety, the work MADD has done has kept casualties to a minimum. A similar approach could be taken in addressing gun violence. We could use legislation to change attitudes, not just keep guns out of the wrong hands. Regulation needs to acknowledge our current cultural reality and the link between public and private violence. We know that the strongest predictor of future violence is past violence. If we had stricter repercussions for all types of assault, we could keep guns away from violent people. Any record of violence, even juvenile, should inhibit someone from buying a gun. Not only would this act as a motivator to handle things peacefully, but it would also guarantee that violent people don’t have such easy access to guns. Reporting of violent crimes would have to be consistent in order for this to work. However, this is not the case, as is demonstrated by the fact that Devin Kelly, the Sutherland Springs shooter, was able to buy a gun in spite of his domestic abuse conviction. If our institutions were more diligent about reporting crimes, he likely would not have been able to acquire a gun so easily. Hence, I think that there should be repercussions for failure to report violent crimes. Finally, there should be heavier regulation on the private sale of guns. At the moment, the private gun market is largely unregulated, and regulations vary from state to state. If the private gun market was federally regulated, it would be nearly impossible for violent people to obtain firearms. While gun restrictions could make violent masculinity less lethal, it only addresses part of the problem.
Violence in general will not be eradicated until our culture acknowledges the problem with American masculinity. We need to move away from equating violence and aggression with manliness, and instead encourage men to find other ways to cope with their feelings of disenfranchisement. Men in America try to tough out their emotional issues for various reasons, first, because being emotional is associated with femininity in America — which keeps men from acknowledging their feelings and getting help. Second, help is seen as unmanly. As Michael Kimmel points out, “men never stop and ask for directions.” If we redefined American masculinity and allowed men to see that it is ok to have feelings, and it is ok to get help, they might not resort to violence in the first place. Masculinity cannot be redefined overnight, but the violence that is a result of it could be prevented through better education and support networks. We know that when men don’t get help, the outcomes can be fatal. Not only is it a risk to their families and strangers, but to themselves. But if we gave men tools to deal with feelings of shame, rage, and humiliation, we could save thousands of lives. It is much easier to change laws than it is to redefine American masculinity — but in the long run this may be necessary.
Works Cited
Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America.” Mother Jones. Nov 15. 2017. Web. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/>.
Kimmel, Michael S. Guyland. New York [u. a.]: Harper, 2009. Print.
Lopez, German. "America's domestic violence problem is a big part of its gun problem." vox.com. November 6th, 2017. Web. 11/30/2017 <https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings>.
"Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009-2016." Everytownreserach.org. April 11, 2017. Web. <https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/>.
Matthews, Dylan. "Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings." vox.com. November 9th, 2017. Web. <https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings>.
Modi, Monica N., Sheallah Palmer, and Alicia Armstrong. "The Role of Violence Against Women Act in Addressing Intimate Partner Violence: A Public Health Issue." Journal of Women's Health 23.3 (2014): 253-9. MEDLINE. Web.
Myrttinen, Henri. "'Pack Your Heat and Work the Streets': Weapons and the Active Construction of Violent Masculinities." Women and Language 27.2 (2004): 29. ProQuest Central K12. Web.
"Saving Lives, Serving People." Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2017. Web. <https://www.madd.org/history/>.
Terrades, Vanessa. "Mass Shootings and Offenders' Motives: A Comparison of the United States and Foreign Nations." ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 23.3 (2017): 399. Web.