I had already been thinking about violence in entertainment since I saw Funny Games at Sundance; Michael Haneke's English-language remake of his own 1997 film is a grim piece of moviemaking, and one designed to start arguments about why and how we watch violent films. And then the NIU school shooting last Thursday brought all those thoughts to the front of my brain, with Illinois legislator Rep. Robert Pritchard imploring us to examine a "culture of violence" in movies and videogames, and Fox News guest and headline-grabbing hack Jack Thompson suggesting that violent videogames played a role in events at NIU. Anytime there's a mass shooting, it seems, the discussion comes up as to whether or not violent culture leads to violent acts.
As a film critic, I can only say one thing in response to those cultural pundits on the right and left who suggest that mass shootings are inspired by movies and videogames, which is, simply, "You're wrong." And that may seem a little sharp, but now and then a little sharpness is the only way to even scratch the stone-solid wrongheadedness of some people's thought processes. There are a variety of exercises in logic one can run though to demolish the theory that violent entertainment correlates to violent activity in a matter of seconds. Various mechanisms distribute American pop culture throughout the world, whether legal ones like multinational theatrical and DVD distribution or illegal ones like DVD piracy and peer-to-peer downloading. American pop culture is viewed and appreciated (or, in some cases, viewed and despised) worldwide by a large, avid audience. And yet, Western democracies like Germany, Canada, Australia and Britain don't have a statistically-similar rate of mass shootings or gun murders. Economically and demographically similar audiences are watching these films, and yet, viewers in other nations aren't making the leap to arming themselves and shooting people as the final possible act of film appreciation.
And, as I've joked with gallows humor before when this line of argument comes up, if you're suggesting that a violent pop culture causes violent activity, then when we follow that suggestion to logical conclusions, there shouldn't be a single person alive in Japan. And I know that joke may seem fairly broad and easy, but like every joke there's a kernel of truth in it; the extremes of some Japanese pop culture are far more violent than any American equivalent. Cultural conservatives on the right and left, though, can't explain why the gun-toting action of some Anime and films like Battle Royale isn't being re-created in the streets of Tokyo on a regular basis.
I didn't grow up in America, so I have no great or grand investment in the Second Amendment as an iconic principle of the American character. However, I'm in the process of becoming an American citizen, and I've been able to read English for a long time, so I feel like I have as much right to assert my position on the matter as any taxpayer. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. (And, much like some of the other language in the Bill of Rights, the times have changed; in my neighborhood, I'm more worried about getting tagged with a stray bullet than I am about British soldiers.) In a perfect world (which is to say, my perfect world and not yours), if you're a private citizen who'd like to own a gun, great; join the National Guard. You'll have access to it when you're on maneuvers and deployed. Otherwise, you don't. And as for hunters and rural farmers who "need" firearms, I'd be willing to make a compromise for them: they can own one single-shot, bolt-action long rifle with no magazine whose ballistic signature is already on file at the local police station -- which would also be the only place you can buy and store your bullets. (I once had a lengthy discussion about this with a cabbie in Vegas who was an avid hunter; when I suggested that if he truly loved hunting he could enjoy it just as much with a bow and arrow or single-shot bolt-action rifle, he countered that he wanted more firepower than that, because "I hate to see animals suffer." "Well," I noted with careful timing as we arrived at my destination, "then maybe you shouldn't be shooting them.")
Other than that? Stop selling guns, stop selling ammo -- smash the molds and melt the inventory, with a very short amnesty period for people to turn their guns in, after which possession of a gun, never mind use, brings a life sentence. And I know this penalizes 'law-abiding' gun owners -- but, seeing as how robberies and thefts from 'law-abiding' gun owners are how so many murder weapons come into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill, I don't have a lot of sympathy for that as an argument or a philosophical principle. Maybe you could talk me into seeing things that way. Maybe my thoughts about guns are a bunch of crazy jibber-jabber, and you can explain to me why they're naive or impractical. I don't know. At least we'd be talking about it.
But when tragic events like the NIU shooting happen, we don't talk about the guns. We talk about the media, or the killer going off their medicines, or how there were no warning signs or how there were plenty of warning signs. My jaw dropped at a quote in a story about the NIU shooting, as internet gun seller Eric Thompson, who also sold equipment to the Virginia Tech shooter, expressed his shock after learning his store had sold Glock magazines and a holster to NIU shooter Steven Kazmierczak: "I'm still blown away by the coincidences. I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this." You sell gun accessories, and yet you can't believe someone would use them to do what they're made for? And if you're so shaken, why are you still in business?
No, guns don't kill people. But they make it a lot easier to do so, especially at a moment's notice as the result of some insane impulse; we can't legislate against someone wanting to pick up a gun, but we can make it less easy for them to have one, or four, or more at hand when they reach out for one. And gun companies don't kill people; they just make a lot of money as their products are used to kill people. If Kazmierczak had stepped into that class with a golf club or a knife or a baseball bat or a length of chain, many would still be hurt and some might still be dead. But he stepped into that class with three pistols and a shotgun, all of them legally obtained, and it makes me nauseated and ashamed that the first unbidden reaction I had to the NIU shootings was that five victims and the killer's own suicide seemed like a 'low' death count. And yes, we need better mental health funding in this country, so that the cracks people slip through are smaller. And we need to have constant serious discussions about what our entertainment says about us, and what that means. But at some point, someone -- I don't know who, but I strongly doubt it'll be any of the current presidential candidates, some of whom would rather offer prayers and more prayers than policy initiatives, some of whom would rather write books instead of laws -- someone needs to stand up and say that the very American principle of private gun ownership is leading to a very American practice of murder and tragedy. Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Thompson and others on the right and left suggest we need to look at the "culture of violence." But we've been talking about the culture of violence in relation to mass shootings for years and years now; when do we start really talking about guns?