Why must the tragic Colorado theater shootings stimulate a debate on more than mere gun control? Not simply because, or however remarkable the fact that, violent mass killings -- whether in Columbine, Virginia Tech or now Aurora -- tend to have little sustained influence or impact over public attitudes vis-à-vis gun control, but because the root cause of violence is much more multifaceted and complex than mere access to military-grade weaponry.
Yes, it is very easy to get an AK-47 in Colorado. In fact there are no limits on AK-47 ownership. There are no limits on handgun purchases per month. Additionally, there are no permits or licenses required for gun ownership in Colorado, the Attorney General has no authority to regulate guns, and general safety measures, like requirements on safety locks, are completely absent in Colorado.
The same goes for Tennessee too, the state whose license plate was on 24-year old James Holmes' car, which was parked in the Aurora theater lot while Holmes killed a dozen theatre-goers and critically injured another 50 people. The only thing going for Colorado on gun ownership is the background checks required at gun shows, a measure brought about by public pressure. But that's about it. This is the reality, despite the fact that a majority of America still favors stricter gun control laws.
But no, it is not just about gun access. In our work on the US Peace Index, an index that ranks US states and cities based on their level of violence using data on homicides, violent crime, incarceration rates, police per capita and access to small weapons, Colorado state ranks in the bottom half of the Index and no Colorado city ranks in our top 60 most peaceful cities in America. And Tennessee is the country's second most violent state for several years running.
What we find in our data, compiled from only highly credible sources (FBI, DOJ, CDC, etc.), is that violence is directly and strongly correlated with socio-economic data on education, health, poverty, inequality, basic services, labor participation and social capital. States that are more peaceful have higher education levels, higher health-insured rates, lower poverty and inequality, better access to basic services, higher labor participation rates, and higher rates of social capital (i.e. volunteerism, community involvement, perceived trust, group membership, etc.).
Either way, all this violence is costing our struggling economy billions of dollars. In the last year alone, violence in America cost our economy a whopping $460 billion. Colorado's share of that was nearly $7 billion. One homicide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, can cost well over $1.3 million -- and that's just in medical, judicial and police costs. There is a much bigger cost to the economy. Consider that the 12 killed in Aurora will no longer be part of America's workforce, ever. That's a long-term cost that must be calculated as well when understanding the devastating impact of violence to America.
Then there are the less quantifiable measures like shame and guilt (see Harvard Medical School professor James Gilligan's work on Preventing Violence or UK economists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's work on Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger) that arise in highly unequal societies. America has the highest income inequality rates in the rich world. That correlates strongly with high rates of social-health problems, from homicide and violent crime to mental illness and drug addiction. We must acknowledge that basic human needs for meaning, connectedness, security, recognition and autonomy are real and worth addressing by policymakers. When they are threatened or unmet, conflict often arises and can, if aided by easy access to weapons, turn violent.
All of this is to say that when we are evaluating Colorado's impact on our society, beyond the deeply tragic and emotional costs, we must consider the comprehensive causes of this violence and the costs of this violence to our society. It is not just about guns. But guns do give voice to a much bigger issue that's not being addressed -- that of the socio-economic health of this country. Going forward, this is what the debate must be about.
Michael Shank is the vice president at the Institute for Economics and Peace. Michael is also an associate at the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Violence, a board member of the National Peace Academy, and in the PhD program at George Mason University's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.
Follow Michael Shank on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Michael_Shank
Gareth Higgins: How Not To Kill: Some Theological Questions About the Colorado Movie Theater Tragedy
I guess you didn't see the most recent poll here on Huffington Post...76% percent NOT in favor of stricter gun laws.
I guess you just get your information off of anti-gun sites...
Oddly after giving Muslims free apartments, medical, and HUGH social benefits, they discovered that imported Muslims do NOT RESPECT SECULAR SOCIETIES. Fireman can no longer engage in fire extinguishing, without police protection.
Many Muslims crossed into Denmark for jobs, and stronger Muslim communities.
I love the Swiss, but I'm profoundly thankful Norway is different socially and politically.
The number one saying in Switzerland .... "Regeln sind Regeln" Rules are Rules ...and you obey them
Other common social sayings are "One washes his dirty laundry in the family." or "Each in his home - each for his own."
Both Swiss and Norwegians agree on "Heaven helps those who help themselves"
Norwegians relish open conversations, the Swiss demand keeping their business ...THEIR BUSINESS.
Switzerland is a pristine nation and EVERYBODY cleans up their own mess ... minding one's own business leads toward less conflicts.
Knowing weapons abound leads toward more civilized behaviors. Knowing there are no acceptable excusses for poor uncivilized behaviors .... PRICELESS
You are so correct. The U.S. is an exceptional country alright. No other country has a constitution that specifically names gun-ownership as a right. No other country was built and expanded mainly at the point of a gun. The Great American Myth is embodied in the 19th century western town with its gun-cults.
And America, we took everything by force? Wow, so the Louisiana Purchase was a military action? Gee, my gosh. And the Adams–Onís Treaty, that was a military conquest as well? And the Alaska Purchase or the Treaty of 1818, wow, all military conquests.....
Before you write your opinions or make statements, perhaps you should conduct some research and understand that your opinions should be backed up by facts, not left winged ignorance.
Additionally you say you are Far Left and Proud of it, well thats funny because its because of America's Constitution and because of Our Rights, including Gun Rights, that you are allowed to have your opinions and express them in the first place.
There is one incoherence, however, in his observations and that is that a majority of these massacres have been committed by educated people, more precisely, students!
Colombine
Virginie Tech
Gabrielle Giffords incident
Aurora, Colorado
…… and others that don’t come immediately to mind.
All of these were committed by individuals with a strong connection to education.
One could easily conclude, half-jokingly, that education is somehow also responsible for these tragedies as much as gun ownership.
1. People are inherently dangerous, so we need to limit access to weapons like guns. If we can limit people to less deadly weapons, we can limit the scale of destruction.
2. People are inherently dangerous, so they will always find a way around laws. If they want guns, they will get them. We need to address the factors that make people dangerous in the first place.
Now, I actually don't see these as being mutually exclusive. I agree that we need to look as a society at the inequalities and social patterns that create potentially dangerous situations. However, I also think that as people living in a society, we have a responsibility to each other to make sure that we are giving the dangerous weapons only to people who are trustworthy and qualified to use them. In most professions, operating specialized equipment requires training, licensing, and periodic re-qualifications. Could we use a similar approach for anyone owning a weapon? Currently, I believe most people only have to show competency for concealed weapons permits, not general gun ownership.
But I'm going to open my horizons and say, okay, some people love their guns. So I'm speaking to you people...those who feel so paranoid in life that they feel they must protect themselves and their families at all costs...those who hunt...those who like to go to the range, etc. I'm asking you, why not make it a little harder to get weapons? Why would you need an automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle? What's the problem with a national gun registry?
Why can't we compromise on this?
There is one simple fact in this Aurora tragedy: This man went out and bought several weapons, including assault weapons, specifically for this reason: to inflict a lot of carnage.
Let's say because of stricter gun laws, he could only have gotten one hand gun. How many more people might be alive or uninjured today? I suspect quite a few.