The Science of Violence

1. Behavior is learned.  Violence doesn't appear suddenly in an individual.  It emerges over years.   ... so ?
2. Over those years, we learn the most from what we see and experience.  We copy the familial and social models around us. 
   ... and?
3. From year to year, it's unconscious learning – we pick it up with little awareness that we're being deeply changed.    ... and?
4. Violence emerges as an outlet for frustration, commonly from repeated failure to make progress or anger at failing yet again to change things.   ... and?

   

   ... the language of the unheard

5. And, exposure to violence increases our own risk of becoming violent; it spreads from one person to another like a contagious disease.  ... is there a solution?  Yes, but it's not an easy one.

We've seen the changes around us -- increasing crime and violence, the decline of family and community, the rise in incarceration, and today's angry polarization; we taught ourselves to do all of that.

That is what we know.  It's old news.  

The plague is not uniform, of course. Not every child will become a criminal, not every relationship will be a battlezone, not every school will be a hostile environment. But our culture continues to change. Violence in the media (along with sensuality) is a centerpiece sales element, and exposure has multiplied in every age bracket and every venue.

We are physiologically changed by violence,

experienced or witnessed,

first or second-hand.    

Children are more likely to experience violence than adults. [Ref]  In 2014, more than two-thirds of children (below age 18) were exposed to violence, either directly as victims or indirectly as witnesses. [Ref]  It can lead to lasting physical, mental, and emotional harm, whether you're a direct victim or a witness.   Such exposure changes us.  

Perhaps the best Solution:  Not everyone is equally conformed to our troublesome culture; some walk a different path by deliberate choice and effort.  That advice to be "in the world, but not of the world" turns out to be extraordinarily practical wisdom.  Just going with the flow would be the opposite.

Everything is on the table for review -- lifestyle, entertainment choices, fashion, consumption, vocabulary, activities, relationships, subjects of conversation, attitude, affiliations, values, principles, and life goals.  

So do we need to change things?  Obviously.  The contaminated part has to be detached and removed.  It takes deliberate choice, and we'll need help for ourselves to change.  Then as we progress, we can perhaps encourage others and be a helpful example.  Then what?  How broadly can we affect our culture?

If you want to participate in this nation

... there are rights to be preserved, and rights to be surrendered.  

That's George Washington's perspective as well as that of the other members of the Constitutional Convention.  When they submitted the Constitution to Congress, Washington in his accompanying letter explains  ...

New citizens celebrate after taking the oath of allegiance.

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. 

In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety—perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish. 

    GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.
  By the unanimous order of the convention.
___________________________________________________________

All are created equal.  Each has inalienable rights.  Each deserves the full respect and support of the nation and of every citizen.  We must understand, however, that we are each a part of the whole, not the centerpiece.  Were our interests alone to be satisfied, the consequences might be detrimental or injurious to others.  If we are willing to be so informed, we might become less disagreeable and more respectful.  We might make a place in the discussion for the interests of others.  And we might be less willing to accommodate the extremist, the racist, the elitist, the exclusivist corruption in our own thinking .... 

Balancing Life and Liberty

Walking the ridgeline between absolute freedom and absolute security ...

Post 9/11, we did what we had to do, we went all in on fighting terrorism.  We monitored phones and emails, transactions and travel, … we went overboard, pulling the plug on due process, privacy, protection from illegal search, incarceration and torture, and we jumped into international military engagement.  It was a time of extraordinary departure from national principles.  All understandable, and we’ve tried after the fact to clean up the mess, but we note the rights and rules that were set aside while we responded to the threat.

I remember the open discussion.  We knew we were quickly pushing past boundaries, and we weighed the options -- bend the rules and be safe or watch more people die. 

So they read my email, so what.  So they tracked my phone calls, so what.  They know about my guns, my friends, associates, travel, buying habits, work history, and report cards from elementary school, so what.  Okay, it did get a little out of hand and perhaps still hasn’t yet been reasonably constrained.  (grotesque understatement)

That’s us trying to balance personal liberty with the safety of our people, our families.  

Today, we’re dealing with the deaths at Stoneman Douglas High School.  The quick answer is school security, gun control, and armed teachers, ... but yesterday at a Birmingham school that has metal detectors and armed security officers, an 'accidental' shooting killed one and wounded another.  There will be more, but broad and practical discussion is absolutely needed.

_________________________________________________________

The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 25 times higher per capita than other high-income countries.  For 2018, 68 days into the year, 1,800 folks have been killed by gun violence, 16 police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty, and we’ve had 18 19 school shootings/incidents so far. 

Why?
  Specifically, ... why?
    And how do we fix it?

We’re walking that same ridgeline again, trying to balance life and liberty.  There are solutions available, and we will figure out a way through.  The changes are perhaps not likely to be simple or particularly agreeable to many.

Simple solution

There are many sides to most issues, often obscured by emotional response or a short-view simplistic solution.  Arguments made along party lines are often poorly-informed.  Thoughtless blaming and accusing can contribute to subsequent confusion.

There are indeed positions held on an issue which might be considered conservative.  Or liberal.  Or progressive or socialist or capitalist or pro-life or pro-rights or ....  Such labels are of little help, we've noticed, because it's just the goal that matters, not the party.

School shootings and school violence top the

media list today.  Discussions of gun control,

rights of ownership, and arming teachers are

 the perhaps simplest response, but they don't
 address either the cause or a
 truly viable solution.

Why would a student go to school to kill?  

Attacks in schools by students go back to the 1800s in the U.S., and are often related to events at the school. Within that context, we see students choosing violence when faced with rejection, conflict, or their own failure, things they perhaps don't know how to deal with otherwise.  It sometimes can be traced to escalating frustration, perhaps a life-skill development shortfall over years.

Columbine wasn't first, but it has been a model studied by perpetrators here and elsewhere in the world.  Do we know why?  In some measure, we do.  Can security measures at school solve the problem.  Unlikely.  Nor will an assault weapons ban or background checks bring about any fundamental change in heart and mind of those planning violence.

Causes, as reported -- there's bullying or having been bullied, being harshly and perhaps publicly reproved by a teacher/principal, being ostracised by a social group, academic failure, loneliness, conflict, failed romance, frustration with personal life and home circumstances ....

Beyond the simplistic solutions offered, there is much to understand about who we are and how things have changed in the recent decades.

For what specifically do we equip our children?  Ideally, we'll redirect them to personal strength and away from violence.  They'll perhaps be faced with circumstances like these:

• school culture may or may not be an extension of family and community; real life is usually quite different.
• not every school culture is harsh, but segments of many are.
• not every teacher/administrator is thoughtfully engaged every hour of every day, but many are or nearly so.
• not every neighborhood supports student aspirations, but many do.
• not every household is calm, but most are functional.
• not every parent is unaware or uninvolved, though many are limited by multiple jobs and partner absence.
• not every student is equally vulnerable to distress, 
• and not every crisis has the same solution. 

And, while laws are necessary, none of the causal elements are addressable by legislation.  None.

Required in the larger discussion -- personal, family, and community values, national principles; all must be considered, and law isn't going to solve the problem no matter how much we'd like to legislate something simple and move on. 
Leadership, however, ....
_____________________________________

Update 4 MAR 18 - here's one senator's approach via a bipartisan study group for policy changes that might help.  Written like a politician perhaps, but it contains a preliminary set of goals for the discussion as it moves progressively deeper.  Thoughts?  Missing pieces?  What are the chances of meaningful change?
 

School safety is a top priority on a daily basis--in every classroom in Maryland. Over the last week I've been working with a small bi-partisan group to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted action plan that addresses the issue. 

This plan has overwhelming bi-partisan support; will be drafted into a 4-tier legislative package with each tier then including specific solutions to issues in each of the following categories:

          Prevention, Anticipation, Deterrence, Protection.

Providing additional support to our communities by tightening background check procedures, establishing threat assessment teams in schools, adding more sworn, trained police to serve as on-site resource officers, and last line of defense safe refuges in classrooms are just a few of the changes this legislation will mandate. Keeping our kids safe--along with teachers and faculty--is the true goal. This legislation not only addresses today; it also includes a system of checks and balances that requires periodic review of safety procedures at each individual school. ... 

We are deliberately staying away from 'solutions' that will never pass or cause polarizing partisan fights. I don't want headlines or press releases - I want to fix the problem. 
_________________________________________________________________

Problems -- Impediments to understanding include how such incidents are categorized and reported by various agencies. State agency perspectives vary widely.
_________________________________________________________________

Gun control -- after 17 people were killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida, gun control advocates say they have momentum to enact new state laws. But in the years since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, more state laws have actually expanded access to guns.

From a recent article in Huffington Post ...

"In the years since Sandy Hook, when 26 were slain in 2012, states have enacted nearly 600 new gun laws, according to data compiled separately by the National Rifle Association and the Giffords Law Center to Reduce Gun Violence. Nearly two-thirds of those were backed by the NRA. It is “indisputably true” that there have been far more new laws that loosen gun restrictions than tighten them, said Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel at Gun Owners of America, a Virginia-based “no compromise” gun lobbying organization. The way a state reacts to mass shootings depends on who controls its legislature, he said. And in the case of the states that expanded access to firearms, most were controlled by Republicans.

“If you are in favor of the Second Amendment, grow up with guns, are comfortable with guns, don’t want to see kids turned into sitting ducks, you’re more likely to say the solution is more guns,” Hammond said."

______________________________________________________________

From Jay Bazzinotti on Quora, 17 FEB:
The “main culprit” that seems to be the cause of school shootings is the cruelness of life combined with very easy access to guns. Throughout history we have made school itself a punishment where students long for snow days and see as drudgery the sudden rigid schedules. They are separated from seeing the inherent benefits of schooling: the social aspect, the education; the learning; the use of time; the opportunity for extra-curricular activities. They are unable to find reasonable ways to express their dissatisfaction with their environment, with discipline, with work, with their changing bodies and romantic entanglements they cannot understand or seem to make work. They seek control and something like “freedom”. School is like prison to many students. The easy access to guns, the unrealistic portrayal of shootings in movies and TV with their lack of gore, their lack of remorse or grief and their apparent magical ability to provide control and easy answers to nearly every problem makes shootings more attractive. We try to control shootings more now by building prison-like schools with more metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs in the hallways, with bulletproof classroom doors made of diamond plate and TV cameras in every hall but all we do is push the problem somewhere else - to shootings in churches and theaters and stadiums. There are 140,000 schools in the United States, every one of them a potential target, a soft target.

______________________________________________________________
Apart from law, what role does leadership play in this issue?

A year ago this month ...

Shane Patrick Boyle was a young man who had moved to Arkansas to care for his ailing mother. Boyle was a diabetic who was unable to find work in his new town, so he couldn’t afford the insulin shots his body needed to stay alive.  He was waiting for his ACA application to be approved, but it was taking a long time.  In desperation, he started a GoFundMe account to raise money. He was $50 short of his goal when he died, just two days after his mother passed away, in February 2017.

Remembered by his cousin, "The world lost a

wonderful man due to complications of

type 1 diabetes. My cousin, Shane Boyle,

put everything into taking care of his ailing

mother at the expense of his own needs.

The price of insulin had tripled in the decade before Shane died. The required doctor visits and treatment supplies had increased similarly, and folks without insurance pay higher prices.  It cost Shane his life.

Boyle’s story isn’t unique. Alec Raeshawn Smith was a 26-year-old diabetic who had to start rationing his own insulin after he aged out of his parents’ insurance coverage. He was found dead in his apartment in June of last year. 

Research (by the NIH and Columbia University reviewing 47 studies) has found that poverty and inequality cause roughly 291,000 deaths in America every year. Their research also found that poverty was a contributing factor in many more deaths.

So helping the less fortunate among us isn’t just a nice thing to do, it saves lives, which may explain some of God’s deep concern.  It might motivate us to get involved. The reason the wealth gap should concern people is that life and death should concern people, and the sooner we can be honest about the very real consequences of turning a blind eye to American poverty when we have the resources to do something about it, the sooner we can start talking about real solutions.

The Spice of Islands

The only place in the world ... the Spice Islands.

Inhabited for thousands of years with a long history of self-rule, the Maluku islands were in the center of world trade in spices. In the south, the Banda Islands were the world's only source of nutmeg and mace produced from the nutmeg tree.  Cloves were available from nearby island communities and nowhere else in the world. For generation after generation, they traded the spices for food and manufactured goods from India, China, and Arabia.

Banda Islands

When Europeans discovered the market, competition escalated viciously.  In the 16th century, the Portuguese were first to arrive and attempted to monopolize the trade in spices, but failed.  The Dutch East India Company (VOC) attempted the same monopolizing and succeeded.  It was Europe's second joint stock company after the English East India Company, both major landmarks in the development of the modern corporation.

Much like today, the Dutch East India Company coerced the local governments into unbalanced trade agreements that gave them increasing leverage in the local economy and workforce.  When they came to the Banda Islands, however, there was no central government to conquer.  Each community was governed by a council of residents, and they were quite opposed to foreign involvement, so the company killed them.  Corporate genocide.

Jan Pieterszoon Coen, the Dutch governor of Batavia, sailed with a fleet (and company army) to Banda in 1621 and killed almost all of the people there.  He let about a thousand survive to preserve the agricultural knowledge necessary for continued spice production.  He divided the lands into 68 sections which he allocated to company executives and brought in slaves for forced labor.

Such deadly practices were not uncommon and are seen in varying degree among most of the business ventures controlling the new world's trade in their treatment of both colonists and indigenous populations.  Indentured servitude, slavery, and native genocide were corporate initiatives.

Today, it is illegal in most contexts to kill competitors.  With that exception, corporate trade practices continue much as before.

Fair trade efforts have shown some progress, but 'me first' and 'us first' persist to the detriment of most of the world's inhabitants.  Inequality between and within nations is increasing each year.

There's more, of course, with perhaps the key
factors being governance and equality.
North and South Korea provide interesting
examples as did our northern and southern
states up through the mid-20th century.

Public discourse suggests that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism, suggesting the better of the two is the only choice.  That discussion is perhaps simplistic rhetoric rather than informed.  Neither capitalism nor socialism provides a solution, as we well know.  Both leave the lower economic segments of the population in deprivation and inescapable circumstances.

Fortunately, there are numerous alternatives.  For starters, ours is not a pure capitalist economy any more than China is pure socialist.  Both economies have morphed over the years, sometimes beneficially, sometimes not.

Here's hoping we learn along the way and improve appropriately, perhaps virtuously, as has from time to time been our national intent.