Why we should be worried during, and after, the pandemic
Considering the steady rate of increase in mass violence incidents in the U.S. over the past 100 years, we should be relieved that we have only seen one mass violence incident in the past 6 months (www.salemnews.net/wire/?category=5063&ID=110651; based on my current database and findings — with focus centered almost entirely on COVID-19, reporting of incidents may have fallen off media radar). It’s the largest span between incidents since 2017. But there are signs this may be the calm before the storm.
In conflict studies, there are risk factors practitioners watch for to help predict an outbreak of mass violence — existing armed conflict or instability, human rights violations, weakness of state structures, incentives/triggers, lack of mitigating factors, capacity, and preparatory action, such as stockpiling arms and ammunition.
Generally, this is focused at nation states, in particular “weakened states” overseas, outside of the U.S. While not perfect, these factors have provided a means of predicting to a reasonable degree when incidents of mass violence may occur, providing practitioners, governments, and NGOs opportunity to take preventive action, or at least get a head start on resolution. What hasn’t been done in large degree or with any regularity is to turn this model’s eye inward, to examine potential risks in the U.S. Some practitioners in the past few years have started to recognize the trends from overseas right here in our own backyard.
Some clarifications on terminology is in order. It is true that the risk factors outlined above are focused on preventing mass violence on a much larger scale than we see in the U.S. These guidelines are focused on determining when international action is required to intervene in a nation state when it is exhibiting signs of risk of impending mass violence, on the scale of thousands of deaths due to violence. The United Nations guidelines for mass violence would not be deemed appropriate for even the Las Vegas shooting of 2017, the largest to-date mass violence incident in the U.S., outside of civil war and attacks from international parties. But that’s about politics and legality.
As a predictive model, these risk factors could be of great assistance in understanding phenomena relating to the more localized and smaller scale U.S. mass violence that I define in my research. In almost all of the cases I’ve studied, there were forms of instability (divorce, economic downturn, job loss, social incompatibilities), weaknesses of structures (judicial systems, human resources, mental health care, school discipline and structure), motives or triggers (bullying, ostracization, job loss, expulsion, prolonged arguments with neighbors or coworkers or classmates), absence of mitigating factors (loners, self-isolators, lack of social connections, lack of emotional outlets and problem solving resources or techniques), and preparatory action (stockpiling of weapons or ammo, manifestos, plans of action) leading to capacity to carry out mass violence.
As a result, I can’t help but see warning signs, apparent risk factors escalating during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic. There’s significant instability in our political, health, and economic systems, at an epic magnitude, amplified by this being an election year, with what many consider a high-stakes election. These are intertwined with weaknesses of our internal structures, in terms of ability to manage and keep pace with the current COVID-19 pandemic — preparedness, communications, interstate cooperation, state-nation cooperation, production, emergency safe guards, medical resources, to name a few. Motives run the gamut from political frustration to now-escalated pre-existing grudges and fears to distrust of media, politicians, and even fellow citizens. Triggers are on an epic scale with record job loss, economic fragility, health fears, limited resources, wide-scale deaths, and overall frustration, anxiety, and fear. What mitigating factors we’ve been able to muster (repurposing of manufacturing, innovations in production, civic action) aren’t able to keep up with the demand from motives and triggers. And the most alarming factor is the actual stockpiling of weapons across the country as fear, anxiety, and frustration give way to paranoia.
In a message shared to a community message board in a town in California, one of their neighbors wrote:
I was in a local gun store recently I was speaking with one of the employees who works at the gun store and he told me he has never seen so many guns flying off the shelves and selling so fast. He said they have been selling guns and ammunition at a large rate and every time they sell out of some guns and get some new ones in the new ones sell out immediately. This is great news for the security of our country . . . . I encourage every law-abiding citizen to go out and exercise your second amendment right and support local gun shops and protect your family at the same time . . . . I would like to give a big shout-out to all the local gun store owners . . . . It is vital we support these local businesses . . . .
Shared by a friend in the neighborhood; author’s name withheld
This is merely an anecdotal reference, but it’s supported by recent reports. According to an article from Boise State Public Radio (wamu.org/story/20/04/02/gun-sales-skyrocket-in-march-on-pandemic-fears/), “Retailers sold more than 2.5 million firearms in March, a year-over-year increase of 85%.” The FBI reported “over 1 million more background checks” were processed in March of 2020 than in the same time period a year ago. Many of these purchases were by first-time gun owners. Although CBS reports “this is one of the longest stretches in [students’] lifetimes without a school shooting,” they also report that “while school shootings are down, gun dealers around the country said they are seeing record numbers of customers” (it should also be noted that schools have been shut down since early March this year, removing capacity for a school shooting; source: www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-first-march-without-school-shooting-since-2002-united-states/).
The two key factors for potential large scale violence are in place: triggers and capacity. If this was an assessment of a fragile state nation, the red flags would be flying at high mast. So I’ve sounded the alarm. What next?
The good news is I’m not expecting this to escalate to the level of nation-state mass atrocity. This isn’t a situation where I’m anticipating political genocide or militia war to break out, for a variety of reasons. However, because this still doesn’t fall under the parameters of the United Nations framework for genocide or mass atrocity prevention (www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/about-us/Doc.3_Framework%20of%20Analysis%20for%20Atrocity%20Crimes_EN.pdf), we’re not going to be getting outside assistance to mitigate, de-escalate, or reconcile. So it falls to those within the U.S. to figure out how to keep this from escalating to a dangerous level.
When addressing conflict in nation states, there are some generally agreed on frameworks: fact finding (to clear the clutter of false information, hold those in power accountable, communicate faithfully to citizens); problem-solving workshops (at leadership and citizen levels, returning agency to citizens); peace-keeping discourse (faith-based unity and leadership, cross-party collaboration and discussion, community forums); media cooperation (stem misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric, provide useful information and guidance); economic reform (emergency assistance, conditional financial support); military and police efforts (demilitarization); human rights activism (reduce discrimination, provide security); and government reform (reduce exclusivity, increase inclusion).
We have seen attempts at some of these efforts. There’ve been some efforts toward economic assistance. There have been individual efforts toward more inclusive cooperation among state representatives. Local grassroots efforts have worked toward problem solving and citizen engagement. However, these efforts can’t keep pace with the increasing needs, and in most of these areas we still need to see action, unified action. In some cases it’s not only a matter of improving, but repairing damage already done by months of misinformation, media hype, inter- and intra-state bickering, resource competitiveness, and faith and political leadership discord. Demilitarization — the removal of the millions of weapons purchased just in the past month, on top of the millions of firearms owned prior to 2020 — is not going to be feasible under the current structure. Thus the goal needs to be de-escalation and reduction or removal of motivations and triggers.
How to do that — there isn’t a lot of precedent for how. U.S. mass violence is a localized occurrence, and the best places to start are going to be at the grassroots level, with state leaders, civic leaders, and citizens taking action to lead the way to mediation, support, and cooperation. Now is the time to think creatively and start putting support systems and action plans in place. If we are to keep those firearms sitting unused, we need to take action now to do what we can to ensure nobody has reason to use them.
Disordered Allegiances 