I went to go see Bowling for Columbine on Sunday. If you like to think every now and again, definitely go see this movie. It was really entertaining, very accessible, and well paced. While I loved the movie, I do have some issues with the point he was making. What follows is a little critique of that part of the film.

Bowling for Columbine (BFC) is about gun violence in America, to put it quite simply. There are a number of reviews out there, and I’ll add links to them as I get time. I really loved the movie, and may look to add it to my collection once it hits DVD. Michael Moore is as entertaining as he is informative making this documentary feel like a funny (better than) Dateline story. It moves quickly, and keeps hitting a variety of different topics.

BFC examines why the gun death’s in America are several orders of magnitude higher than they are in other industrialized countries. Assuming I remember these numbers correctly, the U.S. had something like 11000+ gun deaths for last year. Canada, Britain, and Germany had 2-digit gun death totals for the same period, far fewer than can be explained away by population differences. Moore focused on using Canada as a counterpoint in most of his examples.

BFC proposed several potential explanations. One interesting suggestion is that Americans live in a culture of fear. For example, most evening news programs here focus on violent crimes rather than political stories or purely informative pieces. We have investigative journalism that tries to make us afraid of just about everything. I have to admit, after seeing the movie, I took note of all those 10 second teaser spots for the evening news. Each one (I kid you not) had lines like, “A new study says you may want to stop eating hot dogs”, or “Hank investigates crooked contractors at 11.”

A quick aside: there was an odd sense of deja vu seeing this. I had just read an
article in the Economist about the Washington sniper. Entitled The
logic of irrational fear, the article made some interesting
points about the reaction of D.C. area residents to the sniper. There was
a quote that really struck me (and, obviously the editors, since they
highlighted it ):

So it is fair to say both that people are understandably alarmed, and that they are still exaggerating the risk. Why? Experts seem to agree that Americans find it harder than most people to evaluate risks accurately. Lawsuits, labels on coffee cups (“Warning: the beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot”), even political pronouncements all often suggest it is possible to avoid danger altogether.

Interesting coincidence. Clearly, it’s not an unique claim about Americans.

My problem with this theory is simple: I can’t connect this “culture of fear” cause with 11,000 gun deaths as an effect. We assume the causes of gun violence according to our particular prejudices, obviously, and I assume that most gun deaths occur as part of murders rather than, say, self defense or accidents. I’m going to look into this over the coming weeks and update this as I find out more.

BFC’s second theory seemed more plausible. This explanation focused on the underlying social differences between the various countries. Specifically, our treatment of our poor and disadvantaged. BFC shows public housing in a major Canadian city. It’s as clean and as well maintained as any apartment complex that I’ve seen. They also point to universal health care as another indicator of Canadian attitudes. Contrast that to the U.S. where our constant goal is to move people off the welfare doles.

Welfare-to-work gets an especially harsh look in BFC. Moore focuses on the
shooting death of 6-year-old Kayla Rolland by her classmate. In that case, the mother was working 2 jobs over an hour away by bus from her home, forced to do so by Michigan’s Work First program. Because of the commute, she had limited time supervising her children. There are a number of complicated issues here. In the end, this argument boils down to how we evaluate what is good for society. In this particular case, one can make a strong case that forcing someone to work two jobs in a wealthy, suburban mall an hour away probably might not have been the best choice. Or, maybe spending extra money on free day care or relocation closer to work (and the wealthy suburb) might have balanced out the negatives.

Even more important than the specifics of the welfare to work program, this anecdote provides an insight into something I do believe might have something to do with our high gun death rate. As Americans, we tend to think in terms of self-empowerment. What can I do to help myself? The American Dream exemplifies our belief in the power and responsibility of the individual. Americans extend this belief to government and to our sense of entitlement (or lack thereof).

So, what does this have to do with gun violence? My theory is that Americans have a diminished sense of obligation to society. We also actively discourage government obligations to us. We also have a heightened sense of self-responsibility, which means that when we’re in a stressful personal situation, we’re more likely to act. In cases where where we feel harmed, we’re more likely to pursue justice on our own.

Here is my hypothesis: For general gun crime (where victim and criminal have no personal connection beyond the crime), I believe poorer Americans, often ignored and lacking one or more basic necessities (healthcare, food, decent housing) are more likely to turn to crime than similarly situated people in other industrialized countries. In a twisted way, they are empowering themselves to improve their situation. Guns are easily available and are the best weapon, if you’re going to use a weapon.

Another type of crime is that between family members (let’s say) and other acquaintances, for example, against a business associate or a cheating spouse. In these cases, we’re more likely than other societies to seek justice on our own. Again, getting a gun is easy, so they’re probably involved more often in this type of crime.

Clearly, these are just theories. I will be adding more evidence/justification for these as I find it. At the top of my list is to find gun violence statistics. I’ve found
simple, general statistics at the CDC web site. I’m not sure what prompts most firearm deaths. Is it anonymous crime (people robbing stores, banks, homes) or personal crime (killing a cheating spouse, business partner, etc.)? There could just be lots of accidents for all I know.

If you have links to evidence or other ideas, feel free to put them in the comments below.