Stakes is High[er], Gun Violence & Complex Systems Thinking

STAKES is HIGH[ER], GUN VIOLENCE

Every time there's a mass shooting, the line "gun control means using both hands in my land" comes to mind from De La Soul's song, Stakes is High[1]. The possible reasons for the shootings get more nuanced to respond to also.

Decades later, the problems they describe in their lyrics[2] are still here, Despite releasing the album with perspective from Brooklyn in 1996. The big difference is that I (probably you too or we) know more people who are working on solving those problems head-on, some of us even working on it systemically. At the same time, the stakes is high[er] even for discussing these issues.

I know responsible gun owners, including law enforcement officers. I know someone who survived terrorist attacks in the Nairobi, Kenya mall massacre. I know a people whose friends and family have been shot and killed from neighborhood violence here in Michigan. I have friends and family who served in or work with the military. I wish they'd all meet.

I look at gun violence incidents from three levels:
1) Social
(environmental, social, and intentional factors + alternatives via conflict resolution/transformation--what leads up to the event? What is the policy really designed to change in society?)
2) Access
(e.g. rigor & duration of training, ownership, and access to ammunition in Switzerland differs from the US despite similarly high per capita ownership)
3) Capacity
(details about high volume clips & magazines, lethality by caliber, etc.)

Knowing "complex systems thinking" science helps me make sense with "wicked problems" like a mass shooting (or any jarring and political issue). I hope it might be helpful for you too.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS THINKING & WICKED PROBLEMS WITH CAKE

De La Soul's paradoxical grammar in the track's title reflects our relationship to complex events: the risks, stakes, are actually many but as individuals, we live with and look at all of them as a singular entity, the stakes. To get a feel for the science of complex systems thinking: think of a cake.

Eggs, flour, sugar on their own or even added together don't make good cakes. When you mix and bake the three ingredients just right, new characteristics (magical chemistry in your kitchen!) emerge and you get a cake. That's an emergent property or outcome.

We think of the cake, not the all the ingredients and work that goes into them.

A mass shooting is the outcome of the three elements multiplied together.
Without one, it won't happen. That's an easy conclusion that's obviously unfeasible: people have reasons for owning/buying guns, many of which are reasonable and legal, some illegal and not enforceable, etc.

However, we can and do safely navigate and reduce the risks associated with each layer.

I'm certain most contentious debate around a fuzzy concept like "gun control" will revolve around misunderstandings between one or all three elements I outlined above.

Mass shootings are a wicked problem--it's like trying to decipher ingredients by untangling a [wicked] cake that's already been baked and eaten. And by the way, talking about these "wicked problems" at the dinner table or on facebook posts is often frowned upon because a concrete conversation is challenging to facilitate in reverse: the topics will continue to branch out with complexity and people tend to get lost in details essential to ingredients without context for the rest of the process. 

Or, we tend to debate--championing one reality over the other failing to seek where both views come together in a way that works beyond compromising.

Going back to the cake metaphor, this is like trying to choose flour vs. eggs in order to make the body of the cake. You need both, not one or the other, and together a better outcome with new characteristics can emerge.

WHAT CAN/WILL YOU DO?

For now, I think it's better to learn and do focused on improving your life and the lives of others too--peacebuilding relies on very simple (not always easy) skills to navigate complex circumstances. Sharing a meal with neighbors, evaluating conflict with reason, are all within our purview.

As a quick exercise (try answering within 2 minutes--maybe write it down then ponder further later:

1) When you encounter something uncomfortable, how do your behaviors affect interactions with people around you?

2) Assuming every behavior might have a benefit when in the right context, how might it be constructive when applied in other areas of life (at work, in the neighborhood, through government, etc.)?

3) At what point does it become less effective in those environments, and how?

[1] Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj-vPcCfQ6k
[2] For the lyrics, prescient and not quite what you'd hear at the dinner table: http://genius.com/1652793