Blaming Our High Levels of Violence on Crime is So 1980s. And Wrong.

“Experts” like to draw parallels between our high levels of violence, and the violence that spiked during the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

But they’re wrong. Take a look at recent acts of violence:

•  A 72-year-old man targets the dance halls where he danced. 11 dead. Victims were in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.
•  A 66-year-old man targets his workplace. 7 dead.
•  A 62-year-old man ignites smoke bombs, and fires 32 times at riders on a subway train. Dozens injured.
•  A 64-year-old man fires down on a concert facility from his high floor hotel room. 58 people slaughtered.
•  A 46-year-old man opens fire on synagogue attendees. 11 slaughtered.
•  A 28-year-old PHD candidate brutally slaughters 4 college coeds in a town with a violent crime rate of 0 per 1000 inhabitants.
•  A 31-year-old long term Walmart supervisor opens fire on co-workers in the break room. 6 slaughtered.

Were these acts of violence driven by the drug turf wars of the 1980s and 1990s? No. How about by addicts willing to inflict harm or to kill people to supply their habit? No. Again. Okay, were any of these gang members spraying each other with Mac-10s? No. And what about the tough on crime politician’s favorite back then, the unsupervised teens in need of curfews? No. None of them were.

The high levels of violence during the late 1980s and 1990s were a byproduct of crime. Today’s violence is not. It is driven by grievance based anger. Yes these violent acts become crimes, but they were not committed in furtherance of crimes.

I spent 30 plus years conducting civil and criminal litigation investigations including working in South Central LA during the lead up to the Rodney King Riots. I’ve seen and investigated more violent crime than most people will see in 50 lifetimes.

And for over 10 years I’ve taught businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies, including the staff of a US Senator, how to reduce the risk of violence to keep their staff safe.

So What Can We Do to Address Grievance Based Violence?

Target the root cause. Anger.

•  Employers can start by getting serious about addressing complaints brought to their attention. Internal investigations need to be more than just a vehicle to sweep complaints under the rug. Legitimate internal investigations go a long way towards letting an aggrieved person feel heard.
•  De-escalation. Both as an intervention with those who are seething about some perceived slight, whether real or imagined. With some simple skill development each of us can learn to talk someone we know down before his grievance becomes all consuming and leads to violence. And, workplaces should make de-escalation training mandatory. Staff needs to be able to de-escalate with co-workers, customers and clients, vendors, and members of the public. Violence can come suddenly from any one of them, and can impact any type of business.
•  Stop giving a free pass to politicians and media figures who stoke grievance for money and votes. Yes, freedom of speech matters. But, there’s no prohibition on mass callouts when those with a vested self-interest stoke anger for a buck.
•  Burst the bubbles that allow grievance to become collective. It’s time to start thinking about mandatory government service again. Military and civilian. Restore a sense of common purpose. While the other facets of fighting grievance based anger are fast and easy to implement. This one will require a sea change. But, it also the best way to implement long term change to end this type of violence for good.
•  Finally, put responsible gun owners in charge of the gun debate. Currently, the all or nothing crowds from both sides control the debate, so nothing gets done. Personally, I trust the good guy without the gun, who has had some training, to successfully and safely intervene in a violent situation more than I do the good guy with the gun. But, we need to let those who best understand the reasons for owing a firearm, and who best demonstrate community responsibility with those firearms, the ability to craft an approach that is sensible.

Because the rise of violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s was crime based. Saturation patrols were effective at reducing crime and its resulting violence. But, saturation patrols will not work against grievance. Individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies can each play a role in reducing grievance based violence. In order for that to happen, we have to be honest about how current high levels of violence are different.

Check out our FREE personal safety guidebook. You can download it belong. Also check out our FREE on-demand personal safety workshop.