Active shooters, inactive politics: America’s latest school massacre

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month.

Now you don't even need to wrap it.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing.

You a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means half day.

Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow. 135 gigabytes of network busy taxes and fees extra. Cmintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. In London, I'm Jason Palmer and in.

New York, I'm John Fassman. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

Covid has made the world understandably edgy about communicable diseases, so widespread reports of one called monkeypox have heightened nerves the world over. We ask what it is and how much concern it should cause. And it used to be that video games didn't have or need much of a narrative thread. Gathering the gold coins or getting the better of the baddies was enough. Times have changed and teams of writers and authors of all sorts are now getting in on the game. First up though, At least 19 children and two adults were shot dead at a primary school in Uvalde, Texas yesterday. The suspected murderer was an 18 year old who was killed by police. The tragedy comes just 10 days after a racially motivated mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, and nearly 10 years after another elementary school massacre at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. Yesterday, Chris Murphy, a senator from Connecticut, gave an impassioned speech about the Texas shooting.

This isn't inevitable. These kids weren't unlucky. This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day.

And President Joe Biden implored lawmakers to take action.

As a nation, we have to ask, when in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby? When in God's name we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done.

The contours of this latest atrocity are depressingly familiar. Thoughts and prayers will go out. The murderer's personal history will be plumbed. Questions will be asked. But after the 200 mass shootings that have already happened in America this year, the real questions are about why gun laws are actually getting looser in many places and why it remains so quick and easy to obtain the most deadly weapons on the market.

The suspected assailant bought two assault weapons on his 18th birthday. There are reports that he used one, along with a handgun and high capacity magazines to fire a lot of bullets quickly.

Alexandra Sewage Bass is the Economist's senior correspondent for politics, technology and Society.

This is the largest school shooting since Sandy Hook almost 10 years ago in Connecticut, and there are some eerie parallels. The shooter for Sandy Hook killed his mother beforehand, and in the Uvalde shooting, it's believed that he killed his grandmother prior to the shooting. We still don't have a motive for what's happened here, but the big picture point is that active shooter incidents are becoming very and disturbingly common. Since 2017, they've nearly doubled, according to FBI data. And since Andy Hook, there have been 900 shootings on school grounds.

And what chance that the increase in active shooter events and these kinds of tragedies at schools will actually put some pressure to change gun laws?

That is the key question. President Biden certainly hopes so. He said so in his comments last night. But you could hear in his voice that he didn't necessarily believe that we're likely to see change come anytime soon.

Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen? Where in God's name is our backbone to have the courage to deal with it and stand up to the lobbies? It's time to turn this pain into action.

We've also heard calls from some Democrats to push for bills to expand universal background checks and lengthen the waiting period for gun buyers that have been flagged by instant background checks. Currently, it only allows for three days for the FBI to investigate, and if they don't do that investigation, then the buyer is allowed to move forward with the purchase. I think, though, that depressingly, if history is any guide, we're not likely to see major change. We did not, despite the best of hopes, see change after Sandy Hook and President Biden, then vice president, was helping spearhead some of those negotiations. And the push for universal background checks collapsed in the Senate.

And why is it that it has been so difficult to get reform through, especially in the wake of incidents like this one?

I think the National Rifle association, otherwise known as the nra, is a major reason for this. They have really pushed the line of sensible conversations and sensible proposals when it comes to gun control for years. They have vehemently opposed expanding waiting periods. They opposed funding federal research on gun violence because they were worried that that might ultimately lead to more gun control. And then they've pushed not just to oppose gun control, but really fight for gun rights. So a major trend over the last few years has been the rise of permitless carry, or the right to carry guns outside without a permit or training. So I would really look at the gun lobby, and that's where Biden put blame. It was directly at the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.

So that's what the gun lobby wants. What about the mood among the American people when it comes to the proliferation of weapons and the laws around them?

We see, according to a recent Gallup poll, that just over half of Americans believe that laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter. That is used by some to suggest that politicians are not necessarily reflecting the will of the people. But it is really striking to see the longer term trends, which is how a few decades ago, we saw 60% of Americans actually in favor of banning handguns. That's so far from today's current political and social view on guns. America's seen a very striking move.

And so is this just another instance of polarization in America in which that half that wants stricter gun laws is the same half that is leaning left that votes Democrat?

I think that polarization plays a great part in this. And there is no middle ground when it comes to guns and many other issues that are discussed in Washington and on cable news. And I think a really good illustration of this is on the permitless carry issue. So opponents of expanding the right to carry a gun in public without a permit or training call it permitless carry. The gun lobby or proponents of this policy call it constitutional carry, anchoring it in their view of America's history and tradition and the Constitution. And so these groups are talking past each other. That's happening on so many different issues. And guns is one.

Is that to say then that part of the problem here is that the gun laws are going to be as gummed up as lawmaking is in a more general sense in America these days.

So I think that people who want to understand the future of guns and gun control in America need to watch too deeply different things. One would be states actions, and we're seeing different tracks with some states like California and New York trying to push forward greater gun controls. And there's a lot of momentum there in blue states. And we see red states doing the opposite, looking to loosen gun restrictions. And permitless carry is one example of that. People should also pay attention to the Supreme Court. And there's going to be a ruling soon regarding a New York law that could be very consequential for other states. It's going to address whether New York can restrict people carrying guns in public. Currently, under the law, people have to show proper cause to carry a concealed weapon. And fear of crime is not a suitable justification.

But putting the politics aside for the moment, isn't it clear even to the most ardent gun enthusiasts that this is costing lives? That maybe even moderate controls could help bring the death toll down a bit?

So this is a central question and I think one of the things that's least understood about gun control and gun policy is many gun owners support sensible policy because they're the people who understand guns the best. They understand the laws and loopholes as they're currently written. And I think many people would like to see greater controls, including universal background checks. Politicians do not play to those well informed voters. They play to their primary voters. So you saw that in Texas with guns again catering to people who are, I think, more fringe on the spectrum in terms of their views on guns and not necessarily mainstream gun owners. It has to do with primaries, as so many of the problems in our political system do.

Okay, so the question is fundamentally at an impasse for now and we're doomed to watch this cycle play out again and again. But what could break it? What could change?

Ultimately, this is up to voters to elect politicians who reflect their values. And to the extent that this becomes a big issue in mainstream campaigns in a state like Texas, it could potentially pressure people to pursue more sensible policy. You've seen in the Texas governor's race, Beto o', Rourke, who's the Democrat running against Greg Abbott, take a very strong line on gun control. If voters decided that that was one of their most important issues, then they could potentially bring people in who greater reflect their values. But I think the tensions of this issue are summed up this week in Texas. You have the horrific events in Uvalde, and then a few days later you have the National Rifle Association's annual gathering in Houston, Texas, where Greg Abbott, Texas Governor Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, who's the US Senator from Texas, and others speaking. So it's this dissonant moment that I think shows both America's dysfunction and probably contrib to some of the heartbreak.

Alexandra, thanks very much for joining us.

Thank you, Jason.

On May 7, Britain reported a case of monkeypox in a traveler from Nigeria. Over the next two weeks, dozens of confirmed or suspected cases were being reported elsewhere.

Cases are confirmed in at least eight nations in Europe, along with the U.S. canada and Australia.

Germany, Belgium, Italy and Sweden have become the latest countries to confirm cases, following Britain, Portugal, Spain and the United States.

One case in Massachusetts.

There are other suspected infections in New York City, Florida, Utah and Washington State. There are now more than 70 known cases of monkeypox in Britain, and numbers are rising in other countries, too. The virus that causes it was first spotted in a Danish monkey research lab in 1958. But monkeypox wasn't seen in humans until 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's typically transmitted from animals to humans, but this sudden spread of infections between people and in new places has rattled a world still reeling from the coronavirus pandemic.

The spread of monkeypox outside of Africa is certainly alarming, but we should only be moderately concerned.

Slaviya Chankova is our healthcare correspondent.

It's a disease that doesn't spread very easily between people. It requires close contact. So it's nothing like Covid. But more importantly, we have preventive measures. We have a potentially effective vaccine and several drugs that are being investigated as treatments. And the disease itself is not very severe. In most cases. It's a very mild disease that goes away in a couple of weeks.

So first of all, how is it spread?

In west and Central Africa, where the disease has historically been endemic, people catch it by hunting wild animals, small rodents or eating meat that hasn't been cooked properly. But the disease can also spread between humans. And some of the hundreds of cases in Africa seen every year are human to human transmission. What we know about that is that it requires very close contact, so it is spread by droplets from your throat. When they land in somebody else's throat, nose or eyes, that person can become infected. But another route of infection is from the blisters that develop and the scabs on the skin when they fell off. And when people come into contact with that, they become infected. So they're changing the bedding or caring for someone who's infected.

And the Current human to human transmission that appears to be happening in Europe. Where is that happening? How is that happening?

So it's been reported in more than a dozen countries outside of Africa, most of them in Europe, but also America, Canada, Argentina, Israel and the world. Health organizations and other public health authorities have said that most of the cases identified so far have been amongst men who have sex with men. And they have even advised people like this to be more careful and seek care immediately if they have symptoms. And some of the epidemiological investigations so far have linked the outbreaks to potential mass spreading events. In Madrid, for example, the public health authorities have linked quite a few cases to one sauna popular with gay men. So one of the hypotheses is that the virus maybe was imported and entered a place like this where it spread through multiple sexual contacts. Of course, the disease may be circulating unnoticed amongst other groups, and maybe it's just these groups that tend to seek health care more when they have the skin lesions.

And in terms of what the disease itself is like, what are the symptoms?

The first symptoms are usually very much like having the flu. So fever, chills, feeling tired. But many people develop the blisters a couple of days after these symptoms and they can be all over the body, they're quite nasty and then develop into scabs. So symptoms typically appear five to 21 days after infection, so the incubation period could be quite long, but the disease itself is usually quite mild. In Africa, mortality is 1% for one of the strains and 10% for the other strain. But I should mention that this is based on data for Africa in remote places with very poor health care, and mortality here in Europe, for example, is going to be much, much lower.

And what are countries doing to try to contain the outbreaks that they see?

It's the usual disease containment process. So once you've found a case, isolate people, make sure they don't come into contact with others. The healthcare workers have to wear protective equipment so that they don't get infected. But there's also a vaccine. So the vaccine we have was originally developed for smallpox and it was developed after smallpox was eradicated, so it's actually never been tested, but it's a newer generation vaccine which is safer, and countries have stockpiled in the event of smallpox spreading again. And because the two viruses are closely related, there is a good chance that this vaccine is also highly effective against infection by monkeypox. We do know from past data in Africa that people vaccinated with the older generations of smallpox vaccine seem to have pretty high protection against infection by monkeypox.

But do you see it coming to that? Do you think that this might reach the need for a wide scale vaccination effort?

Probably not wide scale vaccination effort, but maybe vaccinate the close contacts of healthcare workers, something which is called ring vaccinations, which is standard in epidemiology. It's being used to contain Ebola outbreaks, for example. Several countries are already ordering stocks of this vaccine with the manufacturer, a Danish company called Bavarian Nordic. But my view on this is that we shouldn't worry too much. Obviously it is a disease that spreads unusually, but it does require close contact. There are ways to contain it. We also have medicines to treat it. It's not as deadly as some of the other poxes like smallpox, which was deadly in 30% of cases. And oftentimes people are probably most infectious when they have very visible symptoms such as the blisters. So avoiding infection would be much easier than it is with something like Covid, which of course spread much more widely. Monkeypox is not likely to become a widespread pandemic disease.

Thanks very much for joining us. Lavea.

Thank you for having me.

Markets slipping, crypto assets imploding, central banks signaling inflation just rising and rising. There's a lot going on and we've got questions. We're sure that you do too. So keep those Questions coming@podcastseconomist.com Tell us what you'd like to know about all this news making and market moving turmoil. Our experts will answer as many as they can in an upcoming show.

Elden Ring is an adventure role playing game set in a fantasy world in which you play the role of a warrior who roams around and tries to kill massive monsters and zombies and zombie.

Dogs and all that make of thyself.

That which ye desire.

Colin Campbell writes about culture for the Economist.

It sold more than 12 million copies. It's extremely hard to play. It's also really beautifully written. It's set in a world that is coherent. It is full of interesting non player characters who have an emotional range which is not that usual in video games.

Tell me a bit more about that. What makes Elden Ring's story so compelling?

The original world in Elden Ring was sketched by George R.R. martin, who obviously is well known for the Game of Thrones series of novels and it was also co created by the director Miyazaki Hidetaka. Both these guys really know what they're doing. Martin is somebody who is very skilled at creating worlds and backstory and lore that then other people can take, or in this case, other people have taken to kind of fill it out with objects like castles and hills and characters who are basically there to give you a sense of the world that you're living in, but also to give you a sense of what you're supposed to be doing next. It's all done so convincingly, so beautifully, that you can't help but just fall in love with this world.

You make it sound really compelling. Is it unusual for a famous fiction writer like George R.R. martin to get involved in writing video games? I mean, what other series have relied on writing talent of that level?

Well, writing talent was not important in the old days of video games, but in the last decade or so we've seen writers like Neil Druckmann, for example, who created the Last of Us, which is a lovely post apocalyptic game, but also it's a story about loss and growing up.

Do I need to remind you what is out there?

Ken Levine, who has aspirations to write movies and screenplays, he's somebody who always talks about the importance of writing. And he wrote the BioShock series, which explores political themes. Is a man not entitled to the.

Sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican.

It belongs to God.

We've also seen some writers of fiction get involved in video games. Clive Barker, Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, you know, they've all had a go at writing video games or just getting involved in video games. And I think we're going to see much more of that in the future.

Now, you said earlier that this is a relatively new trend, that games didn't need good stories until recently. Why is that? Why have games lacked these sorts of compelling stories until recently?

Quite recently, There have always been some good stories and good writing in video games, but it's not been the norm. I mean, if you're dealing with a few pixels and a few colors of the sort of Space Invaders variety, there's really not that much you can do in terms of telling stories. It's very difficult to create an emotional range when that's the kind of game that you're looking at. But more recently, the technology has advanced so much. You've got characters with beautiful facial animations, you've got worlds that feel lush and rich rather than just kind of two dimensional palettes. And so the writing has had to catch up. The companies that make these games have had to say, well, we can't have these gorgeous avatars talking rubbish. In a way that they did maybe 20 years ago. And so now they're hiring talented writers and writing teams who are really crafting new ways to tell stories that haven't been told before because this is essentially a new technology.

That's a fascinating point. It gets at what the appeal for a writer might be. In your view, are there stories that video games can tell that other mediums can't?

I think it comes down to interactivity and putting yourself in the shoes of another person. And you look at a game like Papers Please, where you're playing a border guard at an authoritarian Soviet style country, and the moral question that you have is whether or not to allow people who are trying to escape the country to go and sort of do the right thing in that sense. But balancing against that is you're trying to keep your job and feed your children and stay out of the gulag. So you can read lots of great novels and great movies about the nature of evil, but when you're actually weighing up the moral costs of doing the right thing or doing the evil thing, it seems to drive it home much more powerfully.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. As ever, you can let us know what you think of the show@podcastseconomist.com and keep those questions coming.

And you can subscribe to the economist@examiner.com intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show Notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.