As we turn the corner on another decade, hopes for a more peaceful society seem to be somewhat elusive – locally, nationally, and globally.

Here in Vancouver, our city council has approved the licensing of mixed martial arts, a sport that takes boxing to another level, while still retaining its key goal – one man displaying the speed, ferocity, and strength to knock another unconscious. On the national stage, the rate of handgun homicides in our major urban centres has been climbing for a decade, as young men with guns kill their adversaries for a wide range of reasons. On the international stage, matters are even worse. Tens of thousands of terrorists, again almost always men, are committed to killing as part of some ill-conceived political and/or religious agenda.

What’s the solution? Well, first, let’s separate the mixed martial arts combatants from the young gangsters and the terrorists; at least the former group is playing by some rules. And I must confess, as much as I dislike the blood and the violence, I’m not sure that prohibition of the sport is ultimately a helpful strategy. Increased regulation brings increased safety for those who choose to participate: restrictions on eye-gouging and groin kicks, for example, and the comfort of knowing that a properly certified neurologist is sitting ringside.

While that might not be much to get excited about, the practice of mixed martial arts is a world away from young men carrying handguns, wholly immersed in an illegal drug trade that can erupt into violence and which occasionally claims innocent victims. We keep hearing about the need to get tough with “these thugs,” but it’s increased certainty of apprehension that we need, not more punishment – resources for prevention and interdiction, not the empty symbolism of longer jail terms (convictions for first and second degree murder already attract a life sentence).

And what of those we define as terrorists? Those who for reasons of political and/or religious conviction are willing to kill men, women, and children whom they’ve never met. Getting tough with them is even less helpful than getting tough with young gangsters who carry guns; self-protection requires a pre-emptive response, fair enough. But it’s a pretty depressing and ultimately futile long-term strategy. These folks are even more deluded than young gangsters; they welcome death as martyrs.

My point, however, is not to lament the extent of senseless violence on the planet – that there were more global genocides in the last century than in any other in history, and so on. Rather, it is to suggest that we will need to be much more creative in our responses to violence than we have been to date, recognizing that our tool box cannot be limited to the often necessary strategy of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment.

Why is it that some young men want to knock other young men unconscious? And why is this perceived as enjoyable entertainment by so many others? Why is it that young men decide to enter the illegal drug trade, armed with handguns, and willing to turn these guns on their adversaries? And finally, and perhaps most important, what can be done to alter the trajectories of young men before they decide to sacrifice their lives to the cause of killing others? If we can begin to answer these questions in a thoughtful and constructive manner, we will be at least a small step further along the road to a more peaceful society.