Shooting attempt creates new, but futile, gun control demands
Should focus on uses, not ownership
Gordon L. Weil
Each time the U.S. undergoes a mass shooting or an attack on
an elected official, calls are immediately raised for additional gun
control. Usually, those calls go
unanswered.
The frequent reply is that “guns don’t kill people, people
kill people.” States may pass so-called red
or yellow flag laws, allowing for temporarily taking firearms away from
individuals with possible mental health problems. Their effect is limited.
At the same time, gun sales may increase as the industry reacts
by raising fears of possible government restrictions on gun ownership, though
the manufacturers and the NRA succeed in blocking any such proposals.
It’s true that, by themselves, guns don’t kill people. Does their ready availability make them the obvious
tool of choice for people in responding to politics, personal disputes, or despair? Is gun use a routine part of the national culture?
Most attacks on political figures are by zealots, driven so
deeply into opposition that they seek to make a public statement or eliminate
the person they hold responsible. The
shooter at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner had an avowed grievance
with President Trump and his administration.
Political shootings are a long-standing America tradition (three
presidential assassinations between 1865 and 1901 plus two more attempts by
1933). They continue, reflecting the deep
divide in the country’s political life.
No longer does one party respect the patriotism of the other party, while
opposing its policies. The opposition has
become a disloyal enemy.
Trump has said he “hates” the Democrats, which he has labeled
as “the enemy within.” In full fury, he
has called the Democratic Party as “the Party of Hate, Evil and Satan.” That’s the language of war, not the language
of open political communication. It may last
so long as MAGA Republicanism dominates politics, and Democrats respond to it.
While armed attacks on public officials of both parties and
mass shootings, often at schools, raise legitimate outrage at gun violence,
they miss a central fact about guns.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Their deaths are as much a sign of a troubled
health care system with its questionable focus on mental problems as of a failure
to control guns.
Guns are widely available and easy to use, making them a
ready method to express anger or eliminate personal woes. The U.S. leads the world with 121 firearms
per 100 inhabitants. Canada comes in
second with 35 per 100. In last place
among leading nations is Japan with less than one gun per 100 people.
How does that translate into firearms deaths? The U.S. is
second to gang-ridden Brazil and has 11 deaths per 100,000 population. Canada has two and Japan has less then one per
100,000.
The differing death rates may reflect gun control. Rules are extremely tough in Japan. Canada licenses owners and requires
registration, but little is done in the U.S. and Brazil. While most countries have “stand your ground”
laws, many impose a burden of proof on shooters and the need for proportionality,
unlike many American states.
American history may help explain the clear difference
between the U.S. and other countries. The
nation once depended heavily on state militias, military units composed of
average people trained and on-call in an emergency. Citizens kept their rifles at home, ready for
a militia call-out.
Unlike older nations, the U.S. had a huge frontier. With little government, if any, the pioneers
were responsible for enforcing laws and local practices in the West. The frontier disappeared but not the frontier
mentality. People have stuck with their
sense of independence, especially as the government became more entwined with
their lives.
Many people strongly adhere to a tradition embodied in the
Second Amendment, adopted in 1791. Powerful
and well-funded political forces protect a narrow interpretation of that
amendment against gun reform.
Limiting the use of firearms has become a partisan
issue. The Republicans adopt wedge
issues on which voters focus and vote, while ignoring the rest of the GOP agenda. Gun control, drawing on national tradition, works
well as a wedge issue.
Shootings are likely to continue, and gun control laws could
pass only after greater, sustained, and widespread outrage. The government won’t be authorized to seize personal
firearms, and widespread gun ownership makes some effective control almost impossible.
Future policy will continue to grapple unsatisfactorily with
firearms. Unnecessary deaths will continue. The focus needs to be more on gun use than on
limiting gun ownership.
Militias are gone, so a major justification for keeping guns
at home could be replaced by financial incentives providing for safe, offsite
storage at ranges and shooting galleries.
Mandatory registration does not mean confiscation, as Canada
shows, and despite gun industry claims. It makes sense for law enforcement. Plus, politicians should disarm their irresponsibly
heated rhetoric.
