In the wake of yet another tragedy involving guns, many have immediately sprung out their renewed call to ban guns, ban some types of guns, limit guns or at least limit access to guns. I have seen many arguments trotted out on both sides of the debate, but neither side is really listening to the other side to understand their position. If there is any listening it is merely to grab a phrase or a sound bite to throw back, mangled and hackneyed, as the form of "social media" that pretends to be modern debate.
If you want to do that, just stop reading now. I am trying to ask some serious questions that I have not seen either side address yet or address well.
(I must admit that the gun control side does do itself some credibility by jumping to conclusions before the facts are in. The most recent "humorous" version was the headline touting the drunk driver at the Oct 24th OSU homecoming parade as "Shooter kills 4; 30 injured"! Seriously. See: Traverse City Record-Eagle, Oct 25, 2015.)
Before we jump into the feeling driven response fueled by fear mongering (of either side!), I want to know what is driving the mass shootings.
First—
As per FBI, mass shooting is where 4 or more are shot/killed.
Under Reagan: 11 mass shootings
Bush Sr.: 12 mass shootings
Clinton: 23 mass shootings
Bush Jr.: 16 mass shootings
Obama: 162 mass shootings
Something happened in the last seven or eight years. A serious discussion must include all possible contributions to this huge increase in gun violence.
Second—
Almost all mass shootings, especially those that involved many victims, were located in areas designated "Gun Free Zones." Before you merely poo-poo and dismiss gun advocates' arguments that armed citizens stop gun violence, you need to address:
- Why the carnage is so much higher where everyone is disarmed (except the bad guy).
- Do you have a feasible plan to make Gun Free Areas really gun free? Because obviously something isn't working now. Are you suggesting that everyone entering these areas should be subjected to TSA style search and frisking? That ought to make going to the mall or the movie theater extra fun. (Note, that was sarcasm.)
- No, I'm not saying that I want every Tom, Dick and Harry or even Sally, Jane and Granny armed to the teeth.)
Many police chiefs and sheriffs are openly suggesting or telling citizens to arm themselves. Here is a small list:
- Ulster County, NY, Sheriff
- Kings County, WA (That's Seattle area), Sheriff
- Detroit Police Chief
- Joe Arpaio calls for Arizonans to be armed to stop terrorism etc.
Any carefully formulated anti-gun position must carefully show why the opinions of law enforcement are to be ignored. Many of the arguments from Law Enforcement include the fact that the police cannot get to your emergency instantaneously. You are on your own for many long minutes or longer. Thus a carefully reasoned response must include law enforcement's call that the public start taking more responsibility for their own safety. Such a response will have to include police response time and exactly what the victim can do to protect himself/herself until the police arrive. Something that is hopefully more helpful than peeing.
Fourth—
There needs to be consistent standards applied to what is good journalistic technique and what is shoddy—mere passing along hear-say or personal opinions. And I fault all sides on this one even though I will point out examples from the media.
Examples:
- There have been some in the media who immediately started report that the lone gunman who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic was 1) Christian and/or 2) pro-life. Yet court records show that he is not Republican and actually has identified as a Woman. See: The Gateway Pundit. Local pro-life groups report that they had never seen him in their meetings before and neighbors never heard him talk about religion or abortion.
- Nidel Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter. This event was labeled "workplace violence" by the administration . "Army officials have never called the first Fort Hood mass shooting, in November 2009 — when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot dozens of soldiers in what he said was an attempt to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops — an act of terrorism." (See NY Times.) And in spite of the fact that Hasan has expressed a desire to join the Islamic State. (See LA Times.)
- Yet the media have been very reticent and hesitant to report or even suggest that the couple that shot up the Christmas party in San Bernardino might have any connection to Islam. Although this one is harder to hide, especially since the FBI has declared this to be an act of terror.
Fifth—
We need an honest appraisal of what gun laws are really doing.
In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, Sen Boxer, of CA said the following:
"We've proven in California that Sensible Gun Laws Work."
No. We need an honest appraisal. California has among the strictest gun laws in the nation:
- Assault weapons banned
- Magazine capacity limited to 10 rounds or less
- No open carry of fire arms
- Required: background checks for all sales at gun shows
- Required: background checks for every firearm purchase
- Required: minimum 10 day waiting period for each firearm purchase
Any honest assessment MUST include these facts and how, so far, they have not reduced the carnage. Also an honest assessment will address how Chicago with among the strictest anti-gun laws of US cities is still a greater crime capital on an ongoing basis (8 killed, 20 wounded just over Thanksgiving weekend) than the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting (3 killed, 11 wounded).
Honest assessment must also deal with the hard reality that "Gun Free Zones" do not make people actually safe. Not as they are implemented now. (See #2 above.)
Sixth—
Let's assume, for argument's sake that you are able to get rid of every single gun from the USA. (Or every single gun of a certain make and model.) How do you keep more from coming in?
Right now our borders are very porous. It's not just humans with needs who are coming in, there are also many contraband items: drugs, firearms, human trafficking, illegal food products**, etc.
** imagine the economic disaster if some livestock disease comes in through unguarded borders.
For instance, FMD has not been seen in the US since 1929. The consequences today would be unbelievably devastating. The consequences of guns and weapons coming across our nearly unregulated borders are also devastating.
So, a full-orbed gun-control policy would have to address borders and immigration and control of things entering our nation. I cannot emphasize this enough and it is something that I have not seen addressed to any depth. Gun-control MUST address border control or it will fail.
Seventh—
How are you really going to disarm Americans?
Seriously.
The NY Times in their historic front page editorial of Saturday, Dec 5, 2015, said, "It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
Yes, it is possible to define guns and outlaw them, but how would you enforce the entire country to give up their guns?
- Are you saying that it would be voluntary? Some would, no doubt. Not most.
- Are you saying that law enforcement would go door to door to check each house and confiscate any illegal weapons they find there? Good luck on that. I believe that you would be subjecting the officers to undue danger. By that one law, you will have made a whole class of citizens—who, up to that point, were law-abiding and peaceful—to be criminals by merely possessing the firearm. I don't think you want to disenfranchise that many people simultaneously. Unless you seriously want to provoke internal conflict and have the Federal government go full Waco, Texas or Ruby Ridge—all across the whole USA. Simultaneously.
The NY Times did point out a very important caveat: "No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."
Here I would say that the gun-rights advocates have reacted to a long erosion of gun-rights (both perceived and actual) and the continued clamoring for further restrictions. There should be reasonable restrictions placed on this constitutionally guaranteed right. I don't want the mentally unfit or the convicted criminal to have access to purchasing a gun. But I do see what the gun-rights advocates are worried about. Politics is a slow beast of incrementalism. That's why I am throwing ALL these concerns out here so that they may all be dealt with. Fairly and honestly.
Ninth—
What are other factors?
As some folks from the south or rural America have pointed out, many folks grew up with guns all around all the time. It's not the guns that have changed, it's something in the human and the human condition.
- Psychiatric drugs. Some have claimed that some of the mass shooters over the last couple of decades were also taking or coming off of psychiatric drugs. I think that the claim that all are, is unwarranted an sensational drivel. But some of these mass murders were not mentally healthy and some had prescriptions for various psychiatric drugs. Some do list mania, suicidal thoughts and/or aggression as unwanted side-effects to watch out for.
- Growing up in a fatherless home. There are a number of studies that point to the huge negative effect of having no dad at home. This link lists 8 with the source for each in parentheses. University of Virginia Professor Brad Wilcox made the observation in 2013 that "one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father."
Tenth—
Now there are jihadists with an expressed desire to kill us. This sounds like the exactly wrong time to disarm the general populace. Any gun-control proposal better include how I can protect my family and myself in the face of an enemy sworn to hurt, harm and destroy. The formulaic answer that looks historically and says that you are more likely to die of [ fill in some answer here ] is completely unrealistic because this is a new threat and an emerging problem and if things are left unchecked, will continue to grow and add carnage after carnage like Paris and San Bernardino.
Finally—
I'm sure there are other aspects that I haven't thought of, but this list is a start. If we cannot address these issues completely and honestly, we will never be dealing with the real issues of gun violence. We will only be treating symptoms.
Additionally [added 06-Nov-2017]—
Leah Libresco, a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight (a data journalism site), investigated gun control measures and their effectiveness. The research changed her mind.
I used to think gun control was the answer.
My research told me otherwise.
"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
"Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns."
Additionally, I have started a list of gun related articles, adding to it from time to time. That list may be found here: "Collection of Links About Gun Control"
