So Is This Enough Yet?

As you may have noticed, I try to keep things relatively light-hearted on this here blog, but every now and then humanity causes me to break the mold and get serious.  This is a long post, but I had to write it.

Back in 2008, in the wake of the mass shooting at Northern Illinois University and several others around that same time, I posted my thoughts on the banning of hand guns and assault rifles.  In the wake of last week's mass shooting of over 70 people by James Holmes at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, I felt compelled to revisit this issue.  I've now had a few days to marinate on the subject and read more articles about Holmes and other mass shooters, and hopefully this post will read better than the original, profanity-laced draft I wrote Friday.

I tried not to regurgitate everything I wrote four years ago because my feelings on the issue haven't changed.  Read that post in conjunction with this one if you want my full thoughts on the issue.  The goal with this post is to expand what I previously wrote.

Whenever a mass shooting happens, I can't help but be disturbed.  For some reason, it consumes my thoughts.  All I can think about is that this could happen anywhere in this country, and that there is nothing to prevent it.  And that pisses me off.  Every time something like this happens, I'm going to get even more outraged, and I'm going to write about it.  If my views piss you off, I welcome well-reasoned debate and your proposed solutions on how to prevent this from happening again.  But I can't be silent when things like this happen, and I've never heard a good pro-gun argument about how to prevent mass shootings.

One of things that disturbed me most about the Northern Illinois massacre is that the gunman obtained all of his guns legally.  The same is true of Holmes and the weapons he used, which included an assault rifle (I've seen conflicting reports about whether it was an AR-15 or a Smith & Wesson assault rifle that is very similar to an AR-15) and two .40 caliber Glock hand guns, not to mention the high-capacity magazines for the assault rifle so he didn't have to reload.  The same was true about the Virginia Tech killer, Michael McLandon (who killed 10 people in Alabama in 2009 with assault rifles and hand guns), Nidal Malik Hasan (the Army Major who killed 13 and injured another 29 at Fort Hood with a semi-automatic hand gun), and other mass shooters.  There was nothing to stop any of these people from obtaining what they used to kill and injure hundreds of people.

Something has to be done.  As a society, we can't continue to let this type of thing happen.  Doing nothing ISN'T WORKING.  In the words of Colorado State Senator John Morse, "As long as we let people buy these guns, we will bury our children."

Holmes was by all accounts a pretty normal guy, although somewhat shy.  He is apparently very intelligent and seemed to have a lot going for him.  But something obviously went wrong.  For months, he has been stockpiling weapons and ammunition while planning his attack, although at this point, there is no known motive.

The profile of a mass shooter is generally a loner, but not necessarily someone who has been in a mental institution, who has exhibited violent tendencies, or who has been convicted of a felony.  A mass killer usually has two motivations that drive the mass killing:  power and fame.

Often a mass killer seeks to exert power over his victims as a result of some feeling of lack of control over other things in his life, be it work, relationships, school, or something else.  That drives the mass killer to seek to control his victims.  He wants to see the look of terror on his victim's faces because it shows him that, for once, he has the upper hand, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.  That's why the mass killer often uses guns, and not bombs or explosives.  This also plays into the fame motivation.  A bombing or arson is usually anonymous.  A mass shooting is anything but.  The typical mass shooter expects to kill himself, be killed by law enforcement, or surrender, but no matter what, his face is going to be on the front page of every paper in the country and he is going to get a Wikipedia page.  He now matters.  Assault rifles and hand guns allow the mass killer to achieve his goals.

No matter what side of the gun control debate you are on, I think both sides can agree that there is a problem in this country.  One article I read detailed 28 mass shootings in the U.S. since Columbine, resulting in over 200 dead and at least an additional 160 injured.  Most of those were perpetrated with assault rifles and/or hand guns.  Over the last seven years, the U.S. has averaged 20 mass shootings a year.  (For a long, but non-comprehensive list of mass shootings since 2005, click here.  It's 62 pages long.  That seems to indicate there's a problem.)

I still stand by my argument from 2008 that assault rifles and hand guns should be banned.  I don't think any rational person can seriously argue that assault rifles or hand guns are necessary for citizens to possess.  There are the fringes, like militia men or people who are convinced we are constantly under threat of attack from any variety of sources, but I don't consider those people to be rational.  This is not to say that there aren't rational people who believe people SHOULD be able to possess assault rifles or hand guns.  Of course, their basis is the Second Amendment.  Frankly, that's the only justification why people should be able to own these types of weapons -– not that I think it's a good reason.

There is absolutely no reason anyone needs to own an AK-47 or an AR-15.  This is not what our founders envisioned.  The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  It doesn't say we have the right to own any and every type of weapon.  I can't own a rocket launcher or a missile, which are technically "arms."  Rocket launchers and missiles are made to destroy lives (and buildings).  Assault rifles and hand guns are made to destroy lives.  Their sole purpose is to kill human beings.  When you allow people to own assault rifles and hand guns, you are sanctioning murder.  There is no way around that.

The Second Amendment was written in a time when you could fire a single shot from a rifle or a musket.  You then had to reload it and put gun powder in it before you could shoot again.  If you were good, you might be able to fire two shots in 20-30 seconds.  That is the concept of "arms" that the Constitution contemplates.  It does not contemplate a weapon that could fire over 400 rounds per minute, like the AR-15.

When the Second Amendment was written, there was a very real threat of attack on the U.S. or U.S. citizens by Great Britain or Native Americans, and we didn't have the organized military that we have today.  Someone in the middle of nowhere in upstate New York, with no neighbors for miles, needed a gun to protect his homestead from potential attacks.  This is not an issue anymore.  The King of England isn't sending troops to America to try to take us back, and I haven't heard of any Sioux uprisings in several score.  Even if these were modern-day issues, we have a very capable organized military with several branches that can ward off attacks more effectively than Jim Bob and the AK-47 he bought without a background check at last week's gun show at the Tuscaloosa Convention Center.  I'm also not concerned that a military junta will rise to power, being that we're a constitutional republic and all.

I'd also like to poke some holes in some of the common guns rights arguments.

Some people may argue that a mass shooting shows why there should be fewer restrictions on gun ownership.  The argument goes something like this:  if everyone carried guns, there would be no gun violence.  Yes, because the way to reduce gun-related deaths is by increasing the number of guns.  All this would do is increase accidental shootings and collateral fatalities.  A "good Samaritan" trying to "protect" someone else can just as easily kill an innocent bystander with an errant bullet as he or she can steady his or her hand enough to hit the bad guy.  This argument also assumes that everyone will own or carry guns.  I'm telling you right now, I will never own a hand gun.  Thus, I will never carry a hand gun.  Thus, I will never be carrying a hand gun if I or someone else gets held up.  And I can't remember ever reading a story where a criminal was robbing someone, and someone with a TEC-9 jumped in to save the day and shoot the robber.  I do, however, remember the story where someone with a TEC-9 shot dozens of his helpless classmates.

Another argument I hear a lot from gun rights people is that the focus should be on the individual who commits the crime, not the instrument used by the individual to commit the crime.  That is, this was a disturbed individual, so don't blame the gun, but rather punish the person.  That's a reactive argument, not a proactive solution.  You don't wait until someone buys 6,000 rounds and an AR-15 and then shoots 70 people to punish him (if he is even alive).  You prevent that from happening if you take away the ability to legally purchase an AR-15.  If that means law-abiding gun owners can't have their play time at the shooting range, I really don't care.  Suck it up for the common good.

Another argument I hear is that there will always be crazy people (whether that means someone who is mentally ill or someone who is just evil), and you can't stop crazy people from doing crazy things.  I can't stand that argument.  It's defeatist and it doesn't solve anything.  First of all, not every mass shooter is insane or mentally ill.  Sure, they are all disturbed in some way,  but that doesn't mean they are legally insane, which generally means you have the inability to form intent to kill or that you cannot distinguish right from wrong.  To me, the fact that there will always be people who want to inflict harm on many other people makes an even more compelling argument for gun control.  If someone who is malevolent or even mentally ill can pass a background check and get a gun that fires 400 rounds per minute, then that is a major flaw in the system.  I don't accept the argument that, because bad people or insane people are going to do bad things anyway, we shouldn't restrict their ability to obtain the very destructive tools that make it much easier for them to do those bad things.  Moreover, while there are some restrictions on the mentally ill obtaining guns, mental illness is not always diagnosed.  And someone who snaps isn't necessarily going to be diagnosed before he buys the guns he will use to kill a bunch of innocent people.  Look at James Holmes.  Outwardly, he showed no signs of wanting to shoot 70 people, but he was planning his massacre for months.  If you can't always tell if someone is crazy or evil, then we shouldn't them unfettered access to weapons that can kill dozens of people with one pull of the trigger.

Another classic counterargument to any form of gun control is that criminals will find ways to get around these laws.  That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.  Yes, of course that's true.  By definition, a criminal is someone who breaks a law.  This is why we have the criminal justice system and laws.  Just because there are companies that lie to investors doesn't mean securities fraud laws should be thrown out the window.  Yes, if someone really wants to buy an AK-47, he or she will probably find a way to buy it, even if it's illegal.  But that's not a good reason to let everyone buy AK-47s. 

I also don't buy the argument that, if you ban assault rifles, then only the criminals will have assault rifles.  For the most part, it's only the criminals who have assault rifles anyway, so you may as well make it illegal to own them.  And the "criminals" that I assume the pro-gun people are referring to are people involved in the drug trade, gangs, or low-level thuggery, but these aren't the people who commit mass shootings.  People don't use AK-47s to hold up gas stations or mug tourists; they use AK-47s to kill many people at once.  The hope is that, by making high-powered weapons illegal, someone who obtains that weapon will get arrested for having an illegal weapon BEFORE they get the chance to slaughter a bunch of innocent people.

Look, I'm not naïve enough to believe that anything is going to prevent all gun-related crime, mass shootings, or certain people from obtaining illegal weapons, but we should still do something to prevent as much as we can.  The concept of gun control is just that –- control over the avenues by which people can obtain high-powered weapons, with the goal of minimizing gun-related deaths and injuries.  If banning assault rifles or hand guns saves one life, then it's worth it. 

Short of the repeal of the Second Amendment, which I think is unlikely, here are some potential solutions to prevent gun violence and mass shootings.  Some of these can be combined, while some are probably mutually exclusive.

1.  Outright ban of possession and manufacture of assault rifles and hand guns.  This would be the ideal solution, in my opinion.  The tricky part is defining the weapons in such a way that gun manufacturers can't try to get around it, like they did during the federal assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004.  My suggestion would be to tie the definition of a banned weapon to the number of rounds it is capable of firing in one minute.  If you get caught possessing one of these weapons, you get an automatic $50,000 fine per weapon, plus jail time.

2.  Ban magazines and cartidges that hold more than a certain number of bullets.  This was something that was in place during the federal assault weapon ban, and it seems to make pretty good sense.  No one outside of the military needs to fire 100 rounds at once.  No one.

3.  You can only buy one gun per year or a certain number of bullets per year.  Obviously, this would require some sort of tracking system or registry, but that can be part of the background check process.  Exceptions could be made for shooting ranges.  For instance, you can shoot as many rounds as you want at a shooting range.

4. The government (federal and/or states) should start taxing the hell out of guns and bullets.  We have no problem taxing tobacco, which kills people.  Why don't we do the same thing with guns and bullets, which also kill people?  To paraphrase Chris Rock in one of his stand-up specials, if bullets cost a lot of money, people are going to be a lot more cautious about who they shoot or how many bullets they shoot.

5.  Background checks for everyone at any place with every gun purchase.  It's ridiculous that the same person who can't buy a gun from a store can walk into a gun show and walk out with an arsenal big enough to kill a small country.  I can't think of a rational reason to make obtaining a gun easier if you go to one location over another to buy it.

6.  Ban internet sales of guns, gun accessories, and bullets.  Make the gun-buying process face-to-face, not anonymous.  If I'm less likely to buy a CD in a store than online, you can bet people are going to be less likely to buy a gun in a store than online.  Also, this gives gun store workers the chance to let law enforcement know if something is amiss, and it would prevent people like James Holmes from stockpiling ammunition from various internet sources.

7.  Everyone has to have a license to buy, own, or carry a gun, and in order to get that license, you must pass a gun safety course and a psychological test.  People who don't know how to use guns shouldn't be allowed to use guns.  Likewise, people who are mentally ill should not be allowed to use guns.  Other countries have these requirements, and some states do (at least with respect to a gun safety course to get a concealed carry permit).  It seems like a pretty reasonable requirement.  A license would only good for one year, and each year you would have to pass a gun safety course and a psychological test.  If you fail, you must surrender your guns.  If you are caught possessing a gun without a license, you face fines, jail time, and you are permanently banned from obtaining a license.

8.  If assault rifles or hand guns are not banned outright, there should be severe restrictions on ownership, whether that is a psychological exam, gun safety test, or that they can only be used and kept at shooting ranges.

9.  Cash for guns.  The Chicago Police Department has done this several times over the last few years, and it's usually pretty successful.  Essentially, they have a day or two where anyone can bring in a hand gun, assault rifle, or any other type of gun and receive cash for it, no questions asked (except, of course, if it was used in connection with a crime).  Obviously, it doesn't get rid of all of the guns, but it at least minimizes the number of guns.  Yes, I realize that, in this economy, things like this are probably hard for cities to afford to do, but the point of this is to save lives not money.

The time has come for America to grow up as a country.  We don't live in the Wild West.  As long as lawmakers pander to the NRA and its "from my cold dead hands" attitude, we will see more and more or our citizens murdered because some antiquated notion of self-defense is more important than keeping innocent people alive.  It's time for solutions, not laissez faire.  What we have in place isn't working.  These people were just watching a movie.  Maybe most of the ardent pro-gun people can easily divorce themselves from the reality of what happened because it hasn't happened to them or because it's on TV.  But I can't do that.  All I can think about is the horror these people must have felt as a stranger indiscriminately stalked the aisles with a high-powered gun and hundreds of bullets that they had no chance of avoiding.  Now there are people who no longer have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, or children just because they went to watch a movie on a Thursday night.  I've said it before, and I will say it every time something tragic like this happens:  how many more mass shootings do there need to be before we as a society or a country say enough is enough?  Sadly, I'm guessing the answer is more than zero.