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.
Posts
