A Reaction to the Tragedy at Uvalde. Like most of you, I watched the extensive coverage of yet another senseless shooting at a school in Uvalde, Texas last week. While I’ve watched too many of these over the years, I think this one had more of a direct effect on me because Shan and I were keeping our grandson, Archie, at the time. Some of you know that when I am troubled about an issue, I tend to write so that I can sort things out in my mind. That is what I am doing in this essay.
While I am knowledgeable about our political system and the history of the 2nd amendment, I note my own limitations on addressing this topic. I know little about specific types of guns, current safety procedures at schools or businesses, mental health needs in communities both before and after such violent tragedies, the ease of access to guns by individuals, and other related factors to gun violence. Gun laws differ tremendously from one state or jurisdiction to another and I claim no expertise in that. But, I believe that individuals must be trained in gun safety prior to having access to them. I believe that access to guns should be denied to individuals on a terrorist or wanted list or those with certain mental health issues or those with a background of domestic abuse or other circumstances that I can’t envision at this point. I believe that individuals have a right to own a gun that can be used for hunting or for self-defense in their homes. I note that the right to defend one’s family and home can be traced to the early tenets of common law existing prior to the creation of the United States (US).
These mass shootings (note that there are various definitions of mass shootings) have become routine, common, and are unique to the United States. We have become numb to the mass shooting cycle: mass shooting occurs, then intensive media coverage, then shock and sorrow, then outrage, then calls for action, then the end of front page coverage in the media, then inaction by elected officials until the next mass shooting, and the cycle begins again. In fact, after Uvalde there were 6 mass shootings (more than 4 killed in a single incident) this past Memorial Day weekend. Looking at Archie last week, I have to join in and say that this cycle must be broken and we need to act.
Mass shootings and gun violence are not just criminal justice issues. They are public health issues (see the American Medical Association) and one should first note that a comprehensive federal data base or research on gun related injuries does not exist. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies and researches thousands of issues that affect public health in the US but it does not comprehensively research gun violence. Since 1996, the Dickey Amendment has prohibited the CDC from spending any of its funds on gun violence research that may end up promoting gun control. This clearly needs to change and the Dickey Amendment should be repealed. Even former Congressman Jay Dickey, who originally proposed it, publicly admitted its harmful effects on our lack of knowledge about the relationship between guns and gun violence against the public. Knowledge is a prerequisite to any solution.
Governor Abbott of Texas blamed the Uvalde shootings on mental health problems. I find that disingenuous on his part because he and the Republican Texas legislature recently cut funding for mental health and refused Medicaid expansion which has funding for mental health needs. The argument also does damage to peaceful, functioning citizens who struggle with mental illnesses, causing some not to seek treatment for fear of humiliation, stigma, and stereotyping. It also ignores the fact that those with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of violence rather than the perpetrator. Based on my background as a political scientist, I believe that blaming all of these shootings on mental health problems is much too simplistic. It may play a role but there are other factors at work. Every advanced democracy in the world has mental health issues, yet the US stands alone in terms of the vast number of mass shootings and gun violence.
Some elected officials and others on Facebook have suggested that better security measures and procedures coupled with a greater police or military presence on the school grounds is the solution. Governor Abbott bragged about how much the state has done to make schools safer for students. This did not stop events at Uvalde. While adopting safety policies that make it more difficult for shooters to kill or to limit the damage done by gun violence is important, it does not address the causes of gun violence and mass shootings. It is simply damage control and I believe we can do better. I do not want our schools to be turned into a military camp or a gun arsenal. A highly visible presence of police and weapons serves as a constant signal to students that they are not safe. Learning cannot take place when students are reminded every minute of the day that they are not safe.
Many have suggested that the problem is the ease with which Americans have access to guns. No matter how one measures it, the US has more guns than any country in the world. Those that oppose any restrictions on access to guns, such as the National Rifle Association, cite the 2nd Amendment and often speak of a slippery slope that will end in complete gun confiscation. I believe that the prospect of gun confiscation is nonsense, a red herring, and no one in a responsible position is making that argument. I believe that in this case, the slippery slope argument is fallacious. Others argue that making it more difficult to own a gun will simply affect law abiding citizens, others will obtain guns illegally. That may be true, but under that logic we would have no laws at all in this country because someone might violate them. To me that argument makes no sense.
Many want to regulate access to guns so as to protect public safety and reduce gun violence. They cite Antonin Scalia's majority 5-4 decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia and the majority, for the first time in US history interpreted the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals outside the context of a militia in terms of gun ownership. At the same time, they stated very clearly that common sense restrictions and limits on gun ownership in the name of public safety could be put in place by the government. Why not require the individual to pass a gun safety course? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already require this. Why not create a national data base that can “red flag” domestic abusers, terrorists, criminals, and those with certain mental health issues? Noting in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already have these. Why not conduct an extensive background search at the federal, state, and local levels before giving an individual access to guns? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already have these. Why not require a national permit to carry concealed weapons? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already require permits. Why not require all unlicensed vendors to conduct a background test before selling a gun to an individual? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already do this. Why not ban the sale of large capacity magazines? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and a few states already do this.
Why not nationally ban “military style” semi-automatic “assault” weapons that young men find so sexy and masculine and macho and are used in so many of these mass shootings? Nothing in Scalia's decision prevents this and some states already do this. Nationally it was done from 1994 to 2004 with some evidence indicating that it did play a role in the reduction of gun violence those 10 years. And to prevent all the gun experts reading this who do not like my use of “military style” and “assault” weapons, I will borrow from gun expert Dion Leffler of the Wichita Eagle:
"One of the most common tactics used by gun culturists is to try to belittle their opponents’ knowledge of firearms. By their lights, anyone who calls an AR-15 or one of its many variants an “assault rifle” is uninformed and not worth listening to. They’ll tell you the only “real” assault rifles are “selective fire,” which gives the user the choice of shooting multiple bullets with one trigger pull, while the AR-15 fires only one bullet per pull. And they almost always point out that AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle, but for Armalite rifle, after the company that originated it. The AR does stand for Armalite, but that’s about as true as this myth gets. The gun was developed under a Pentagon bid specification — I’ve read it — specifically seeking a “semi-automatic assault rifle” for troops. Armalite sold the design to Colt, which cranked out two versions — the military M-16 in selective fire and the civilian AR-15 in semi-automatic. AR-15s and their copycats — along with cheaper Chinese knockoffs of the Soviet AK-47 — were called assault rifles in gun catalogs, gun magazines and by owners until well into the 2000s. But the term got a bad reputation after assault rifles became the weapon of choice for random mass shootings, because they’re the most capable and formidable weapons a civilian can buy. In 2009, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade association, coined a new and softer term — “modern sporting rifle” — and demanded everybody use it. Gun magazines and lots of mainstream news sources, including the Associated Press which I ordinarily respect, have changed their style to refer to assault rifles by more warm-and-fuzzy euphemisms. I won’t."
It seems to me that a solution to the gun violence and mass shooting problem must be national and multi-faceted. Public safety experts, gun violence researchers, public health experts, mental health experts, teachers and administrators, the CDC, law enforcement officials, business owners, and gun owners must be at the table to craft a national solution to this unique American problem and tragedy. Developing a solution will be inherently a political process and is made more difficult due to the zero-sum game of partisan politics today. Once implemented there must be on-going evaluations in terms of meeting the prescribed goals of the solution. The question right now is…how important are our kids compared to other issues? If they are more important, it is time to act.
I would also encourage you to see my essay The 2nd Amendment: Original Context and Supreme Court Interpretation, July 15, 2020 on my blog.
Comments