Thoughts on Gun Control in The US

The Political Tidal Wave Recedes

I didn't have much to say after the mass murder of children and teachers in Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I knew that it would only take about an hour before the horror faded into memory, to be replaced by political axe grinding for gun control in the US. I didn't feel like getting involved in that. It seemed distasteful, especially at Christmas. But I knew the political tidal wave would arrive within hours after the massacre.

On this, social media didn't disappoint: within minutes, my Facebook and Twitter feeds were alive with cries for more gun control in the US.

I wasn't too bothered by this. This is the way political tidal waves work. I knew the cries would become grumbles, then whispers, and finally they would recede as if nothing had happened. Carnage in the households of those directly affected, but beyond that, nothing. At least, until the next massacre in the United States.

Those last two words are key: United States. When something happens in the US, it makes headlines around the world, and everyone comments on how US citizens should live their lives. When a massacre happens in Norway, there aren't too many calls to question laws in that country, even when the guy knocks off 77 people and draws 21 years (yes, yes, they can keep him longer if they deem him a threat to society - but should that possibility even exist?). Similarly, when a man walks into the cafeteria at one of the biggest malls in Canada and opens fire, the proponents of Canada's laws are silent on the fact that Canada's gun laws obviously failed.

When it happens anywhere else in the world, it's about the victims and flowers on the sidewalk. When it happens in the United States, it's about the politics. Either way, the pain for the families of the victims goes on forever, but for the rest of us, whatever "pain" we feel fades after a matter of days.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's not cynicism, it's human nature. I've written before that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Terrorist in Iraq? No worry. Terrorist in my city? Worry a little. Terrorist in my living room? Worry a lot.

So it is with time. The further back, the less and less we care about it, until it might as well not have happened at all. So long as it didn't happen directly to us, we lose our ability to care about things pretty quickly, no matter how big or important they seemed at the time. It has to be this way, otherwise we'd be basketcases.

When I'm in a smartass mood, I sometimes ask people how things are going in Myanmar lately. Or Fukushima. Or Haiti. I usually get some quizzical looks, but these places were a really big deal not too long ago. I couldn't escape them on Facebook. People were asking me for money, or posting how they were going to fly somewhere and help. With regards to Myanmar, there were people saying an invasion might be advisable, while some women's libbers were going to send their bras and underwear there to embarrass the regime.

That was 4 years ago. It was a major news story, and a lot of people really cared about it. I wonder how many people remember that it started as a response to a hurricane? In any case, all the hurricane did was uncover what a godawful mess Myanmar is all the time. Myanmar is still a mess, but we've since moved on to the BP oil spill, nuclear reactors in Japan, the Occupy movement, presidential candidates talking about Sesame Street, gun control in the USA. That Myanmar hurricane might as well have happened in 1920.

Which is when the worst massacre in a US school took place. May 18, 1920. It happened in Bath Township, Michigan. A man named Andrew Kehoe set off bombs at his house and farm, and then at a local school. After rescuers arrived at the school to tend to the wounded, Kehoe arrived and set off a truck bomb at the site, killing himself and a few more people. 38 children and 6 adults lost their lives. It was discovered that before the destruction, Kehoe had also killed his wife.

It must have seemed like hell on Earth in that little Michigan town. If it happened today, the wall-to-wall press coverage about the demise of American society and culture would be suffocating, and it would be hard to disagree. Yet it was almost 100 years ago. In our mind's eye, we tend to see those olden days in sepia tint, and can easily imagine a man doffing his cap as a lady walks past. Men used to do that. They also used to gas people at Treblinka.

The killings in Bath Township show us that evil is old, but the killings in Connecticut remind us that evil never dies.

100 years ago, of course, there were no video games, and not too many violent movies. The motive for Kehoe's crime appears to be foreclosure on his house, as well as a loss in a town election. Maybe he was under pressure, felt slighted, and snapped. Maybe he was just evil or nuts. Whatever it was, he formed a hideous plan in his head and he brought it to fruition, without any help from computers, video games, or the latest bogeyman, the National Rifle Association.

Point is, there's really no way to defend against any of these people, and nothing is going to stop killings like this from happening again, though it may make people feel better to talk about it.

Gun laws or not, a nut will find a way to do what he wants to do. I'm of the reasoning that the US has a large population, and sooner or later one of those people is going to go off the rails. Would it be better if the person didn't have easy access to a gun? Sure. But people don't have easy access to guns in Canada or Norway, and people still get shot. A few days ago, two people were shot at a nightclub about a mile from my front door. How'd the shooter get the gun in a place you "can't get guns?" Beats me. But he got it, and he used it.

Looking in One Direction

Again, the hew and cry isn't about the guns. It's about the United States. If it was about the guns and - more generally - criminal violence, then people would be audibly outraged by what is going on in Brazil and Mexico. They are the bad boys of rock 'n roll when it comes to murder. Especially Brazil.

Though the US has more guns per person than anywhere else, the US murder rate hovers around 5 per 100,000, or a little less than the worldwide average of 6.9. Mexico and Brazil sit around 22 and 21 respectively. Average-wise, though, they are as nothing when it comes to Honduras. Though the body count in Honduras is much lower than in Mexico and Brazil, the average is a whopping 91 people murdered per 100,000 population.

Last year, the US saw over 12,000 people die in intentional homicides of all kinds. Chump change. According to the UN, between 1979 and 2003, half a million Brazilians were killed by firearms alone, or roughly 20,000 people per year. This average doesn't do the butcher's bill justice, as 2004 saw 36,000 Brazilians shot and killed. It hasn't gotten better since.

Simply put, Brazil and Mexico are very violent places. You have a much better chance of being killed by intentional homicide in Brazil and Mexico than you do in the US. But when it comes to protesting violence, no one ever mentions those countries in my social media feeds. Ever.

Cop in Brasilandia. Photo: CNN.

No surprise. People are busy. Why dig, when things are served up for you? People see America on their TVs, computers, and tablets every day whether they want to or not. Ask anyone on Earth what they think of the US and they will have an answer of some kind. Ask those same people what they think of Brazil and they may mention soccer or beaches. Leastways, they might know that Brazil has the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics on the horizon. They probably don't know that someone is shot in Brazil every few minutes, that the country has a growing crack epidemic, and that drug gangs execute police officers on a regular basis.

America has a great megaphone but a lousy publicist.

Why "Gun Control" in the US Won't Happen

I hazard to guess that when people say "gun control," they don't mean they want gun regulations tightened. They want guns to cease to exist. I don't think I know anyone who says "gun control" and actually means something like, "Yes, US citizens should own guns, but no assault rifles, no semi-automatic pistols, a limit of ten shotgun shells per person, and a 2 month waiting period before taking a weapon home."

No, when I hear people say, "The US needs gun control," I know what they mean is, "US citizens shouldn't have guns."

This is why I'm not one way or the other on "gun control." It's not an argument worth having, because nothing is going to substantively change gun ownership policy in the United States. You might as well tell me that you think the sky should be purple. I will agree with you to save time, but I know it's a load, so I don't bother getting into it.

The gun issue has been argued before the Supreme Court for decades, and the gun side keeps winning. Some people may detest the 2nd Amendment, but there it sits. To ban guns outright and take them away from US citizens can't be done without amending the constitution, and that simply is not going to happen. Besides, even if you could ban them, it's a practical impossibility that you'll ever round them all up. There are millions of guns in American households. No chance.

I yield to no one in the volume of my giggles when President Obama calls himself a constitutional scholar, or when he swears to be a defender of that document, but even he knows this argument's already over. If I had to guess, I'd say he'll let this issue drift off to nowhere over the next month or two. But if he actually did try to get something through Congress, it will probably be some kind of high capacity magazine limit, or a stricter background check on gun buyers. A bone to throw to the anti-gun crowd to say he tried.

Contrary to what I'm reading and hearing everywhere, NRA members are not the only people who own guns or want the right to own them. Every story needs a villain, but right now NRA membership is around 4.5 million people. That's not a small number, but it's not exactly a quarter of the country, either. The city of Philadelphia has more people than that. So there are a lot of people out there who aren't carrying NRA membership cards, but they are carrying guns - and they vote Democrat.

Obama knows it. This Gallup poll taken after the Connecticut shootings shows that a little more than half of Americans would like to see some stricter rules on the sale of firearms, but when it comes to an outright ban on assault weapons and especially handguns, you can forget it. Even after 24/7 coverage of Newtown children being killed by firearms, 75% of the country rejects the notion a handgun ban and, as the Gallup pollster states, Americans' views on the sale of assault rifles are unchanged. The slight majority, 51%, remain opposed to making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.

Piers Morgan may make fun of NRA spokespeople and tell them that they're "incredibly stupid," but Morgan is 1) a Brit, and 2) working in a professional bubble surrounded by people who think like he does. In short, when it comes to America, he just doesn't get it (co-hosting America's Got Talent probably didn't help, either). If he thinks the NRA is the problem, he's way off. The problem - if you believe it is one - is that a lot of Americans view the right to bear arms as an important part of their daily lives.

I remember the first time I saw a gun up close and personal while I was staying in LA. I'd held and fired weapons before, but never seen one in a civilian setting. I opened the trunk of a friend's car, pulled out a bag, and saw a pistol on the floor. I told her later, "Hey, I saw a gun sitting in your car." She replied, "Yeah, my dad got me that." Her tone would have been no different if I had told her I had seen a pair of scissors.

Many Americans, of all political stripes, are used to guns. They've seen them, handled them, fired them. They don't like massacres, but they don't like the idea of someone taking their gun rights away, either.

As for the president, after some tough talk early on, he has slowly begun distancing himself from "gun control." Here is what he had to say two days after the massacre, in a moving and poignant speech:

We can't tolerate this anymore...These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

Fourteen days later (and perhaps not coincidentally 3 days after that Gallup poll came out), in an interview with David Gregory, the president was asked what his single biggest priority would be for his second term. The president was generous, and stated four big priorities. In order, they were: 1) Immigration. 2) Stabilize the economy. 3) Energy policy. 4) Make sure taxes don't go up on middle class families.

David Gregory noticed something was missing and quickly cued the president with this: "Those are four huge things and you didn't mention after Newtown, although I know you're thinking about it, new gun regulations."

Heh.

David Gregory and several other people working in network news might be thinking about new gun regulations, but apparently it slipped the president's mind. So the president gave David a few minutes of boilerplate - task forces, we'll see what public opinion looks like, I don't want to see mass murder happen again - and then they moved on to foreign policy.

Here's the rub, and it's a rough one for people who don't like the idea of American civilians owning guns: the majority of US citizens want the right to own a firearm. That simple. The Colorado and Connecticut massacres of 2012 didn't change that. It may have seemed like they did on your social media feeds and in conversations over dinner, but that was a brief snapshot in time with people who mainly agree with you, anyway. Fact is, a person can lament what happened in Connecticut and still want to own a firearm. That may seem like a paradox to an outsider, but to many Americans, it's not something they lose sleep over.

A friend of mine remarked to me about the 2nd Amendment and how it should be scrapped. I said, "It's the rules. They're allowed to own guns."

He said, "But the rules are 200 years old."

"I know," I said. "But it's the rules there."

They won't change anytime soon.