Every time in the past few days that I've seen somebody propose something that should be done to prevent another public mass shooting, I've mentally added my response to it to a long post I've been composing in my head about all the things that either wouldn't work or couldn't possibly be implemented.* Every proposal I've heard falls into one of those two categories.
Well, rest easy, because now I don't have to write that post; somebody has done it for me. Megan McArdle's essay for The Daily Beast yesterday is far and away the most level-headed reaction to the tragedy I've seen. Her conclusion, encapsulated by her sub-head, is the same as mine: "The things that would work are impractical and unconstitutional. The things we can do won't work."
She isn't coming from heartlessness; she felt as saddened and horrified as everybody else did. Nor is she just letting ideological purity trump caring about results. Her points are entirely pragmatic, grounded in hard-core realism. And she happens to be right. (She gets wrong a few small points about firearms--such as that revolvers have stronger recoil than semi-automatic handguns--and their associated laws and terminology, but nothing important enough to lead her basic thesis astray.)
By odd coincidence, I had been talking to my girlfriend about this subject just two days before Friday's news. She had just come from a local discussion group where the conversation had been about the second amendment, and asked me what I thought could be done to reduce gun violence in the United States. My answer was not very eloquent, but was much in line with McArdle's: The things that might do anything more than nibble around the edges of the problem are simply not feasible, for a variety of reasons.
For me the core obstacle to success is this: The tiny minority of people who cause all the mayhem (both mass public shootings and the enormously more common single homicides) are exceptionally resistant to the forces that cause the great majority of us to conform our behavior to societal norms--a conscience, the desire to be law-abiding citizens, a wish to not be in prison, and a preference for being alive rather than dead. A psychopath or career criminal for whom those tenets are not fundamentally controlling principles is basically beyond our power to deter until he has actually committed his felonies.
Anyway, I'm now on the verge of actually writing the threatened post rather than just writing an intro to McArdle's piece, which was my goal. So I'll shut up and suggest that you go read it.
ADDENDUM:
McArdle encountered a large number of readers who erroneously read her to have said that 6-year-olds should have gang-tackled Adam Lanza. (She didn't.) To clarify, she has this short follow-up piece.
*I suppose I should add the confession that this has not always been just a mental exercise. I have irritated a few of my friends because, when they mention that something should be done, I press them for specifics, then explain why any specific proposal they suggest is doomed to failure. I'm not naturally pessimistic or fatalistic. It's just that I've spent many, many hours reading and thinking about this subject, and long ago came to the conclusion that gun violence in the U.S. is a deeply intractable problem, that there isn't anything effective that would be achievable, politically feasible, constitutional, and affordable.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Response to Newtown
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Guns are one thing, but assault weapons? Can the constitution be changed?
(I'm a veteran and former gun owner, by the way, just saying.)
So it's too hard, so we do nothing. That's the solution. Look into the faces of those 20 dead kids and say it's not worth the extra work to try and stop the same thing from happening. Nice far right answer.
"The things that would work are impractical and unconstitutional..."
Constitutions can be changed baby. The changes are called amendments.
The article in the Daily beast is babble, along with all the other vomitorium of babble since Friday.
The constitution needs to be amended again to forbid private ownership of handguns and assault weapons - it's time. Discussions of anything else about the subject is self-serving babble.
It's either taking guns out of private hands or more sickening mass executions - there are no other alternatives. Or do we start a registry of maladjusted loners?
And to think people complain about my second-hand smoke...
"I've spent many, many hours reading and thinking about this subject, and long ago came to the conclusion that gun violence in the U.S. is a deeply intractable problem, that there isn't anything effective that would be achievable, politically feasible, constitutional, and affordable."
Is there a difference between the U.S. and other countries that would prevent the U.S. from reducing gun violence levels to what's seen elsewhere?
What should be done will never occur because the genie was let out of the bottle years ago. What should have been done years ago was to restrict gun ownership so assault weapons could not get into the hands of pretty much anyone. Anyone who has hidden behind the second amendment and advocated this type of gun ownership can share the guilt for these events. It never took a genius to figure out these events were inevitable. We don't allow people to own nuclear weapons because the potential body count would be too high. The only difference with assault weapons is the body count is lower. Gun lovers figure this is acceptable
Anon: Yes there is, and I think it's important to understand that fact. The best exposition of this I've seen is here:
http://goo.gl/c3OqL
@Wolynski
Restricting handguns with work just about as good as prohibition did. It will give the drug runners another product to deal. Then only the outlaws and law enforcement will have guns. Then criminals will not be afraid to kick someones door down and walk right in.
The constitution is dated and needs changes fast.
Grump - I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there on an issue this sensitive at this time. So, I figure I'll ask you to put more of yourself out there.
One of the "solutions" that I have seen advanced by proponents of gun rights is that more people should be armed. That way, when one of these wack jobs starts to carry out an attack, private citizens will be able to quickly "take him down".
I find this idea pretty horrifying, in any setting, but particularly a school. I have significant concern that any lives saved as a result of extra firepower being on scene would be immediately placed in jeopardy by the additional sources of gunfire.
So, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the idea that really the answer to the issue of gun violence is in fact to have more people carrying guns.
Grump, I gave you some guff about the anti-Obama post, but I am with you 100% on this one. I particularly like this quote from your post:
"The tiny minority of people who cause all the mayhem (both mass public shootings and the enormously more common single homicides) are exceptionally resistant to the forces that cause the great majority of us to conform our behavior to societal norms--a conscience, the desire to be law-abiding citizens, a wish to not be in prison, and a preference for being alive rather than dead. A psychopath or career criminal for whom those tenets are not fundamentally controlling principles is basically beyond our power to deter until he has actually committed his felonies."
I am also with you on challenging people who say that "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" without any practical solutions. It drives me nuts. If someone could explain a law that would fix the problem, I would love to hear it. If the law says you cannot have assault weapons, then what is to stop the person from entering the school with shotguns, handguns and rifles.
The root of the problem is with the individuals who commit the crimes. No law will stop them. It was already illegal to murder, but he did it anyway. If he could not get an assault weapon legally, he could find one illegally. If he could not get any guns, (this wouldn't be America) and he could have made a car bomb.
It is not as simple as saying, "So it's too hard, so we do nothing. That's the solution. Look into the faces of those 20 dead kids and say it's not worth the extra work to try and stop the same thing from happening. Nice far right answer," like Glenn above. Those arguments only appeal to sympathy at the expense of reason, logic and freedom from governmental interference.
MF:
It's a hard question. One end of the argument is the hero mentality of being able to confront and stop an active shooter. The other end is that armed civilians just make matters worse. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
It does seem clear that there is a pattern of mass shooters carefully picking venues where they know that law-abiding citizens are not allowed to bring guns, which suggests that they want to reduce the risk that they will be confronted or stopped. It is also true that at least a few such incidents have been aborted when the shooter has been confronted by an armed civilian who has a carry permit (last week's Oregon mall, the Appalachian Law School, the Pearl, Mississippi school shooter, the church in Colorado a few years ago). There's also the sad story of Luby's Cafeteria in Kileen, Texas, where an experienced shooter had to leave her handgun in her car because of the laws at the time.
But I will also tell you that after spending many, many hours watching members of the general public shoot at firing ranges, I have grave doubts about the gun-handling skills of most gun owners, even when they are in the safest, most controlled kind of environment. Throw them unprepared into the chaos of a mass public shooting, and I have no idea what the results will be.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that if somebody at the school in Newtown had been armed, the outcome could not possibly have been any worse. I'm reminded, in my black humor way, of the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the guy is about to be executed for blasphemy, and he again utters the name of Jehovah. The official warns him that he's making it worse for himself. "Worse? How could it get any worse?"
To the best of my knowledge, there have never been any bystanders hurt by concealed-carry permit holders firing in a public shooting situation.
There is some decent evidence that mass public shootings go down when states enact concealed-carry permit laws. My guess is that that nonspecific effect does more to save lives than permit holders actively intervening.
But even after considering all of the above, I have to admit that I just don't know what the net effect is.
The price of true freedom is plainly a bunch of dead people every couple months. Not worth making us less free by changing the constitution. US is and has been weapons exporter to the world. Will lose jobs from hardworking taxpayers if we stop making and selling so many guns and ammo. No way to disarm a proud and free people.
For those suggesting that we changed the constitution (presumably by repealing the 2nd amendment), I ask you to think through this mental exercise: Assuming such a proposal received a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, name me the 38 states that you believe would ratify such an amendment.
If, like me, you can't imagine such a proposal surviving that rather severe test, then no matter how good an idea you may think it is in principle, you are effectively admitting that it won't happen.
@rakewell
Rakewell - 33 states right? Don't see it happening even with 33.
I had heard during one newscast a person point out the 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated militia has the right to bear arms" not all citizens. Any thought that some crafty politician will work around the amendment by trying to change how its enforced rather than the language.
Also for the record I agree with your post and appreciate you putting yourself out there.
Anon:
(1) No, it's 38 states. 3/4 of them.
(2) It does mention militia, but then says "the right of the people...." I.e., the militia has no rights, the people do. The people is us, same as in, e.g., "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
(3) Not sure what you mean by language versus enforcement. How a law is enforced is subject to constitutional constraints, too.
In response to MOJO's original post on this thread:
Yes, the constitution can be changed. 2/3rd of both houses and 3/4 of all states; of those states, 7 have laws requiring supermajorities within that state needed to ratify changes. It really is, "old, short, and hard to change."
However, it is also very easy to change, and is changed. It is changed by courts, most notably, the SCOTUS. In fact, the very idea that the 2nd gives individual rights, rather than collective rights, can be revisited by the court.
Regardless, even within the current view of the court, there are still broad limitations allowed. One is not allowed to purchase machine guns, restrictions on the types of guns (assualt weapons ban) have survied challenge.
I do not think many reasonable people within the US are advocating that we ban all guns. Polls are showing that a majority are in favor of limiting the types of guns people are allowed to purchase. Will those limitations make an impact? The last Assault Weapons Ban did not, but it also allowed whatever was already in supply to be used, and only lasted 10 years. Perhaps it would have made an impact over a longer period (not sure, personally).
Times do change. Perhaps we'll reach a point in this country where the values shift enough to effect real change. In the short term, I imagine we'll move the needle a small amount, with minimal impact.
Still - that's something. Right?
s.i.
Me: "Is there a difference between the U.S. and other countries that would prevent the U.S. from reducing gun violence levels to what's seen elsewhere?"
Grump: "http://goo.gl/c3OqL"
I agree that is the best exposition that's available, but that doesn't ultimately answer the question. The authors (correctly) point out that the U.S. is just a more violent society than other nations - rapes and non-firearm homicides are both proportionally higher in the U.S. as firearm-based homicides are. I further agree with the assertion that banning guns (or some subset of guns, e.g., assault weapons) won't reduce homicides (or some subset of homicides, e.g., mass shootings).
But is that the end of the debate? "Americans are just a violent people overall"? "If you exclude African-Americans we're only twice as violent as comparitor nations"? "We'll find a way to kill one another whether we have guns or not so we might as well have guns"?
I realize you didn't make a single blog post with the intention of solving the entire country's ills, but aside from the short-term, knee-jerk solutions that are floating around, what steps do you think could be done long-term?
For example:
- Should we reduce the exposure of kids to guns and gun violence in movies, TV shows, etc.?
- Should we increase the exposure of kids to (real) guns and take away the illicit-ness of guns?
- Should we have different laws for different races of people?
I think this greally ets to the root of the argument. No doubt many in the thread will disagree with the train of thought:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control.html
Grump, here's a good read on the subject:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Thanks. That blog post doesn't make any points that haven't been made elsewhere, but it puts them together in a way that makes it easier to follow than anything else I've read on the subject. And as far as I can tell, it is 100% accurate (which is rare). Great piece of work. I will be pointing others to it as needed.
The United States is a very violent society - with violence glorified everywhere you look: video games, WWE, TV/Films ... even the NFL. Combine this with the virtual unfettered access to high-powered weapons, and you have a pretty toxic mix.
I don't have the answers, but as a US citizen by birth I'm embarrassed that no one has the balls to push for meaningful change - and relegate the NRA to the dustbin of history.
In the meantime, I'm thankful to live here in England where there are strict gun control laws and these episodes are VERY rare.
But to say any real solution has no practical chance of success is to resign yourself to ever escalating episodes of mass killing. Enjoy your next trip to the movies, or to the mall - it could be your last.
Post a Comment