Since another tragedy has unfolded in Florida the familiar gun control debate has broken out once again. What is incredibly draining about the whole debate – besides the ideological tribalism and moral grandstanding – is how very complicated issues are over-simplified and egregiously misrepresented. Peter Langman’s Why Kids Kill offers a detailed study on the types of young people who went on to become school shooters (reviewed here on Northern Slant).

Many within the US and many outsiders looking in are dumbfounded that guns have simply not been universally removed from private hands. It seems like such a simple solution to the societal ill of school shootings.

Banning guns won’t make this problem go away.

Before I explain it’s important that I point some things out.

 

Some Perspective

Gun violence and violence in general has dramatically declined in the US over the last two decades yet private gun ownership has increased. Mass shootings such as Sandy Hook and Columbine High School make up barely 0.1% of all the homicides that occurred in America between 1982 and 2012. As terrible as these tragedies are, they are also very rare. The murder rates of America are often widely blown out of proportion and are often compared against cherry-picked statistics.

Back to the matter at hand. To be blunt, it’s delusional to think it’s feasible to ban guns outright in the United States. Not only is it never going to happen, especially under the Trump administration, it simply wouldn’t work. There are over 300 million guns in America and to confiscate all of these would be next to impossible, even if the government threw all of its power and resources behind the effort. Furthermore, the only people who would adhere to the new gun laws would be law-abiding citizens. Career criminals, terrorists and the mass shooter types would simply get their firearms from the subsequent well-stocked black market, and it’s worth noting that a determined individual can cause mass chaos without a gun. The deadliest terrorist attack in America outside 9/11 was carried out with explosives. Recent events have shown that vehicles can be used very effectively for lethal intent as well.

Now, you may be thinking, “But Australia banned guns and that seemed to work.” Unfortunately it seems the results of the famous buy-back program were, at best, modest (and that’s not even considering the fact that Australia and America are two fundamentally different societies).

It would also be disastrous if the US government did attempt to ban private gun ownership entirely. Regardless of your feelings towards firearms, Second Amendment advocates view their right to own a gun as the human right of self-preservation and the last safeguard against dictatorship. It’s enshrined in the country’s founding document and if this is infringed upon then in the eyes of many of these people that’s the end of the American Republic. You may think that’s hyperbolic or alarmist, but that doesn’t change the reality: it really could trigger a civil war. If the US government sent in police and military (setting aside the fact mass desertions would inevitably occur within these groups) to take the guns by force, there would be a bloodbath. An outright ban is not an option.

The other proposals put forward by the majority of gun-control advocates are gun restrictions and the banning of certain weapons, specifically semi-automatic rifles. This is a more realistic goal but unfortunately seems to be at best ineffective. Republican Senator Marco Rubio made the claim that gun laws would not have prevented any of the mass shootings over recent years. The Washington Post, a liberal leaning outlet, fact checked this and found that what he said was indeed correct. A determined individual will find a way to get guns, legally or otherwise. Statisticians have also reached similar conclusions that tightening gun laws will not reduce gun violence in any significant way.

In regards to banning semi-automatic rifles, such as the notorious AR-15 which has been used in a number of mass shootings, this will also be ineffective. Again, if someone is determined to get a particular weapon, they’ll find a way. Even if it isn’t possible to get a rifle with a high capacity magazine it is still possible to create mass casualties with pistols. The 2007 Virginia Tech rampage that left 32 people dead and 17 injured was carried out with hand guns. Similarly, the 2014 Santa Barbara shooter was armed with pistols. Not to mention banning rifles won’t make much of a dent in the overall gun crime rate as the vast majority of this is carried out with handguns.

 

So what can be done?

One major strategy in reducing these rampages lies with the media. It needs to step up and collectively agree to stop naming the perpetrators and stop showing their faces. There is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that media coverage fuels these types of crimes often referred to as the copy-cat effect. The Columbine attack alone is believed to have inspired 74 cases, 34 of which lead to attacks. One security professional described the disturbing interest shooters and would-be shooters have with the Columbine attack as “a cult following unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.”

This displays how much power the media has in this area. After the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 an open letter signed by 149 scholars, social scientists and law enforcement experts was released pleading with the media to change their policies on how mass shootings are covered. But unfortunately many outlets have not taken, nor seem likely to take, this advice.

Another initiative to prevent mass shootings is what’s called a “Gun-violence restraining order” (GVROs). This allows friends and family of an at risk individual “to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away” It’s essentially an intervention and is furthered detailed here by National Review’s David French. A bipartisan effort to strengthen background checks is also gaining traction.

Crucially, there needs to be a serious review of the procedures currently in place to prevent mass shootings. I say this in light of the revelations that have come out about the local police and FBI’s response, or rather lack thereof, to the most recent shooting at Parkland High School in Florida (14 February 2018). Reports are disputed, but the Broward County Sheriff’s Office from 2008 responded to at least 23 incidents related to the shooter prior to the attack but did nothing. The FBI had several tip-offs and warnings about the shooter’s behaviour, one of which was from the shooter himself. Again, they didn’t act on them. And even when the attack was unfolding, four deputies who were called to the scene – and could hear the gunshots – simply stood behind their vehicles with their weapons drawn and didn’t enter the building. The authorities failed at every level here and this is proving to be a massive scandal in itself. There’s reason to believe that government failures have led to other dangerous individuals being overlooked.

In a previous shooting a simple administrative mistake allowed a perpetrator to get guns despite the fact he was prohibited due to past criminal offences. Commentators have stated that adding new gun laws are pointless if the current laws aren’t being properly enforced.

Finally, if someone is ardently in the gun control camp then I would have a suggestion for actually convincing gun owners to listen to them. If you want to have a real conversation about reducing gun violence then decrying gun owners as knuckle-dragging hillbillies who are simultaneously idiots and heartless monsters is somewhat counterproductive – yet we see this quite frequently on social media. This is often followed by mimicking a thick Southern accent, deliberately using poor grammar and saying something like “A luv my guns YEE-HA.” That isn’t going to move the debate forward and usually reveals a lot about the person saying/writing it.

Many people don’t take time to fully consider both sides of the gun control debate because being pro-gun rights is synonymous with the political far right. And also certain pro-gun advocates are… unpleasant. These sentiments are understandable and it’s quite obvious that the gun debate is very much a cultural battle as well as a disagreement over policy. To counter this I’ll leave you with some thoughtful perspectives. As the debate moves forward, it is important that views in favour of gun rights or at least have a nuanced opinion on the Second Amendment, are properly considered on merit.