Mass shootings like those in Las Vegas and Sulphur Springs, terrible as they are, are only a small taste of the carnage that goes on in America on a daily basis, courtesy of firearms. Most of it slips under the media radar; it’s only when a bunch of people are killed all at once that the lead holocaust is considered newsworthy. It’s only then that the media start talking about what can be done about it.
And the line of thinking from most media talking heads goes like this. If the shooter was a Muslim, we need to tighten immigration laws. If the shooter was Hispanic, we need to build a wall. If the shooter was black, we need more prisons and tougher laws. If the shooter was white, thoughts and prayers will do the trick. And above all, protect the Second Amendment and sell more guns.
And the causes of all this violence? Well, in addition to immigration, some of the causes that have been seriously suggested are: video games; Hollywood movies; Barack Obama; day cares; the “liberal media” (hey, I guess if the violence isn’t reported, maybe it won’t exist); mental illness; antidepressants (nothing like hedging your bets); abortion; “taking God out of our schools” (not sure how that’s even possible, since God is supposedly everywhere); “gun control”; pornography; not beating kids enough (to teach them violence is wrong, don’t you know); not enough guns out there; and, of course, the victims of the shootings themselves.
The actual causes of gun violence are varied, complex and even to an extent inscrutable. So are the remedies. But as difficult as solving the problem may be, there are really just a few simple principles that we need to keep in mind.
1. Weave a web of regulation
Quite simply, a society should regulate the hell out of firearms. There’s no valid excuse for not doing so, no matter how much distaste you have for “big guvmint” cramping your right to shoot things up. One of the gun culture’s popular sayings is “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” — which is irrelevant, since regulation is not about “outlawing”. When you are required to be tested before obtaining a driver’s license. and stick to the speed limit, and drive in the right lane, does that mean that the government is trying to “take away” your car?
Regulation is not the final solution, by any means; on the contrary, it’s just the first step, a necessary foundation. It’s something that we can’t afford not to do, if we want to avoid a broken windows effect that invites crime and carelessness.
Of course whenever you propose firearm regulation, someone is bound to respond with another old tried and false big fat floppy red herring: “Criminals don’t care about laws”. Well, their victims might not “care about” bullets, either, but they’re still just as dead. Who the hell cares what criminals “care about”? The real questions are (a) what kind of message do we want to convey, and (b) do gun regulations (“gun control” in the haughtily dismissive vernacular) help reduce crime?
The evidence is very strong that they do, both when we examine states within the U.S. and when we examine countries around the globe. Japan, to take just one example, has very strict laws about types of firearms allowed, registration, background checks, renewal periods and penalties. And it has, on average, about 30 gun deaths per year (and as few as 6). In contrast, the U.S. (with a population about two and a half times as large) has about 30,000 gun deaths per year.
2. Think long term
Still, even if the U.S. adopts the same gun policies as Japan, that doesn’t mean that America will suddenly become Japan. They are very different nations with very different histories and cultures. Japan has a culture of respect and courtesy and a constitution that explicitly states the nation will never again resort to aggressive warfare. The U.S., on the other hand, has a long tradition of people believing (incorrectly) that they have a constitutional and/or god-given right to build up their own private arsenals without restriction. And a long history of brutally enslaving and exterminating entire races of people — with the aid of guns.
We here in the U.S. have developed a mythos that brandishes the almighty gun as the infallible key to conquest and power. That mindset won’t be changed overnight. And the effects of gun legislation or any other reforms cannot be expected to manifest immediately.
3. Get creative
When we talk about measures to curb gun violence, we’re not just talking about “gun control”. To tackle a problem of this scope and complexity, we really have to think outside the ammo box. Strangely enough, one of the most interesting proposals came in jest(?) from a comedian. Actually, that’s not so strange; comedians tend to possess the kind of insight that politicians and pundits rarely do. In any case, this is what Chris Rock said in 1999:
You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control… I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. “Man, I would blow your fucking head off– if I could afford it. I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway”. So even if you got shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like “I believe you got my property”.
Doesn’t it indeed seem logical that making bullets prohibitively expensive would reduce the number of times people fired them? Furthermore, the extra fees could be in the form of taxes that could go toward further steps to reduce gun violence and/or to clean up the mess it leaves. And what about target practice, you ask? Well, with today’s technology, it surely would be possible for virtual bullets to substitute adequately for the real thing.
And for that matter, technology offers a wealth of other possibilities. What about, as a random suggestion, mandating that guns be designed so they only can fire when handled by an authorized user. The point is that there are many, many different ways to approach the problem.
4. Radically alter public (mis)perceptions about firearms
And now we come to the portion of the discussion most pertinent to the content of this blog. Even if the Chris Rock Doctrine proves to be impractical, it at least makes a very important point: in order to combat gun violence, you have to condition the public to think about guns very differently. If you think this suggestion reeks of Orwellianism or totalitarian efforts to “reeducate” citizens, what you need to bear in mind is that the public already has been conditioned, for many generations, to have certain perceptions about guns — and those perceptions are quite faulty.
We have inherited the archetype of the rugged frontiersman who lived and died by his gun, lionization of the screen personae of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, and a false perception that an “armed good guy” has a good chance of stopping an “armed bad guy”. A great deal of what the public believes about guns has come from popular entertainment. This is not to suggest that Hollywood is to blame for the violence, but it is to suggest that Hollywood could play a role in addressing it.
Many people seriously think it’s practical to shoot a gun out of someone’s hand. Most Americans don’t even recognize the sound of a gunshot when they hear it, because they’ve been conditioned by entertainment media to associate gunfire with a totally different sound (an unfortunate fact that could affect how quickly a person can respond and get to safety in an active shooter scenario). In the movies, the good guy mows down the bad guy with both six-guns blazing (which in real life is a difficult feat to pull off); the bad guy dies immediately and the good guy rides off into the sunset without a care in the world.
Imagine instead a film industry that portrays gun violence more realistically and responsibly. Imagine studios that stop promoting action films by using publicity photos that make guns appear sexy and glamorous. Imagine an entertainment industry that routinely gives some indication of how much gunshot victims often suffer before they die, and how long it takes them to do so. Imagine more realistic portrayal of the emotional recoil that people feel when they fatally shoot someone — an effect that can haunt them the rest of their lives. Imagine this knowledge uniformly transmitted through awareness programs at schools like Straight Talk About Risks (STAR). Can we afford to be any more lax with kids about the dangers of guns than about drinking or drugs or sex?
If we instill in the public what horrific deadly implements guns can be (which is one of the purposes of enacting stiff gun laws), chances are not so many people will automatically reach for one to settle a dispute over a parking space. Ironically, we can help reduce gun violence by respecting guns — respecting them for what they are rather than worshiping them for what they are not.
5. Spread civility
Even if everybody had a gun, there would be considerably less violence if everyone behaved civilly. That’s a big pipe dream, of course; there is no way everybody will ever behave civilly, which is precisely why it’s a bad idea for most people to be armed.
The gun lobby likes to say that “an armed society is a polite society”. but the facts just don’t support such a thesis. Americans are armed to the teeth, but America is a seething cauldron of anger and rudeness. In fact, there is some evidence that gun ownership actually contributes to this animosity. In any case, it makes the anger and rudeness far more dangerous. The hostility quotient would be high enough even if left to its own devices. But it’s very far from being left on its own; it’s constantly being amped up by a virtual army of demagogues saturating every corner of American media and American culture. And it certainly doesn’t help matters any that one of them is currently in the White House.
Again, the U.S. will never become Japan. But by exercising courtesy as much as possible, we should be able to defuse many of the situations that lead to violence, and thus lead to shots being fired. Arming a society certainly doesn’t make it polite, but being more disarming can make it a bit more dis-arming.
6. Tame the Testosterone
You hear a lot about mental illness being the cause of mass shootings. Well, it does seem to play a role. But it’s clearly not the only factor or even the most important factor. There are approximately as many mentally ill women as men. But guess what? All the mass shooters, with one exception, have been male. In fact more than 75 percent of all violent acts are committed by males, and about 90 percent of killers are male.
Maybe some of this is biological. When my son was a toddler, we made a point of keeping him away from “war toys”, and minimizing his media exposure to weaponry. But he still went around pretending to shoot things with whatever object he could pick up. Maybe there’s something about having a Y chromosome that makes a person attracted to lethal phallic symbols.
But it’s also unquestionably cultural. (My son soon outgrew his armament phase, unlike many other males, and as an adult has shown no interest in guns at all.) Violence, and particularly an addiction to guns, is largely learned just as misogyny is. And the two tend to go hand in hand. Is it just coincidence that committers of gun violence frequently have a strictly patriarchal worldview, and often a history of domestic abuse? Is it just coincidence that terrorist cultures are also sexist cultures? Is it just coincidence that the U.S., which is a lead-sprayer’s paradise, is now discovering a widespread, deep-rooted epidemic of sexual harassment that has been right under its nose all along?
The gun lobby incessantly promotes an obscene, and obscenely profitable, lie: the pulp fiction fantasy that guns make you safer. (This is often bolstered by mythical “statistics” about defensive gun use.) In fact, having a gun multiplies several times the odds that you will be the victim of a crime and/or be shot yourself. You may assume (as many gun enthusiasts apparently do) that probability is for wusses, and you’ll beat the odds, by god. Maybe you’re even lucky enough to be right. But you might want to consider that guns and gun incidents don’t just affect gun owners; they affect potentially anyone the owner — or a recipient of his bullets — comes in contact with.
It would greatly behoove us to reduce and limit the number of guns in circulation. It should be at least as hard to get a gun as it is to get an abortion, and their use should be at least as stringently controlled as the use of automobiles. But we also need to radically alter how the public thinks about guns. And we need to clean up cultural garbage of more than one kind.
All of this constitutes a tall order, and we need to be in it for the long haul. But the benefits would be well worth the effort and minor inconvenience.
The “armed society”nonsense comes from Robert Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon”. It takes place in a society where duels may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted that is attributed as a custom that keeps order and politeness.
That means gun policy is coming from science fiction rather than science fact, as the freeze on gun violence research further confirms (a bit of sarcasm there, but the reason for the freeze was that the facts tended to be “anti-gun”).
You make a good point by mentioning how gun enthusiasts fear that guns will be “outlawed,” if the government tries to regulate them.
Yes, the truth is that guns being regulated, is not the same as guns being “outlawed,” or “confiscated” by the government. And yes indeed, if we drive a car, we must pass a written and road exam, register our car when we purchase it, obtain a drivers licence, pay to renew its license registration each year, in addition to purchasing any required car insurance (which is just as much necessary to protect others as ourselves). But,to call for similar regulations on knives, nooses, rocks, utensils like spoons or forks etc. etc. is missing the point, because both guns (including AR-15s) and high power automobiles can be used far more dangerously, and thus Uncle Sam (with a majority of Americans in support) merely wants to pass regulations that reduce gun deaths in order to promote the general welfare, of we!—all its people!
Making sure that criminal records, troubling mental illnesses, and the self created personal hubris cherished by while Nationalist groups, etc. who see the government as a dangerous entity—must begin to accept the need for truly responsible gun owners to obtain legal gun owning permits. Especially those that take into account their chances of participating in potentially dangerous actions after not passing simple and common sense background checks!?
And yes, we need a national gun registry in order to quickly trace the origins and uses of guns to make sure they are used irresponsibly. Certain dangerous, and potentially dangerous, individuals should simply not be allowed to buy them!
I understand that there are at least 80 Million gun owners in America who may peacefully use guns for hunting and basic self defense in their homes, but isn’t it true that the NRA has only about 4 million members?–so how does the NRA even joke about being considered the protectors of the 2nd amendment? Most owners are like my father was. He owned several guns used for Deer Hunting, and target practice etc. And he confided in me at one point, concerning a troubling dream he kept having. In the dream he would be waiting on a stand for any bucks that might be rousted out of the woods by a group of others in his hunting group. He would see himself pointing a gun at what looked like a large buck and then fire—then he would see it go down! But upon going closer in order to see how majestic this buck was, he would discover the horrifying fact that he had accidentally shot another human being—one who was laying there helplessly dying instead of his buck! So my dad was not an irresponsible hunter who should not have been given a gun, and the other friends and neighbors in his hunting gang were the same. They owned hunting rifles that they were prepared to use against criminal break-ins etc., if required, but they had no desire to amass several semi-automatic weapons, 100 round ammunition magazines, body Armour or Armour piercing shells?
How does the NRA get away with spinning the illusion that it represents the lone righteous vanguard in charge of protecting true 2nd amendment patriots, as well as being charged with protecting the “real” interpretation of the 2nd amendment? The answer I hear, is that the NRA is currently no such entity, they are now motivated primarily by money, and are willing to say anything to retain that money and their position of power!
And yes, we need a national gun registry in order to quickly trace the origins and uses of guns to make sure they are used irresponsibly.
I meant to make sure they are used (responsibly) of course.
I am pro gun but not to the point of idiocy as some. I an for gun control and jumped to read this blog post when I found it. Sadly, I was let down by your arguments. If you want to get pro gun people like me on your side you need better arguments. I will take your target practice argument. No, VR is not an adequate solution. My daughter shoots trap. We go through a minimum of 200 12 gauge shells per week. It’s simple, uneducated suggestions like that that turn a very powerful lobby (NRA and their supporters) against you. I support your web of regulation, there are tough regulations they are not enforced. I agreed with the Hollywood statement. Try harder next time. Talk to some gun owners, go shooting with them, and for God sakes stay away from tired comments like comparing owning a gun to a need of phallic reinforcement. Again, my daughter shoots trap along with 20 other girls and they are good. They enjoy it. Do not stigmatize them with statements like that. Also check out who really has the most Olympic Medals. The answer may surprise you. Btw. We are only one state away from you. Come shoot trap with us or anyone. Learn their concerns to some of the things you propose. The offer is open.
I grew up in the deep south surrounded by gun fanatics. So I think I’ve talked to my share of gun owners in my time. (I even went shooting with them on occasion.) The “phallic reinforcement” point wasn’t meant to imply that gun fanaticism is limited to males. And the suggestion about VR was only an illustration of what creative avenues might be pursued in the future, and was not meant to be limited to the technology we have at present. Read the article more carefully next time — and stay away from ad hominem presumptions.
“— and stay away from ad hominem presumptions.”
P.O.P your whole writing style is ad hominem, just sayin’.
And saying quite incorrectly. Do better than this next time, or your comment won’t be published.
The beauty of the written word is that it is judged both in content and in style by the reader not by the writer. You and I will have to leave it up to your other readers to decide each for themselves. The beauty of a free exchange of ideas (a free press in the case of published works) is that all parties have input to the topic without censure. Your website is a blog, however, and not a forum, therefore, you have the prerogative to write on any topic and in any style without the need to inform, transform, or convince anyone, nor to receive comments that are differential to your chosen topic.
In the South there is the old saying: “Beauty is as beauty does”. I would hope to see the beauty in your words, but that is up to you.
P.S. Although I know where you stand on guns, I was hoping this post would tell me more about what you see as an answer. Maybe that will be in your final blog on “gun control”.
Although I am not really here to offer solutions, I do make recommendations from time to time. See my post on How to Curb Gun Violence, for instance.
I think some of the things the POP says sound harsh, but they are invariable a well composed combination of facts and sarcastic humor (which can offend those who disagree) But is there a blog owner anywhere whose comments are so masterfully balanced and placating that they can sucede in upsetting no one?
And is’t an ad hominem argument characterized by its focus on some other idea or observation which is irrelevant to the point (such as criticising someone who loves ot eat cake, for being a gay, or claiming that all cake eaters are not supportive of LGBT rights?
As far as I can see by reading the many articles on this blog, the POP is consistent in his use of facts as well as the direct relevance of his comments to the topic being discussed. He does often imbue his article with sarcasm and satirical portrayals of those whom he rightly criticises for their actions and/or ideas in each article. But he is not commenting here just to satisfy a particular group or particular individuals, with editorial constraints, nor is he here to provide irrelevant conclusions in his writings. Unlike ad hominem arguments, his criticisms are related to the topic at hand,and therefore are valid criticisms to make.
[…] have my ideas about ways to tackle America’s addiction to the almighty gun. I’ve even discussed some of them on this blog. But in general, I rarely bring them up; I know damn well they’ll […]