Another day, another truly sickening mass murder in the US.
English: Caliber .45 ACP Pistols. From left to right: Glock 21, Sig Sauer P220 Combat, Colt 1911 Rail Gun. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This time, a man managed to kill 27 people, including 20 young children, during a shooting spree in a Connecticut elementary school. His weapons of choice: two handguns and a Bushmaster .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.
Nobody really expects things to change after this. Even though this counts as one of the worst gun outrages in US history, the power of the NRA, along with blanket opposition to gun restrictions means that the only outcome is likely to be a few extra lines in America’s grim firearm mortality records.
People, who should never be let within an ass’s roar of a powerful weapon, will continue to purchase firearms with impunity. The building up of private arsenals will not abate. The senseless murders will persist. America will lead the developed world in gun violence.
Any sensible person should be able to reason that mass murders like this, and murders in general, are unconscionable in a civil society. Presumably, it is the will of the vast majority of people that something be done to reduce these horrific statistics as aggressively as possible. It is also reasonable to assume that things can be done, given the right circumstances.
Gun violence, like most other things, is driven by certain factors. Identifying these factors and implementing policies to manage them or eliminate them is therefore both judicious and necessary.
Let me digress for a moment. Forty years ago, Ireland had some of the worst road death statistics in Europe. At times during the 1970s, over 600 people died on Irish roads. This was at a time when car ownership was far less than it is today. Today, the road death rate is less than 200 – a decrease of 66% on those grim figures. The reason for the drop, in Ireland as well as many other countries around the world, has been due to a raft of different measures from penalty points, to random breath testing, to airbags, to better testing and training. Road deaths were driven by multiple factors. Identifying and addressing all of them, in a comprehensive way, helped to control the problem. There are many other examples of initiatives such as this making a real and substantial difference in improving health and avoiding early mortality.
America is stuck in a situation where a cool-headed analysis of the root causes of gun violence has not been sufficiently translated into any sort of sensible public policy. Instead, the country has been happy to let rhetoricians and lobby groups hold sway. Rather than doing whatever it can to address and reduce the incidents of mass murder, the citizenry gets soundbites, right-wing propaganda and slogans.
Rhetoric and sloganeering will not solve the gun violence problems of America. Sensible initiatives, from a wide range of perspectives, will do it. Comparing America’s experience to initiatives in different countries, and implementing similar policies locally, will help. Keeping all factors on the table and identifying the real root causes is essential.
It’s time that people stopped presuming that their sacred idols are above reproach or beyond sensible analysis. A wide range of initiatives should be implemented and supported. Some may work, others not: but that is how science works. These initiatives need to encompass gun ownership, mental health, advertising, gun-culture, arms manufacture and trading, among many others. In this way, America’s gun-murder problems can be solved.
Passive Impressions 
First, as you know, this is not limited to USA. If someone is determined to commit such an act, the weapon is always available, including such countries as, ehm, Norway. And there is not even need for a weapon – see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Hepnarov%C3%A1
I’ll never forget this – I lived one block from where it happened.
In my opinion, the problem is primarily, maybe even exclusively, the tragedy of US health care “system”. How many mentally ill people (that includes substance abusers!) go untreated is a something that nobody really wants to talk about.
But, back to your article, re: “A wide range of initiatives should be implemented and supported.”
Any suggestions, other than drastic health care reform? I suspect you are not going to find many which would still respect liberty, freedom, constitution, etc. You know, these pesky things that always get in the way.
And nope – we’re not going to give up on our freedom and rights to own firearms – even us who do not and don’t want to own any, like me. There are many good reasons why not, but that’s for another discussion.
I agree with you that the care and treatment of people in deep mental turmoil might be a very big factor – a huge factor – but without real data and experimentation it’s impossible to say whether it’s exclusively that. In the end the vast majority of mentally ill people are not a threat to anyone. I think another issue might be a strong gun culture in general, where guns are fetishised in some places. But I don’t know, and I think it’s important that people know what the key factors are.
Widespread availability of guns, we can debate it, I’m sure: but automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Really? Why in the name of heavens do people think that they are essential to a functioning society? I’m sure the founding fathers never considered guns, that could blow away a classroom of kids in a few seconds, when they were considering the second amendment.
Many other countries, like the UK, like Australia, Germany etc have implemented gun control laws and basic protections while people are still allowed their basic freedoms. You lessen the risk of the whole thing happening in the first place, through public information, restrictions on ownership, etc, and without making the place less free, you make it safer. (In any case, I’m suspicious of claims of freedom and liberty about the US, when it locks up a higher proportion of its citizenry than almost any country in the world).
Quote: “but automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Really?”
Sounds logical, but …
First one fact – the second amendment doesn’t leave much room for interpretation as it is. I think you agree. So we have the following options:
Option 1: Change the constitution so the 2nd amendment says something else. Really? Any idea why this is the very second one, right after freedom of speech? This will NEVER EVER happen. And for good reason – it goes way beyond just guns.
Option 2: Implement laws that ignore it. Worked for a while, but it’s wrong, and opens door to abuse of the entire system. Ignoring laws ALWAYS backfires. History is full of sad and bloody examples.
Option 3: Modify the laws in a way that only some weapons will be allowed, and some won’t. Like automatic weapons. Now – who is going to decide, now and in future? Do we want commitee a-la Bruxelles, or special agencies to deal with this? Really? Are they going to push their political agenda? Where is THIS going to lead? And, besides – this approach is STILL unconstitutional.
Option 4: … ???
I live here 30 years, and I think I heard them all. So far ANY ‘solution’ was worse than the problem itself.
Yes, you’re right about the prison population. But I think using it as an argument to question “freedom and liberty” in US is rather cheap shot. These people are locked up because they committed crime – that is violated freedom and liberty of someone else. You know that, come on.
Okay – got it. Better to do nothing. Just as I expected. But the alternative, given the events of the past few days, is pretty grim, and it will continue like this until a wider perspective is taken.
I think the fatalism that nothing can be done is belied by evidence from other countries. They have implemented reasonable solutions without necessarily impacting or compromising personal freedoms, and those countries are now safer as a result.
(Still on for that Pilsner btw – just have no clue when it will happen – trips to the US, or anywhere, are few and far between these days).
There is no fatalism that nothing can be done. There is only attempt on discussion on how and what could be done. Something can be done only if something is proposed, and discussed, in civilized manner. So far – there is not much.
Evidence from other countries tells me that:
– Country with strict laws, such a Norway, produced Breivik.
– Country where all men have their military weapons at home at all times (Switzerland) never experienced anything like this.
– Hence, the second amendment doesn’t seem to be the key problem.
Unless there is a reasonable discussion instead of politics-driven, knee-jerk reactions, you’re right – we’ll never get anywhere. At least discussion on mental health care is taking place right now, so my hope is that the focus will be directed where it belongs. That is useless health care.
I’ll be in France for few weeks next year, and then (of course) in Prague. Who knows, we may have one unfiltered Urquell there …?? 🙂