This argument is a poor one for a couple of reasons. The first is that it reduces to the absurd fairly quickly. It's like MAD theory writ small. So one of the easiest ways to combat it is to point out the fact that if everyone in the world had an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, we probably wouldn't be any more safe from nuclear war. And by probably I mean we'd all be ash by now. The second reason this argument fails is that, at least in one mass shooting (Arizona's, where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot), there were people with guns present who were unable to stop the violence. In fact according to this article, one of the people carrying very nearly shot the wrong guy.
A slightly better (though only very slightly) version of this idea was just proposed by the NRA in their incredibly insensitive post-Sandy Hook press-conference (or demagogathaon). The basic idea is that if we 1) train school administrators to keep/use weapons and 2) have an armed guard (or police officer) in every school in America, we'd be safe.
This falls apart as an argument fairly quickly. As I pointed out to a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook, when I couldn't stand his inane gun-babble anymore, lots of places have armed guards and security and still experience violence fairly regularly. In 2011, for instance, there were over 1000 bank robberies, many of them in banks that had armed guards. Few people died (3), but this was primarily because people weren't going there to kill anyone. Had they been doing so, given the 1000 tries they had, I'm fairly certain they could have succeeded. Lest this seem like an "apples-to-oranges" argument, I would also point out that the purpose of mass-shootings is rarely the specific people who are killed, but instead simply the mass-killing itself. This means that "target softness" is an important consideration (probably) to a would-be mass-murderer, but all that means is that if we put guards in a school, they'll go to the theater. So unless we're prepared to put a guard in every building in the country, this isn't really going to solve the problem. And really, if the buildings are guarded, but not every park, playground and basketball court, then the problem remains.
So you'll probably notice that I've just been shooting down "solutions" and providing none of my own. The reason is that I'm not convinced there is a solution to be had. In reality, though obviously cognizant of the tragedy in Sandy Hook, I'm not convinced there is a real "problem" in the sense that this is something happening regularly enough, and in a systematic enough way, that it requires a major policy solution. Research suggests that homicides taking place at school are a very small percentage (2%) of the overall number of homicides against youth.
If, however, we collectively feel we need to address the problem of gun violence generally, I think reasonable standards of gun control are a good start, though some research suggests that gun control legislation only has mild effects (judging primarily by concealed carry requirements and the Brady Handgun Bill). In part, however, questions of what "works" are secondary to the question of what we want our country to be like. I, personally, don't think people should be able to walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle with no background check, no mental health evaluation, no waiting period, etc. I know there are people out there who feel that we must have access to these weapons for "protection" from "them." By "them" they usually mean the government, which is silly because unless you have tanks and jets, the government pretty much has you outgunned. That said, in principle, I don't disagree that people should be able to have guns - I just don't see why we can't impose the same burdens that we do on drivers (at least) on gun owners.
Finally, I do agree with the idea of an assault weapons ban and a ban on things like high-capacity magazines. I don't know that this will do much to reduce violence, but I do know that I'm much more comfortable with fewer people having access to those military-type weapons and accessories. I think of the number of people with mental illness (26.2%) and the number of weapons-per-person (9 guns for 10 people) and then try to imagine a reasonable joint distribution and I don't like what I come up with. Given the fact that mass-shooters are generally mentally ill, the real issue seems to be the access these people have to weapons - their own or someone else's.
In short, while gun control may not be the "answer" to the problem, I think it's reasonable to not want to live in a place where so many people arm themselves with weapons of war. Additionally, I think a realistic look at the evidence suggests that while general levels of gun violence in America are high, the number of shootings (and violence in general) in schools is comparatively low. In any event, the solution to the problem, if a problem does indeed exist, is almost certainly not more guns - nor is it the posting of armed guards - which may do nothing to reduce the violence, just displace it. If everyone agrees that the people who carry out attacks like this have significant mental health problems (unlike terrorists, who generally are using the violence to send a political message and are sane), the real solution is to either assist with mental health in the US or to (at least) limit the ability of those with mental illness to access weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment