No Magic Bullet

If you’ve been a news junkie for more than five minutes, you are used to the fact that every kind of breaking story has a cycle. Mass shootings are perfect examples. The shooting itself, the body count, the cops taking out the suspect (if the suspect doesn’t save them the trouble), the shocked survivors, the teary families, the heroes, the shooter’s bio and the search for a motive – and the inevitable brief gun control debate. And then, nothing, as our short attention spans move on to something else – until it all happens again. Why do we keep seeing this movie?

The gun control debate itself has its own cycle. “Why do people need to own semi-automatic weapons? The writers of the Second Amendment didn’t know about modern firearms.” “But most gun owners are responsible, and gun laws can’t keep up with technology. Crazies will always find a way, and if the people in the crowd were armed, they could shoot back!”  In the case of Las Vegas, there has been one new step, the general agreement that bump stocks should be banned. Did you even know what that was a month ago?

“Control” is a dirty word, but we accept it in most aspects of life. Let’s take cars. We require licenses to drive them. To be “street legal,” vehicles must meet certain standards. There are rules of the road, and though cars and trucks are capable of high speed, we are not allowed to drive them to that limit on a public highway, only a race track. We have to carry insurance for them. Why is gun regulation so different?

You’ve heard the argument that if you want to control guns, you have to change the culture, our Wild West heritage. It’s impossible, many believe, to make guns unpopular here. But we have managed to do this with smoking -- after many decades.

Gun control is NOT about banning guns. That will never work. But there are things that can be done. They are not easy, and likely expensive. First, a massive federal buy-back program. That approach worked in Australia. Next, we do what we did with tobacco, tax the hell out of it. Every gun sale. Every bullet, perhaps with the money going to shooting victims and their families. How about a database that flags individuals who try to buy multiple assault weapons?

Then there’s media’s role. Not just news coverage and talk shows – Hollywood too. How are we covering shootings or portraying the use of guns?

This stool has way more than three legs and making the changes will take many small bits of legislation over time, perhaps by new generations with new things to think about. This is another monument we have to pull down, and it’s a heavy one indeed.

Peeling the Onion on Guns

The call for gun control and the need for improved school security have been linked since the Newtown, Conn. shooting, but while linked, they are very separate issues in some respects.

While the Congress can’t seem to get its act together on gun control, some states are carrying the ball just fine. The governor of Connecticut has signed one of the toughest gun laws in the nation, requiring background checks for gun buyers, restricting magazine capacity to 10 bullets, and requiring those who currently own weapons with larger magazines to register them by next New Year’s Day. Personally, I would go even further, requiring everyone who buys a gun to be licensed, similar to what’s required of drivers. That would include training and passing some sort of test.

The argument about registration being a precursor to the government’s confiscation of guns is, to me, so bogus and outlandish that it defies description. It will not happen in this country in anyone’s lifetime. Even if such an initiative were launched, the confiscators would have to pry weapons out of millions of sets of cold, dead fingers. It would be Civil War II.

But what about security in schools? The NRA has called for an armed security officer in every school, and I don’t have a problem with that. Many high schools have had “school resource officers” from local police departments for decades – not a radical concept.

And what about teachers or school administrators carrying concealed weapons? Actually, I don’t have a problem with that either, as long as strict background checks were in place. Perhaps there should be a limit on how many teachers or administrators per school would be packing on campus – and that information should be absolutely confidential. True, it could increase a school district’s liability costs, but when the rubber hits the road, if it limits the damage a crazy person could cause at a school, it might be well worth it.

Older men like me often repeat themselves, so I’ll do it here. The Second Amendment is not sacred text, nor is the Constitution itself. That’s why there are things called “amendments,” and even they can be repealed as justices become enlightened.

Gun control is not, in the end, a legislative issue. Someday, for example, alcoholic beverage consumption won’t be a habit, but that will require a cultural sea change. Prohibition, one of the aforementioned amendments, was repealed because it didn’t work. On the other hand, it’s not inconceivable that smoking will virtually disappear in the lifetimes of many of us, because it just isn’t cool anymore. That’s really how the gun problem will be solved, and that will require of us something in short supply these days: patience.

The Moral Cliff

We’ve been spending a lot of time talking about the fiscal cliff, but the Newtown shooting has revealed a moral one. Now is the time to consider reasonable gun regulation. “Reasonable” is a dangerous word, but I’m willing to bet that the majority of Americans know what that means in this case.

As I’ve said many times, we accept regulations in many areas of life. Traffic laws are a great example. They affect most of us, and typically, they are clearly understood. And experience makes them reasonable. If there were a traffic signal or stop sign at every intersection, there would be gridlock. But there would also be gridlock if there were no controls at all. Effective regulation actually makes traffic flow better. You can’t leave this one up to human nature. Liberty is a very lofty concept, but we agree to give up some of it to improve the functions of daily life.

I am not opposed to the right to bear arms, but it should be plain that there is no reasonable need for civilians in the United States to own functioning automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or huge magazines that allow scores of bullets to be fired. And background checks should be required at all gun-sale venues, including gun shows. If we could work on just these issues, we’d be solving a lot of the problem.

Some feel that one of the answers lies in improving security at places like schools. But while Newtown has resulted in great psychological trauma for children, turning elementary schools into armed camps will have effects too. It’s about balance.

In the Old West, it was reasonable for almost everyone to own a gun, because there was a reasonable fear that individuals would be called upon often to defend themselves. This isn’t the Wild West anymore, unless we allow it to be.

I’m tired of hearing that we can’t move this ball forward because the gun lobby is too strong and that members of Congress have to take money from it because they need to get reelected, and that’s just the way life is. But it doesn’t have to be that way all the time. At some point, if you’ll forgive the metaphor mix, the dog is going to have to decide that the tail isn’t going to wag it anymore.

Always the Gun

This is America, home of apple pie. Then there’s the other thing. How much more convincing do we need that it’s time to do something about it?

From a practical point of view, it’s impossible to regulate intentions. People are going to be bullied, or jilted by their girlfriends, mistreated by an employer they’ve served faithfully for decades, you name it. There’s always going to be a motive or, if you like, a trigger, that will make someone pick up a gun and take out their rage on innocent people. In the case of the Connecticut shooting, there couldn’t be more innocent targets than elementary school children.

If you can’t regulate intentions, then you have to move on to what you can regulate: the means. Can anyone today seriously advance the argument that civilians need access to semi-automatic weapons with magazines, and if anyone does advance that argument, how many can seriously accept it? Today! How many blows of the 2-by-4 do we need before we get the message?

Being practical again: Sweeping bans on common behavior don’t work. If you’ve been watching “Boardwalk Empire,” you can see why Prohibition was a failure. So if you want to deal with guns, you have to do things in pieces, and you have to accept that it’s going to take time – but the important part is, you get started. It’s an evolutionary, not a revolutionary process.

We actually have had success at this in many fields. Smoking is one of the best examples. All over the country, we have laws restricting where people can smoke, and there are fewer and fewer places where it’s legal to do it. The fact that these regulations are in place is reflective of the fact that smoking just isn’t cool anymore. Considering that this habit was brought to the civilized world hundreds of years ago, we’ve come a long way in a relatively short time toward eliminating it, but it seems like forever.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of hearing about the psychological state of demented perpetrators, how sad a day it is, listening to more grieving families, and how we all have to keep folks in our thoughts and prayers. Thinking deeply and praying are very good, but what’s even better is realizing that we can take practical steps toward preventing these incidents, and now, we have the opportunity.

It will be a challenge. There’s something else just as American as apple pie and guns. It’s the short attention span. Will we care as much about enacting effective gun laws in 48 hours as we do today?

Choose Your Weapons

The BBC’s call-in radio program, “World Have Your Say,” featured a fascinating pro-and-con about gun control. The pro-gun guests were especially interesting. An American gun shop owner allowed as how he never leaves home without carrying THREE guns on his person. One of the three, he observed, is particularly good for going to the movies with. As you might expect, he believes that if members of the audience in that Aurora, Colorado movie theater had been armed, lives would clearly have been saved, because someone would have quickly dropped the shooter. He was silhouetted against the screen and would have made an easy target. Plus, the gun shop owner added, if the Colorado shooter knew ahead of time that the audience was packing, he would certainly have been deterred from doing his thing.

Unfortunately, that scenario seems a little counter-intuitive to me. What it sounds like is bullets flying in multiple directions fired by a lot of semi-trained individuals. As for an armed populace discouraging a crazy person from launching an attack in the first place, well, uh…he’s CRAZY, right, so would that have stopped him?

Another guest on the BBC show was a woman who decided to train her daughter at an early age how to use guns. The woman said she bought the child two rifles and a shotgun – pink guns, befitting a girl – for her eighth birthday. The daughter was not issued any ammunition until she was adequately trained in the use of the weapons (the family has its own shooting range). The earlier guest on the show, the male gun owner, said children who are trained early on in the use of weapons have much more respect for them than kids whose shooting experience is limited to video games.

Not to change the subject here, but why do I have this sneaking suspicion that some of these kinds of parents are a lot slower on the draw when it comes to sex education? All children are issued “weapons” which often become “loaded” before anybody teaches them responsible usage. True, these weapons don’t generally kill anyone, but improper use can certainly have life-changing consequences.

OK, maybe that’s unfair, but I couldn’t resist.

A Misdirected Gift

I’ve been listening to the live stream of KOA in Denver over the past few days, following the shooting Friday in the suburban Aurora movie theater. The station scrapped its regular programming, including commercials, that day to devote all its energies to covering the news related to the shooting. As the emergency situation subsided, the station shifted to taking on-air calls from listeners to give them a chance to process their reaction to this tragedy. Naturally, there was vitriol directed at the suspected shooter.

One comment, though, was interesting. The male caller said he was praying for the suspect – in its traditional meaning, not a popular point of view at the moment. But the caller then got more specific. He was praying that the suspect suffer. He wanted the suspect to be fed as little as possible, just enough to be kept alive, so that he could suffer.

Those who really want this man to suffer might think about praying for his recovery from mental derangement. He may have no sense at all right now of the horror of what has been done. If and when he returns to his right mind, he can’t help but suffer more intense pain than any physical torture might produce.

One of the tragedies here is the nisuse of a gift. The alleged perpetrator has been described as brilliant. Consider, for example, the level of sophistication of the explosive booby-trap set up in his apartment, and to what good that intelligence might have been applied. If he ever has an opportunity to do good in the future, it will be on a very limited scale, behind prison walls.

Religious leaders often tell us to hate the sin and love the sinner. Since part of our discussion here relates to the movies, I’m reminded of the “The Exorcist,” where the priests, confronted by the taunting, demon-possessed Linda Blair character, are tempted at several points to physically hurt her, a temptation which they have to resist in order to complete the casting out of the devil from the girl. For the average person in Aurora, of course, there will be no loving of this sinner in the near future.

One thing we have to consider in this country is what method those possessed with demons, if you like, are likely to select to iinflict spectacular injury on others for maximum effect. We’re Americans, so it often involves the use of guns – which also means ammunition. When a private citizen suddenly orders 6,000 rounds of ammo, as has been reported in this case, not to mention thousands of dollars worth of tactical combat or law enforcement gear, it might constitute a red flag of some kind. Ya think?

The Reset Button

On Thursday, I was watching the evening news on cable TV. When the first political attack ad came on, I remember how angry I was getting and how I had to switch channels for a minute just to calm down. These ads are supposed to “work,” but at least on Thursday night, they weren’t working on me.

And then there was Friday, and the news from Aurora.

In response, both major presidential campaigns suspended attack ads in Colorado, and, when not canceling campaign appearances altogether, drastically changed their speeches and settings. Why? The shooting in Aurora was as a laser beam exposing the trivial nature of the campaign issues. Do we really care that much about Romney’s tax returns or the promises made by a campaigning or even newly-elected Obama years ago? There are simply more important things to be thinking and talking about.

It occurred to me that instead of suspending the attack ads for one day in one state, the campaigns – and the organizations given new license to spend advertising money by the Supreme Court – have a terrific excuse now to honor the ban for a week, or a month, or – dare I suggest it – make it permanent.

Naturally, the Aurora shooting will revive the issue of gun control – to my mind, a good thing. But instead of the usual grandstanding, can both sides of this debate work on finding a reasonable middle between arming and disarming average citizens?

And could a productive debate over this issue expand into a productive debate about the other big issues that should concern us right now? Does "my way or the highway" seem a little inappropriate at the moment?

Aurora was a hard reboot for our national consciousness. It’s an opportunity to seek a state of balance. We just don’t have to go back to business as usual.

Guns Are Our Thing

It’s a little amusing to me how quick we are in the United States to bash other cultures for odd or even barbaric behavior -- adulterous women being stoned to death by fundamental Muslims, Chinese eating dogs (or Hindus NOT eating cows), etc., when we have ubiquitous guns. It’s been our little thing for a couple of centuries now, and while it may seem perfectly normal to us, it’s not in many other civilized countries.

As expected, the shooting at the Colorado movie theater is igniting a new debate about gun control. Personally, I still think there are things we can do in this area without depriving citizens of their right to own guns. We probably can’t take away those that are already out there, but we could stiffen the qualifications for purchasing a gun, especially a concealed weapon, with really thorough personal and psychological background checks, including social media postings, etc. If that costs more money, make the buyer pay the freight.

By now, it has been well established that we’re in much more danger from armed wack jobs in this country than we are from international terrorists. BTW, there is NO justification for any private citizen owning a functioning automatic weapon.

Any new control measures at best will only slow things down – they aren’t going to make us instantly safe. That will require a cultural change – and such changes are possible, if we have patience. It has taken hundreds of years, but smoking tobacco, while still tolerated, isn’t cool anymore. In spite of anti-slavery laws, it took more than a century to afford black people their full legal rights, and that change is, in practical terms, still in progress. In the case of other countries, can we expect the Muslim world to instantly give up compelling women to wear burkas? So how long is it going to take for guns to be uncool here?

OK, how about some good news: Initial reports out of Colorado say that police are getting good marks for their response to the Aurora shooting incident. Public safety communications systems there have drastically improved over the years, allowing different agencies to talk to each other when a wide-area response is needed. What spurred these changes? Columbine.

We often learn things the hard way, but eventually, we do learn.