What’s worse than a crazy, violent person with a gun? A crazy, violent person with a gun and a security clearance.
The aftermath of the mass murder at the Washington Navy Yard has been a nearly perfect example of the hypermature political system that I’ve been complaining about. Even as the story was still breaking the usual suspects were making their usual claims. Gun control advocates were calling for stricter gun control. Gun control opponents were calling for an end to “gun free” zones.
I think that we can stipulate that if we completely removed firearms from our society that the number of firearms-related deaths would decrease. Sadly, that’s not going to happen. Even if we went house-to-house and confiscated firearms, there are probably tens of thousands of Americans who have the knowledge, skill, and access to the equipment necessary to make even automatic weapons. A determined individual will always be able to obtain firearms and every report I’ve seen has suggested that the killer at the Washington Navy Yard was determined. Such a mass confiscation would probably reduce impulsive firearms violence, e.g. suicide using a firearm. Would it reduce the number of suicides? I have no idea. I don’t believe such a mass confiscation will ever take place and I seriously doubt that a fractional reduction in the number or increase of firearms will have any effect whatever.
I think that we can also stipulate that if everyone were armed, skilled, and responsible, the number of mass murders of the sort that occurred at the Washington Navy Yard would decrease as well. The key words in that sentence are “everyone” and “responsible”. Responsible people don’t murder people but you can no more mandate responsibility than you can benevolence or courage.
We might want to pay closer attention to the other qualifiers in my second sentence. If there’s one thing we should have learned from the events of the last several years, it’s that our national security system is seriously broken. So many things require security clearances and so many security clearances are granted that the standards for issuing them have become lax. Could the system work at all if they were issued as strictly as they should be? I have my doubts.
Under the circumstances I don’t see how anyone can give reasonable assurances let alone guarantees that private or secret information will remain private or secret with a straight face.
It is impossible to maximize the freedom of mentally ill people and ensure that they receive the care they need. We must strike a balance and the murders at the Washington Navy Yard certainly suggest that we haven’t struck the proper balance yet.
Finally, violence. It’s impossible to watch Canadian or British television without being struck by how violent, savage even, our television is. I see that as an acceptance of how violent our society is. Strong, courageous people who are mentally and morally sound don’t need to be violent or, at least, very rarely need to be violent. Can you express your disdain for those with whom you disagree in strident, even violent terms and maintain a non-violent society? I don’t see how that will work.
Update
Writing at RealClearPolicy, Robert VerBruggen explains that the killings at the Navy Yard highlight that making the system more stringent won’t help when the system doesn’t work. That includes the firearms purchasing system, the mental health system, and the security system.
Australia successfully passed gun control laws that removed the vast majority of guns from their society. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
This learned helplessness on the issue is NRA/ Gun Manufacturer propaganda. It’s very effective, but I’m disappointed to see you buying it. Honestly, nothing will change because determined crazy people will build their own AR-16’s? That’s a joke, right?
I oppose using the legal route as my preference is for a hearts and minds campaign. It’s the voter that needs to be changed, a process already under way. But pretending there’s just nothing we can do is nonsense.
The killer at the Navy Yard used a shotgun. Not an AR-15. A shotgun. I have no problem with banning firearms up to and including amending the Constitution and confiscating existing weapons. You’re overselling the effectiveness.
People constantly tout the UK and Australia, holding up their gun control measures as a universal remedy for gun violence. However, stats don’t seem to jive with these assertions.
.
In fact in a 2010 Express news article the UK is cited as the violent crimes capital of Europe..
Unfortunately, there is not a single, simple solution for why violence happens. And hamstringing people, by severely curtailing private gun ownership, will more likely than not take responsible gun owners out of the equation, making it easier for gun violence to be perpetrated by irresponsible parties. Like many recent tragedies where a gun was used, a component of mental illness was in the mix — the CT school shooting and now the DC naval base. Such underlying mental pathologies should invoke genuine concerns among the powers that be, rather than summarily exploiting gun control issues whenever the public is stunned by such mass murder events.
As a general rule, any policy proposal that starts out with “the first thing we are going to do is amend the Constitution” is not worth the time and effort to think about. Also, while the SCOTUS has recently located an individual right to bear arms, existing gun laws are little changed from five years ago when no such right existed. Our existing gun laws therefore are primarily the result of political restraints and perhaps some Constitutional rights that those accused of mental illness are given without specific reference to guns.
Also, any attempt to pass federal gun control legislation that only a handful of states (about six) have passed is simply crazy. I wonder if the blogosphere has completely erased the capacity for people to think about organizing locally and extending success on a state-by-state basis. This is generally how most change occurs.
Thanks for underscoring the point I was making so clearly, PD.
With the stigma and negative ramifications of a mental health diagnosis, I recommend people think long and hard before going for help. A lot of people only have a situational problem, but getting labeled with a mental health issue closes a lot of doors. It is unfortunate, but this is reality.
As to gun laws, folks who live in violent neighborhoods have guns, and they carry them concealed. The gun laws do not lower the number of guns, but they do create criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. “Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”
Concealed weapons do not deter criminals. Unless you project a non-victim attitude, criminals assume that you are unarmed. For many people carrying a concealed weapon, they have this attitude, or at least, they have it until an actual encounter.
Criminals are not smart, but they are cunning and street savvy. They can “smell” weakness. Criminals are also lazy, and unconcealed weapons do deter them. It is similar to a barking dog. It indicates that the person or house may be too much trouble (work).
Most people who advocate for a more well armed society will never have a violent encounter, but if they do, it will be nothing like the movies. A stationary paper target is not the same as a moving target returning fire, and if that target does not intend to survive the encounter, it is even more difficult.
A mandatory life sentence for any conviction of a crime while armed will lower the armed crime rate. The weapon does not need to have been used. This would include misdemeanors and non-violent crimes.
1) jan is totally wrong about the UK. It is propaganda cited by the NRA folks. Link to how they achieve their numbers and why they are wrong. I have done these before and come out with about the same numbers.
http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com
2) If he really used a Remington 870, they are pretty easy to take apart and conceal.
3) Reporting of gun crimes is up to the state. many are not good about it. Background checks also vary greatly from state to state. In some states, IIRC, you can be a fugitive after committing a major crime and still buy guns legally because they only count convictions.
4) We are not ever having gun control. We kind of enjoy our violence and are proud of it. (Note Dave’s comment about our television.) The NRA is too strong. No one really cares.
Steve
Here’s something less elegant than PD’s comment, but gets right to the heart of it. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in America. We blow away, by gun, more than just about any city in America.
It is pure folly to pursue the instrument, but ignore those who use the instrument.
After Sandy Hook, the President ordered the CDC to conduct a study of gun violence. The results came out last month. This analysis is as decent as any.
IMO, PD is exactly right. I would just add that sometimes problems don’t have solutions that will do more than nibble around the edges.
Oh, I think Pat Lang says some good things too, keeping in mind he is very much in the pro gun-rights camp.
There are essentially no gun control laws. The gun manufacturers have made sure of that. Everything on the books now is local, state-by-state, almost entirely pointless. Guns are still being poured into our society. Legally. There are no gun control laws meant to be effective.
I don’t care about amending the Constitution. I agree with PD on that.
I want to go after guns the way we went after public smoking and littering. Gun owners need to be made uncool. They need to be made pariahs. That’s the way forward. First change hearts and minds.
” jan is totally wrong about the UK. It is propaganda cited by the NRA folks. “
Dueling articles and demonizing the NRA — the handy tools in the toolbag of any self-rightous gun control advocate.
That’s overwrought. You might as well say we have no laws governing financial services or healthcare.
There’s an enormous thicket of gun control laws at the local, state, and federal level. Tens of thousands of pages of them. To be more effective there should be fewer laws, they should be clearer, and they should be enforced.
There’s a big difference between cigarettes and guns. I don’t think that anybody ever bought a cigarette because they were afraid. If you want fewer guns out there, make people less afraid. Raising the temperature won’t do that.
The shame tactic is best directed at opinion makers—film makers, television producers, video game producers, toymakers. It’s a much less effective strategy in dealing with ordinary people.
I want to go after guns the way we went after public smoking and littering. Gun owners need to be made uncool. They need to be made pariahs.
Gun owners are not the real problem. There are literally millions of them having and using guns responsibly — ones you never hear about. It’s the people, usually getting them illegally, who make the headline news. And, those people are, more often than not, affiliated with gangs, criminally-inclined or mentally unstable. But, progressive thinking promotes the philosophy that if you have a handful of people with bad behavior, punish everyone to extinguish what you don’t like. Make everyone into pariahs in order to make your point stick.
I think that kind of broad assumption is ill-conceived and pariah-like, all unto itself!
@michael reynolds
I would suggest using the MADD model. Instead of outlawing vehicles or alcohol, the existing laws were strengthened, if needed, and vigorously enforced. Over time drunk drivers have been made pariahs, but they have also been punished.
In my youth, a DUI was no big deal. Years later, I learned the hard way that times had changed. It was the same with wearing a seat belt. In both cases, I quickly changed my behavior.
Drunk driving will never be eliminated, but it has been substantially reduced.
@Tastybits, I hope people are not deterred from seeking mental health treatment. Granted my wife is a therapist and I might have a vested interest, but mental health professions have duties of confidentiality to their clients. Depending on the state they may have a duty to warn third persons if there is a credible, imminent danger to themselves or others, but this is a pretty narrow extreme circumstance. My wife is a bit dismayed at hearing people talk as if therapists normally call up their patient’s employers to talk about their files, or that the should. There are also legal issues for employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(OTOH, it sounds like New York is going through prescription records to try to ascertain a diagnosis and recall a FOID cards. Seems like a completely short-sighted asinine rule that violates HIPAA laws. I would be shocked if New York is not judicially corrected or voluntarily changes its position)
PD
I don’t see how any state can get away with disclosing personal medical info, especially in sensitive areas like mental health, addiction problems and AIDS. In classes I took several years ago, we were told to not even divulge or discuss such stuff on computer communications, as the emails were not considered a secure enough forum.
@PD Shaw
The problem is filling out forms with questions about mental health. Security clearances, firearms, certain employment is difficult or impossible with a DSM diagnosis, and lying is grounds for being fired. With proper treatment, it can be no different than diabetes, but this is not the public perception.