On Tuesday, Vice-President Joe Biden outlined plans for US gun law reform, which if implemented might be the first major federal gun law passed in almost two decades. As yet, chances of success are slim, expectations low, and opposition unrelenting. Pro- gun lobbyists have the constitution on their side. However, Sandy Hook is Obama’s chance to redirect the focus of the gun debate away from the rhetoric which maintains that to carry and own a collection of guns is integral to the ‘American dream’.
Some fear that stricter regulation will cause a rise in gun crime. Yet this is hard to judge, just as competency in using guns successfully for self-defence is difficult to prove. If those who used to procure guns legally now continue to do so illegally, that may contribute to crime figures, even though no casualties have been inflicted. There is also scope for selective interpretation in how necessary guns are for survival. A 1995 survey revealed that guns are used for self-defence in the US around 2.5 million times a year. However, ‘self-defence’ could be interpreted as merely ‘carrying’ (and as a consequence deterring the criminal from action in the first place). Guns make you feel safer; they don’t necessarily make you safer. Paranoia appears to cloud the belief that hav- ing a gun is akin to saving a life.
Changes hinted at by the Obama administration so far should be effective. Obama prioritises the problem of mass shooting, and with such strong opposition, he would be wise not to begin by tackling the problem of gun crime in its entirety. While the changes might not reduce the number of incidents, it should reduce the casualty rate. Adding more types of gun to the list of banned firearms would reduce the chance of a semi-automatic firearm with a large magazine capacity inflicting a higher level of damage on civilians. Speaking emotionally on Thursday, Biden stressed three times how the children were not just shot but “riddled” with bullets. Since 1982 there have been 62 mass shootings, and of the 142 guns owned by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. Must they allow weapons with the potential to claim so many lives at once to remain on the legal list?
The US has not only a large number of mass shootings for a highly developed country but also the largest number of school shootings in the world, most infamously Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and most recently in Taft Union High School. Obama said in his response to Sandy Hook: “As a country, we have been through this too many times.” The individualist gun mentality of ‘each man for himself’ will not prevent disasters like these from happening, and can hardly be a palliative for them afterwards.”
The use of firearms by “well-regulated militia” to protect against tyranny is clearly not relevant in a modern, developed state. Rather, the pro-gun lobby is more concerned with preserving the gun industry, the annual contribution of which equals the US budget for the arts. Hence the 2nd Amendment is wantonly interpreted out of context by pro-gun lobbyists, who never mention their financial investment in guns.
On the other hand, perhaps America is beginning to win the war against guns: fewer and fewer Americans own guns, as rising levels of gun ownership actually reflect an increase in gun collecting. After the Aurora massacre gun sales rose in the anticipation that Obama would try to re-implement Clinton’s Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, which expired in 2004. These are just the withdrawal symptoms of a decreasing number of gun owners.
The rehabilitation planned to wean Americans off their guns is not unreasonable, and in the light of the shooting at Aurora, it makes sense. The ‘assault weapons’ banned by the 1994 Act were used by the killer, who might not have acquired them if they had been illegal. In any case, it is more rational than the National Rifle Association’s proposal to install a policeman at each school. Nor should we rely on the ‘easy’ digital solution of expanding questionnaires. Simply adding provisions to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is not enough. Bush, who refused to renew Clinton’s Act, was willing to improve upon the background check system, but that did not prevent mass shootings reaching double digits in 2012 alone. Obama can do better.
There might be no clear solution to the problem of mass shooting, but a gun is an unlikely answer. In the last 30 years no mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian, and the potential fatality at Taft Union High last Thursday was avoided by an unarmed teacher. Crucially, mass shootings are often an extension of the killer’s suicide plan, and a person with nothing to lose must be a lot harder to deter by intimidation. This was the case for Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
The fact is that even Switzerland, a country just as protective of its gun rights as the US (both were nations born out of a military struggle for independence), has fewer loopholes in its gun legislation. In 2008 it joined the Schengen Treaty and adapted its laws to the European standard. Why do US states hesitate to do the same for their own federal government?In theUS a background check is not required to purchase a gun privately (i.e. at gun shows or on the internet), but in Switzerland while a permit is not needed to purchase a gun at a store, it is now needed for private gun trading, and privately acquired weapons over the past 10 years must be registered. What effect might that have had at Columbine, where one of the shooters purchased his guns at a gun show? What if the Sandy Hook shooter’s mother hadn’t been a gun collector? We’ll never know unless we at least give gun law reform a trial.
