The Plague of Gun Violence in America is Driven By Extremism

I started writing something completely different this week. But after several mass shootings, I just can’t seem to get the topic of gun violence - particularly our obvious acceptance of gun violence as a part of our day-to-day lives - off of my mind.

I’ve written on this topic before. After the Sandy Hook massacre, I wrote this angry 5,000 word column about all-things-gun. Everything I wrote then still applies, so if you want some insight into the gun lobby and the way they’ve turned lies and fear, reinforced by staggering amounts of political money and intimidation into an art form, please click on the link and read the earlier story.

I’m an obvious and unabashed supporter of stricter control over guns. I’ve been an anti-gun violence activist for over 20 years. After utterly nothing happened in the wake of Sandy Hook, I couldn’t help but think: If the slaughter of 20 little schoolchildren and six educators won’t move the needle, I just can’t imagine what will. Nevertheless, I’ll soldier on and continue to try despite my increasing skepticism and pessimism.

But enacting more control over guns is only part of the solution. The greater issue is one that’s much more profound, which no one talks about on either side of the issue, and which no amount of legislative action can address. More on that shortly.

Just to be fair, let’s start with a cold hard fact that my friends and allies in the anti-gun violence movement won’t appreciate me pointing out:

No laws - either on the books or proposed - would have prevented the shooters in San Bernardino from acquiring the guns and ammo they used. They bought them legally. They had no criminal records, so a background check would not have made a difference. They weren’t on any watch list, which wouldn’t have mattered anyway since the gun lobby has successfully prevented any law being passed which would prevent people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns as easily as anyone else.

The same is true of the guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, as well as most of those who have committed the 350 plus mass shootings America has experienced just this year.

The reality is that we’ll never completely eliminate gun violence. It’s the trade-off - inhumane as that sounds - for being a society that allows private ownership of firearms. But should the fact that we can’t eliminate all of it keep us from trying to mitigate it at all?

Keep in mind that every single gun used in a crime passed through the hands of a legal gun owner. All the available evidence indicates there’s no question that gun control could have a massive impact on the flow of guns used in most crimes. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring all facts and research. If they want to, they should be willing to share whatever evidence and research they have that contradicts my stipulation. I’m not personally aware of any (Anyone who wants to cite Kleck can read my earlier column in which I utterly crush his suppositions).

After over twenty years of contemplation, here are the basics of what I support:

* All gun and ammo transactions should be conducted through and recorded by a dealer with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). This includes every private transaction, including transfers between relatives that involve no money. Each gun transaction should include a background check on the recipient, as well as a ballistics test record of the firearm to enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes.

These records could be maintained (in perpetuity) by the FFL dealer, and would be obtainable only through subpoena. If the FFL dealer lost his license or went out of business, he would have the option of transferring these records to another FFL dealer who was willing to take responsibility for their maintenance. If they can’t or won’t transfer them to another dealer, they would be obligated to transfer them to BATF, which could still only provide them under subpoena.

Anyone who breaks any law which leads to a gun being used in a crime should face penalties similar to those imposed on the person who actually committed the crime. They are an accessory before the fact, and therefore an enabler.

The gun lobby’s primary objection to these things I support is three-fold. The first objection is that, if there’s a record of who has firearms and (this is important) ammunition, they believe it’s only a matter of time before the government uses those records to seize everyone’s guns.

This strikes me as exemplifying the meaning of paranoia. (Remember how just this year, thousands of Texan right-wingers were utterly convinced that a large scale military training exercise was in fact actually a secret operation by Obama to invade Texas, declare martial law, and infiltrate the state with Federal agents, who would then seize everyone’s guns and put conservatives in FEMA prison camps?)

While I admit I’ve recently read a few wistful musings online by some people who look longingly at Australia and how banning most guns there has virtually eliminated gun violence, in more than 20 years I’ve never heard a single person in the anti-gun violence movement (most of whom I’m acquainted with all the way through the national level), nor any politician propose such a thing in America.

If you don’t believe me, ask any pro-gun guy to point out any instance where anyone has seriously proposed banning guns in America. This delusion should be dismissed by any reasonable individual. Any claim that anyone is trying to outright ban guns is a flagrant lie and should be treated as such. In principle, Americans support private gun ownership, and believe that it’s part of the fabric of our nation. Everyone gets that, and it might surprise some to learn that a significant number of anti-gun violence advocates are themselves gun owners.

Another line of argument is that passing laws to regulate guns won’t make any difference because criminals won’t follow the law.

Well, duh. If you follow this line of reasoning, you could also reasonably ask why there should be any laws or regulations at all. After all, since criminals won’t adhere to gun laws, it’s reasonable to assume they won’t follow any laws, right? Ergo, if laws don’t stop criminals why should any even exist?

The third argument is absolutely craven and disgusting: Pro-gun activists always ask why “law-abiding citizens” should have to deal with kind any inconvenience whatsoever when it comes to buying guns and ammo (It amazes me how often this attitude comes up).

Under my proposal, the “inconvenience” would amount to the buyer and seller meeting with a FFL dealer, showing some ID (a background check could have been requested in advance through some sort of online form), submitting the firearm for a ballistics test, signing some paperwork, and likely paying a nominal fee to the dealer for brokering the transaction (I’m thinking in the $20-30 range). That’s it.

Here’s a simple reality: If every law I support was enacted, 90-95% of people who currently legally own guns would still have their guns. It would just cost a little more money and take up a couple more hours of their time. That’s all.

If that would save say 20,000 out of the 30,000 lives lost to gun violence every year, isn’t it worth it, and if not, why not? Just how can any reasonable person object to this, given the potential to dramatically impact the number of gun deaths, not to mention the 100,000 plus gun injuries America deals with every year - the vast majority of which are paid for with billions of dollars in taxpayer money? Think of all the things in our daily lives that are more inconvenient and have nowhere near the potential impact.

But as unconscionable as I find this attitude to be, it also brings up two much deeper and more profound issues - neither of which is part of the broader discussion at all.

The first of these is the fact that there’s currently no discussion of the psychology which is driving Americans to arm themselves in droves (this past Black Friday set historical levels for recorded gun purchases). Why are we doing this?

Now, before anyone gets riled up, please get a grip. The whole idea is to try and differentiate between what’s healthy and what’s not. As it is to me, it should be patently obvious to even the simplest mind that for most gun-owners - particularly those who participate in shooting sports or collecting - the psychological reason (recreational enjoyment) is clearly completely benign.

But do we really want the emotional perspectives of someone who believes he needs to be heavily armed to protect himself from and enable him to overthrow the government to influence our policies regarding guns? And can’t we at least agree that someone who engages in a mass shooting attack has a psychological problem of some kind?

As already pointed out, pro-gun advocates are among those on our right flank who have concocted and perpetuated some of the most ludicrous and tragically laughable conspiracy theories ever dreamed up. But to me, those conspiracy theories are a critical part of the collective symptomology and need to be greatly factored into a broader psychological assessment.

Also, when it’s obvious from the data that citizens with guns have very little impact on crime, why are so many people not only arming themselves with the stated goal of protecting themselves, but buying multiple weapons? If there’s no logic or reason to be found in doing so what is their motivator if it’s not some characteristic of their psychological profile?

I recognize that this is an incredibly delicate and sensitive topic, and despite having some expertise, I have no interest in trying to engage in this discussion here. It’s much too complex for a paragraph or two in a column to address. But we also shouldn’t allow its complexity to stifle us when it comes to initiating a rational sober discussion about the topic. That means it’s a discussion that needs to be moderated by knowledgable people who will approach the subject matter with coldly sober objectivity. I, for one, am not afraid of any conclusions they may reach.

The pro-gun folks always claim that no one is objective; that anyone who disagrees with their positions, no matter how reasoned or evidence-based that disagreement may be, is just an “anti-gun zealot”. This is, of course, what led their allies in Congress to successfully cut off all Federal funding for any scientific or medical research into gun violence.

(Speaking of which, can’t we just do the research? If the pro-gun lobby wants to conduct their own and submit it to the same kind of scrutiny and peer review that any academic or scientific research is subjected to, I’d welcome that.)

But of even greater importance when it comes to addressing gun violence is something much more elusive and etherial. It’s the question: “What are our values?”

In the most free society that’s ever existed in the history of mankind, what has driven so many Americans to experience the extreme levels of fear, anger, hatred and insensitivity that infects our zeitgeist, causing many to dismiss all evidence, reason and common sense?

Similarly, in a country that has always been about empowering personal opportunity and fairness for everyone, how did we become so self-centered? Why do the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people impacted by gun violence in America matter so little to so many of the rest of us that we can stand around and blithely ignore the carnage and human suffering caused by gun violence in our backyards? How can so many of us not care? (And on a personal level, why are their values so radically different than mine?)

The things which are important to us are dictated by our values. Having an honest, open discussion about what those values are and the fundamental concepts of right and wrong will be the most difficult conversation of all.

Again, the complexity doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. I say we should start these discussions now, while forcefully and effectively drowning out the noise from those who want no such reasoned evaluations to take place.

We can be a society that permits gun ownership and still takes common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t be allowed to have them. It’s not an either/or situation. It’s really just a matter of taking a reasoned approach rather than an impassioned one.