Comments
GELFAND’S WORLD - Our latest mass shooting of school children was characterized by two things:
1) Nobody was surprised.
2) Nobody is even bothering to suggest that we do something about the problem.
It might be useful to explain to a new generation that this response was not always the case. This nation had an assault weapon ban for a few short years (1994 - 2004). It was never repealed, but when it was passed it had a cutoff date, and the anti-murder caucus was unable to muster enough congressional votes to renew it.
Even so, the advent of this era that we live in -- a time characterized by frequent mass shooting incidents -- did at one time see calls for weapons controls. Shooting incidents in Connecticut and Florida in which the targets were school age children led to the development of political movements which still exist. So far, they have been unable to get past the combined political strength of the gun lobby.
In a moment of supreme irony, President Trump has been complaining about crime over the past couple of weeks and even ordered the National Guard into Washington D.C.
In a White House meeting, Trump even announced that from now on, murder in the nation's capital should be met with the death penalty.
It would appear that there is one type of crime that Trump doesn't get worked up about -- it's when some murderous young person uses a semiautomatic rifle (sometimes along with a semiautomatic pistol) to kill large numbers of children randomly. Some of you will wish to point out that Trump and his peers aren't particularly worked up about mass murder of adults either.
Trump did offer prayers for the victims of this killing spree. The White House was careful to avoid the phrase "thoughts and prayers" in the comments.
And now, we at least are spared claims from elected Republicans that we have a mental health issue rather than a gun problem. Remember when that was their excuse for doing nothing?
From every vantage, the result to this latest shooting has been the sound of crickets.
I've avoided any discussion of why our political sphere remains so paralyzed over this problem. You all know and understand what's going on. I did use the term "gun lobby" to abbreviate what is a slightly more complicated issue. Instead, I will suggest how to find a path to a partial solution.
I used the term "gun lobby" in the above remarks to refer to a complex, heterogeneous collection of people including collectors and sportsman, economic interests, and political factions. I've known hunters and gun collectors who were not crazed killers and I've known gun shop owners who were just trying to make a living. I've done a little sport shooting and target practice myself. I guess the difference -- at least in my case -- is that I would be willing to forego the right to own semiautomatic rifles in order to reduce the number of dead from all those mass murders. And I do realize that the majority of gun owners aren't going to attack a high school or a church. But I also realize that most of us, given a sealed vial of smallpox virus, would not use it to infect people. The problem is that -- in any human population -- there are a few crazy people and psychopaths and vicious killers, and the most available remedy has traditionally been to prevent anyone and everyone from access to weapons of mass destruction.
I won't go through all the arguments and counterarguments over gun control and the assault weapons ban. I think they've been explored at great length. The summary comes down to the following: Shall some of us be denied a particular right (to own a certain kind of weapon and some limit on the number of weapons and the amount of ammunition) in order to prevent the murders of some children and some adults?
It's really pretty simple, and right now, the lines are drawn so rigidly that even a murderous attack on a church service resulted in very little constructive discussion.
So here is my pathway to a pathway: It's up to the members of the gun lobby to consider and suggest an approach. I would offer them a little motivation by suggesting that -- if they do not come up with something -- then in about 50 years the American electorate will have evolved into such an anti-gun mood that there will, in fact, be a mass confiscation.
The current position of the gun lobby is revealed by their current silence. They are willing to accept a certain number of fatalities among the innocent public as long as they can hold onto their collections. May I suggest that this approach will not be accepted by the remaining two-thirds of Americans forever.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
