New gun control proposal: Common sense or another misfire?
In the aftermath of mass shootings, bipartisan negotiations seeking more gun control have been underway. Surprisingly, ten Republican senators are supporting the current proposal, but questions abound: Will the legislation see the light of day before November’s election? What will the final bill look like? And are the proposals on-target, or just shooting blanks? Here’s a look.
Some Republicans are fuming at GOP senators supporting the legislation, for two reasons. First, they oppose any measure that will, in their estimation, weaken gun rights. And second, given that the political environment significantly favors the GOP’s electoral chances, they don’t want to give President Biden and his party any victory that could mitigate that advantage. But politics aside, there is a better reason for taking a longer, more methodical approach: Emotion. By their nature, massacres, especially those involving children, evoke the raw emotion that we need to do something — anything — to stop these killings. Totally understandable, but we must ensure that A) the cure isn’t worse than the disease, and B) the remedies actually work.
The Founding Fathers innately understood the risk of passing laws in an emotional state, which is why they designed the senate, with its longer terms, to be the more levelheaded and deliberative body. When that approach is jettisoned, the results, no matter how well-intended, are usually flawed. Take 9/11, after which Congress quickly passed a plethora of new laws (especially the Patriot Act) that were intended to protect us from terrorists. In the end, however, the small margin of additional safety (if there was any) was vastly outweighed by the loss of civil liberties, and the outsized growth of government bureaucracy and unnecessary regulations.
The point: Let’s not rush, since once laws are passed, they are rarely repealed. Better to wait and get it right, rather than allowing the perceived perfect to become the enemy of the good.
2) Outflanking the enemy is an effective battlefield tactic, but it’s never a war-winning strategy. Likewise, gun control measures are simply tactics — nothing more. They are not strategy, since they don’t address why these types of mass killings are now occurring (when they didn’t before), and thus, cannot prevent them in any significant way. Until we look in the mirror to address the root causes of these massacres, they will continue — rendering new laws nothing more than band-aids on a gaping wound.
3) The current proposal doesn’t ban any class of guns, nor does it raise the age limit to buy a rifle — points that don’t sit well with many gun-control advocates. But since legislative negotiations are fluid, and more restrictions could be added, let’s address them:
As this column has noted, an assault weapons ban was in place when the Columbine massacre occurred, proving that such restrictions don’t stop those hellbent on killing. Additionally, in the
overwhelming majority of both “regular” shootings and mass killing events, handguns — not rifles — are the primary weapons. So, using the “ban-assault weapons” reasoning, shouldn’t all guns be banned? Otherwise, it’s all window dressing. In real life, since we will never — repeat, absolutely never — ban handguns in America, let’s stop wasting time on irrelevant arguments and focus on what can actually move the ball forward. And remember, difficult as it is to contemplate, it’s far easier to wipe out people corralled into a corner with one or two blasts from a 100-year old shotgun than it is using a modern rifle — more proof that banning a class of firearms to prevent killings is wishful thinking.
Ironically, the argument from extreme gun-control advocates that “only police should have guns” has been proven to be a non-starter. The pathetic performance shown by numerous police forces during mass shootings — from big city to small town — has become the posterchild for gun ownership. After all, what good are police, SWAT teams, and even the feds — along with all their specialized school-and-massshooting training — when, time and again, they fail us and the victims who could have been saved? Raising the age to buy a rifle from 18 to 21 may sound reasonable. And why not, advocates say, since you must to be 21 to drink and buy a handgun. But upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that it would endanger law-abiding citizens. First, how can we entrust 18-year-olds with rifles (and handguns, machine guns, and grenade launchers) when shipping them off to war, but not allow those same legal adults the right to basic gun ownership at home? Second, raising the age would deprive millions of their right to protect themselves with any firearm for three long years. Easy enough for those living in safe places (though “safe” has become relative in today’s America), but what about those who work or live in violent neighborhoods? Why jeopardize young adults (and their families) by stripping them of protection against criminals who, by definition, don’t abide by laws? Penalizing good people while giving an advantage to the bad guys is as un-American as it gets. 4) The proposed legislation focuses on more extensive background checks, mental health funding, resources for more red flag laws, and better school security. In theory, this author agrees with those concepts. But like all new laws, the devil is in the details.
Expanding background checks is a no-brainer, both from political and policy standpoints. This bill would further delve into the backgrounds of Under-21 gun buyers
by investigating juvenile and mental health records. But in addition, what should be included (but is not) is mandating that private sales be subjected to the same 60-second background check that commercial gun dealers must perform. Sure, it’s an extra step, but so what? Since few complain about the numerous laws regulating private car sales, why the big deal when selling your firearms? There are no gun registries, no bans, and no Second Amendment infringements. Just a simple background check to ensure that the recipient is legally permitted to own a gun. It’s true that background checks won’t stop shooters who legally owns guns, or kill to get one, such as the Sandy Hook shooter. No system is perfect, but background checks work: the current system has denied three million gun purchases over the last 25 years. In 2010, for example, half of those denied had felony convictions or indictments, almost 20 percent were fugitives, and 11 percent violated state laws. Would we really be better off with millions of people walking around with guns who shouldn’t have them?
Allocating more resources to mental health is long overdue, but if we aren’t careful, the effect could be counterproductive. Example: someone seeks mental counseling for anxiety (perhaps pandemic-related), and that condition is documented in a database that could be used to deny gun ownership. The result, without question, will be far fewer people seeking the treatment they want and need. Objective analysis of a patient’s mental well-being by a multi-faceted team must be exercised when determining Second Amendment rights, or we will have taken one step forward — and five back. — The other hot-button gun issue is “red-flag” laws. On their face, they seem reasonable: family members — and potentially others? — can report an individual and petition a court to have guns seized from people deemed a “threat” to themselves or others. In reality, however, such arbitrary measures could open a back door to gun confiscation and abuse.
What about the person who gets in a parking lot screaming match because an obnoxious driver almost hits his child? Is he a danger to himselves and others? And what if that person happens to have an NRA or Second Amendment sticker on his car? Would that amplify the situation and become added justification for a red flag investigation? And what of the “significant other” who suspects her partner of infidelity and, as payback, claims mental or physical abuse?
Red flag laws have a place, as numerous states already have such statutes on the books. But in this hyper-sensitive environment, an objective board of judges, government officials and professional consultants must be employed so that the law isn’t manipulated for nefarious purposes at the expense of a citizen’s Constitutional rights.
One thing is certain: gun issues will be in the bullseye of the political shootouts both this November and in 2024.