A week ago the NY Times gave space to Dan Gross, who "was the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence from 2012 to 2017 and is a co-founder of the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility".
He delivered a truth bomb to the Times readership about the irrelevance of an assault weapons ban and made good points on other topics.
No one cared.
I Helped Lead the Gun Control Movement. It’s Asking the Wrong Questions.
A campaign galvanized by mass shootings and assault weapons will inevitably find itself in a dead end. But there’s a way out.
He bonds with his target audience by noting that hs own brother was critically injured in a mass shooting years ago. Then:
It also breaks my heart to see gun control supporters, part of a movement I once helped to lead, repeat the mistakes that doom us all to the unacceptable status quo: tens of thousands of shooting deaths a year.
The pattern is as familiar as it is tragic: In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, the main demand of political leaders and gun control groups is a federal assault weapons ban. The news media, which seems to pay attention to gun laws only in the wake of mass shootings, amplifies that call, mostly taking at face value the idea that an assault weapons ban is the best way to prevent “gun violence.” Then, as headlines about the latest calamity fade, so do the hopes of federal policy change.
The problem as he sees it is that since assault weapons aren't the crux of the problem, going after then won't be much of a solution. That is a familiar argument on the right but a breakthrough insight for much of the left:
I believe that is the wrong question and illustrates the problem with the gun control debate in the United States. Though it does not grab national headlines, the daily toll of gun deaths and injuries is just as horrifying as our mass shootings, and more preventable as a matter of policy. The gun control movement should focus on the deaths and injuries that are most common, rather than be galvanized by mass shootings like the one that put my brother in a coma.
Of the nearly 40,000 deaths involving guns in 2019, well under 1 percent were caused by what the F.B.I. defines as “active shooter” incidents. In an average year, around 60 percent of deaths involving guns are suicides and upward of 30 percent are homicides that don’t meet the “active shooter” definition, like episodes of domestic and gang violence. Even unintentional shootings (about 1 percent of the total) outnumber mass shootings.
There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban.
He reassures his audience that he personally would be fine with an AWB, then continues:
But the fact is that if one were to objectively list solutions based purely on how much they would lower the number of gun deaths in our country, an assault weapons ban would not be high on the list.
When an assault weapons ban is debated, the conversation inevitably becomes a technical and confusing one. While there is no standard definition of an “assault weapon,” much of the focus in the wake of mass shootings is on semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles. Yet most mass shootings, like most gun fatalities in this country, are committed with handguns.
No kidding.
The most meaningful way to deal with the problem, though, is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people — the people almost all of us agree should not have guns.
I have spent the past two years building relationships with leaders in the gun rights community, and have found that this framing leads us to common ground. And it points to five specific moves that together would have an enormous impact:
-
Vigorously pursue and prosecute the small percentage of gun dealers who are knowingly contributing to the illegal gun trade (a trade that is disproportionately hurting communities of color).
-
Identify opportunities to strengthen the background check system by adding prohibited purchasers that we all, including 90 percent of gun owners, agree should not have guns. For instance, federal rules governing privacy for health records could be modified to allow mental health clinicians to identify those who are a threat to themselves or others, so that they could be temporarily added to the National Instant Check System. This would have to include exemptions for private sales that may make some gun control supporters uncomfortable; but in the end, in combination with the other measures listed here, it would result in a significant improvement to public safety.
-
Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proved effective and could be models.
-
Expand on the work of “violence interrupters” and similar programs proved to reduce gun violence in cities.
-
Clearly define what it means to be a federally licensed firearm dealer, with standards that include sales volume. For years, gun control groups have talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” The real problem is not specifically gun shows but people who are regularly selling multiple guns to strangers, regardless of the venue, without being required to conduct the same background check that a federally licensed dealer must. Not only does this clearly contribute to straw-man purchasing and gun trafficking; it also puts honest dealers at a competitive disadvantage.
That laundry list does not terrify me. Points one and five seem to involve stricter enforcement of current laws.
Strengthening the background check system always sounds good (Don't just 'modify' it, "strengthen" it!). Obviously, rules and an appeal process are required; we don't want this to end up like the mysterious 'no-fly' list. I'd guess some sort of judicial oversight would be appropriate to turn a mental health professional's concerns into a court order.
A public education will be a nightmare to work out that satisfies both sides. Probably not possible, actually, given the current and ongoing fury of the culture wars.
And urban interventions, such as 'violence interrupters', should be happening anyway,as big city mayors try something other than defunding the police.
Now, do let me add: my theory as to the impetus for an assault weapons ban suggests his approach, however sensible, doesn't address the underlying psychology of the mass shooting hysteria.
He correctly notes that 60% of gun violence is suicide and 30% is somewhat predictable - abusive domestic partner or gang-adjacent lifestyle (member, customer, live in high-crime neighborhood.)
suburban moms (and dads!) have a pretty clear idea of their domestic violence risk and are in the suburbs in part to avoid urban violence. Bolt From The Blue school shootings freak them out in a way that Chicago gang violence does not. Only one is on the doorstep. Urban violence is someone else's worry and frankly, right now there aren't a lot of votes to expand stop and frisk and Incarceration Nation.
Urban gang-bangers are not shooting it out in suburban malls and schools. People are worried about the danger they might experience, not the one that they only read about as happening in a place they'll never be.
Recent Comments