The searing tragedy at Sandy Hook School underscores the urgency of dialogue on gun control even as it provides an inadequate basis for policy. Sandy Hook is not representative of the nature of illicit gun violence in America.
One reality is that the number of mass killings in the US has not accelerated over the past two decades, but public support for additional control measures has declined sharply. For example, the Gallup poll in 2011, found a majority (53% to 43%) of the respondents opposed a ban on semi-automatic weapons, this almost a decade after the earlier federal ban on assault weapons expired and was not renewed by Congress. Gallup reported, “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the governments enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws (60%) rather than pass new gun laws in addition to stricter enforcement of existing laws (35%).” Moreover, gun ownership is up 45% since 2000. Realistically, passage of new gun control measures will need broad support, including that of gun owners.
There is also a constitutional reality as interpreted by the Supreme Court which has clearly, if narrowly, determined that individuals have a right to own firearms and to use them for self-defense. The Court has signaled that it will abide reasonable limitations on ownership of firearms, leaving ample scope for public policy.
Here are a few possible approaches:
– Divide the issue into appropriate “bites.” Measures to deal with accidental firearms injuries and deaths are not relevant to measures that address criminal use of firearms. Similarly, how we keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced is exceedingly complicated and is the aspect of firearms violence that has been the least explored. The over 15,000 firearms suicides in the US annually underscore the urgent need to address access of the mentally disturbed to firearms, as do the mass shootings.
– Keep a sense of perspective. Recall the axiom that hard cases make bad law. In fact, the incidence of firearms homicides and injuries in the US has declined significantly even as the number of guns has increased. The predicted explosion of homicides when “carry permits” were issued to large numbers of civilians simply did not happen. To gain the support of gun owners for additional gun legislation, those measures will need to have perceived beneficial effects relative to the burdens they place.
– Avoid creating new “lesser included offenses” that encumber only the law-abiding. A criminal is not going to be dissuaded by a lesser included offense. A mass murderer is not thrown off course by laws banning possession of guns in an elementary school, a place of worship or a movie theatre. Note that extremely few mass murderers select police stations or shooting ranges as their targets.
– Focus on people who misuse guns. Setting aside crimes of passion and the mentally unbalanced, those who have committed earlier firearm crimes are more likely to commit firearms homicides. They need to be monitored accordingly. Persons convicted of a felony involving firearms could be fitted with a radio frequency identifier that can be scanned by police to alert them that person is a convicted firearms felon at a distance beyond effective handgun range, thus enhancing police safety.
– Strengthen our system for granting approvals for firearms purchases. Currently, firearms transfers between private citizens are not regulated by federal law. Such sales should be routed through a federally licensed firearms dealer. When the buyers and sellers know each other, such as family members, a different threshold would be appropriate, for example, notifying the government that a transfer had occurred.
There are other constructive approaches.To make progress, a more reasoned and respectful dialogue than we have had in the past will be sorely needed.
Matthew Daley
Bethesda
The author served in the US Army, was a Special Agent in the Secret Service and retired from the Senior Foreign Service in 2004. He is an active competitive target shooter and a member of the National Rifle Association, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. His views do not represent any of these organizations and do not have their endorsement.
Stephan Sonn says
A reasoned voice in the face of dogma. Far too many closed minds, paid professionals
and profit vehicles are vested and nesting in chaos surrounding this issue
starting with a breakaway lobbying group.
Jerry Lutty says
There are too many guns in our society and too many murders. There is absolutely no reason that a normal law abiding citizen needs a semiautomatic weapon.
Robert Sweetman says
“There is absolutely no reason that a normal law abiding citizen needs a semiautomatic weapon.” The #1 reason Normal law abiding citizens should be allowed to own them is because the non Law abiding (Criminals) get and use them. The #2 reason is 95% of the time, Law Enforcement will show up afterwards, not before or during and event.
If I have a felony gun conviction, a history of violence involving weapons, and/or a history of mental health issues, then by all means conduct a full and thorough background check, (Including mental health records which at present are sealed) and if found to be at a risk to have or operate fire arms, then deny me the ownership and exposure. But If I’m a law abiding responsible citizen with no criminal history, no gun violence or convictions, or no mental health issues, then do not deny me the right to own a semiautomatic handgun or rifle.
by the way… define “semiautomatic”…
https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4489/rugermini14.jpg
bart stolp says
“Sandy Hook is not representative of the nature of illicit gun violence in America.”
HELLO – ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE TO SPEAK FOR THE VICTIMS ????
I am speechless – and that is just being kind.
Keith Thompson says
Actually, the nature of most of the illicit gun violence in America is due to our nation’s failure in the War On Drugs. The reason why Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or Virginia Tech, or Gabby Giffords gets the headlines is because these cases are relatively rare and isolated and don’t happen in places that regularly see gun violence. The daily carnage that goes on in America’s cities doesn’t get the same coverage because it is so commonplace despite the fact that these same locations often have the toughest gun laws. I certainly think an intelligent gun violence debate is warranted, but it needs to go further than passing feel good legislation for the sake of doing something…that’s the easy thing to do. The problems go deeper than the availability of guns and therefore gets into many issues that we’re reluctant to debate.
Joe Lill says
Keith,
If we can measure the deaths by the dozens in individual acts of violence then we can also reduce those deaths by the dozens if we can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. That’s a single issue. If we can confront our failure in the War on Drugs and eliminate the homicides related to that issue then we’ve taken another step. Each step will will go a long way in the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness while preserving the Second Amendment.
We “Control” the use of automobiles by the mandate of driver’s education classes, licensing to include written, vision, and road tests, speed limits, traffic signals, drinking/texting while driving laws, automobile safety standards, but we haven’t banned the use of automobiles.
We need to use the same approach with gun ownership.
Keith Thompson says
Joe, as far as I’m concerned those are reasonable arguments. However, one of the potential pitfalls is that it can be difficult to diagnose someone as mentally ill until they actually do something crazy, like commit a mass murder. Just like with automobiles, it is legally problematic to deny someone a right because they might do something. A person can be sober when they take their driver’s test but that doesn’t stop them from drinking and driving once they get their license.
I think many people are in seearch of an easy answer to the gun violence problem in this country, but there are no easy answers. The debate is valuable though.
Joe Lill says
Keith,
No one said that running a Democracy is easy! The licensing requirement for driving an automobile takes months when factoring in driver’s education classes etc. Maybe a permit for a semi-automatic firearm should take the same and in the process some sort of mental competency test could be given. Maybe a biometric trigger lock should be on these type of guns that would match the permit holder’s thumbprint with the firearm so that no one else could use it. I bet some company is working on that even as we debate this topic.
Stephan Sonn says
With all due respect Keith there are markers
but no procedures to utilize them.
Alan Tyler says
I want to thank you for such a reasonable common sense post. I have been a street cop for 17 years and I can tell you first hand we don’t need another law or feel good “weapons ban”. Automatic weapons (machine guns)are currently severely restricted and a person must pay a for an expensive tax stamp, pass an exhaustive background check and then wait six months to a year to take possession, not to mention the five to fifty thousand dollar purchase price.
So called “Assault Weapons” and handguns are already “regulated” in Maryland and a buyer must pass a criminal check, mental health check and wait seven days to take possession of them.
What we do need is a better way to handle mental health issues. Presently the only option we have is to deliver a person in mental or emotional crisis to the emergency room for evaluation. All too often they are medicated and released within a few hours.
Currently Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and these do us no good when we deal with a legal system that does nothing to punish felons in possessions of firearms. I am completely in favor of background checks for anyone purchasing a firearm, but unfortunately those that shouldn’t have them never worry about a background check or any laws saying they shouldn’t be in possession of the firearm in the first place, while the mentally and emotionally unstable (and their family members) currently have nowhere to turn for long term help.
Thomas E. Taylor says
While the issue here “gun control” for the most part covers the purchasing of firearms. Lets not forget that “Gun Control” is also the personal handling of the actual firearm. I strongly urge more safety training be made available, especially for anyone of any age who may purposely (buying, etc.) , or accidently gaining (finding etc) access to any weapon. Is there no one in the Chestertown, Kent County or locally posted State Police who is a qualified safty instructor? How about anyone not currently in the police or law enforcement associations? The hunter safetly course is good as far as it goes, but does not address the problem of folks who are not familiar with guns, or are not old enough. Nor is that course designed to cover home/personal protection situations.
Robert Sweetman says
“Realistically, passage of new gun control measures will need broad support, including that of gun owners. ”
– Agreed, and I do not think that broad support is out there.
“To gain the support of gun owners for additional gun legislation, those measures will need to have perceived beneficial effects relative to the burdens they place.”
– Agreed again. Can anyone say what those beneficial effects would be vs. the “acceptable” burdens they would impose?
“Avoid creating new “lesser included offenses” that encumber only the law-abiding. A criminal is not going to be dissuaded by a lesser included offense.”
-Agreed. The majority of Fire arms owners in this country are responsible, law abiding, safety minded people who don’t want to be penalized or punished for the irresponsible behaviors of others.
“Focus on people who misuse guns. Setting aside crimes of passion and the mentally unbalanced, those who have committed earlier firearm crimes are more likely to commit firearms homicides. They need to be monitored accordingly. Persons convicted of a felony involving firearms could be fitted with a radio frequency identifier that can be scanned by police to alert them that person is a convicted firearms felon at a distance beyond effective handgun range, thus enhancing police safety.”
-I agree with the focus placed on those who misuse guns, but I’m not certain on how the best way this can achieved. Mr Daleys idea about being fitted with a RFI device sounds good in theory but with the way our laws are written in this country, how long would a felon be required to be connected to the said technology? would it be surgically implanted? Requiring someone who has a felony gun conviction to be tracked for life, would that compromise the right against cruel and unusual punishment?
“To make progress, a more reasoned and respectful dialogue than we have had in the past will be sorely needed.”
I think this will be an intensely debated topic, as the President has stated he wants this to be one of his primary objectives beginning in 2013. Everyone should be educated and knowledgeable on all the aspects. As Mr. Daley, the author of the Letter to the Editor states, Gun ownership is up, and overall statistics are showing that mass gun killings are down, and the latest FBI crime stats show that Gun violence as a whole is also down. If we are to have a national debate on the issues, let them be non emotional, without hype or hysteria. Lets present the statistics and the facts.
Matt Daley says
Neither Maryland nor the federal government currently have statutes that would guide the application of RFI technology for the purpose of monitoring convicted gun felons. However, the technology is widely in use in the criminal justice system. For example, certain individuals are required to wear such a braclet as a condition of release on bail or probation. The RFI braclets can be encrypted so that only police can “read” them. I do not know if “tracking someone for life” would be deemed unconstitutional and I would not recommend doing so. I think a court or parole board could address the appropriate period taking into account the age of the offender (there is a clear correlation between chrolological age and propensity to violence), the precise nature of the offense, the criminal’s overall record and behavior following release from incaration. I would also favor periodic reviews of the requirement. That said, I think the braclets would increase public safety without burdening the law abiding population. If used, the braclets would also facilitate the early release of offenders, thus offering them a better chance of getting on with their lives and saving the taxpayers the very high cost of incarcaration.
Joe Diamond says
Matt,
I saw your idea about identifying convicted and released gun offenders and agree with your intention……..protect cops protecting citizens. But what is said in courts is something like after conviction and completion of sentencing no further punishment is legal. There is a child sex offender registry but this is along the lines of a prediction of relapse into illness. I think what would do it might be removing prison time in exchange for your monitor program.
Then there is the strange but true statistic that the crime with the lowest recidivism rate is murder. So it will not be an easy project.
Joe
Mark Blyman says
I think the laws on the books do a fine job for the average person buying a gun. The problem with the laws are how to keep the guns away from the mentally disturb. The cities that have banded guns altogether, it’s only the legally owned guns that are controlled, so all the illegal guns are still out there and the criminals have them and the law biding people no longer has a gun to protect themselves. The criminals know have free hunting because no one has protection. Another thought here too, remember, people kill, not guns. The laws need to be on the people and not the gun . Just another thought, cars kill people every day, when will it be a band on cars. Just saying.
Stephan Sonn says
Very few people deliberately kill with cars
That is why the word accidents is used.
A gun is designed to kill or maim.
The danger is in the shooter.
Joe Lill says
Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would have prevented the Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado Theatre, and the Arizona “Meet Congresswoman Gabby Giffords” shootings. Just focusing on that issue is a starting point for a Gun Control ( and not gun elimination ) discussion. Even Republican Presidential “Wanna-Be’s” Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio have stated that the time is now to begin a gun control discussion. It’s a shame that all the NRA can come up with as a solution is to station armed guards at every door and roof vent in a school. The problem goes way beyond just schools, and the NRA seems to be a roadblock, becoming part of the problem and not the solution.
Lainey Harrison says
Unfortunately you are not completely correct on that one Joe. The guns used in Sandy Hook were all legally purchased by the mother, as was her right. Her mentally ill son should never have been allowed to use or have access to the weapons. Rather she encouraged his use of weaponry. She no longer sounds so sane now does she?
Joe Lill says
Lainey,
Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is still the issue regardless of how they were purchased.
Michael Hildebrand says
Joe, I am not going to debate your opinion on the NRA, but I will ask why you think an armed guard at a school is a “shame”? We as a society, have armed guards protecting money, buildings, art, relics, parking lots, etc, etc. We have armed guards protecting political people, CEO’s and the like, professional athletes and movie stars just to name a few. So why aren’t are children as valuable as those people or objects? What is a “shame” is the fact that this society would rather protect that list of “valuables” than protect the innocent lives of kids. If any of those listed above should receive armed protection, it should be the children.
Joe Lill says
It’s a “shame” because a single guard in a school full of doors, windows, and roof vents will not deter a psychopath, who is willing to die in the process, from killing children. The solution needs to be deeper than that.
Stephan Sonn says
Well said Joe. NRA is a feeder parasite to this issue.
Michael Hildebrand says
With all do respect Mr. Sonn, using a tragedy involving the death of so many children to further a political agenda is the work of a parasite too! Chicago and Washington DC are two examples of your “gun control” world and the death toll within these two communities is greater than those with less restrictions. The death toll in Chicago alone this year was 506. So why didn’t your precious gun control theory work there? When facts and statistics are put forth, the reality is gun control does not work. But, like everyone else that wants gun control, you blur the facts in order to further your cause. A loaded gun left on a table would never hurt a single person unless a person picked it up and used it for that purpose. You continue to blame objects for the actions of people instead of holding people responsible for the actions they do. This way of thinking is a large reason why our society has the problems it has. This way of thinking has created the “it’s not my fault” society that now plagues us. If every gun was removed from this earth, people would find a way to carry out their destruction of human life. This happened long before a firearm was even invented and will continue long after the firearm becomes extinct.
Joe Lill says
Michael,
To continue to do the same things over and over again but to expect different results is Clinical Adolescent Behavior. If existing gun control measures are not working than we need to think of other ways. Keep what seems to make a positive difference, eliminate what isn’t working, and think of new ways to solve this problem.
Michael Hildebrand says
Joe, your right! Continuing to pass the same gun control laws which criminals don’t pay attention to anyway is Clinical Adolescent Behavior. You want new ways of solving this problem, how about holding those that commit the crime accountable! How about we stop passing laws that inhibit law abiding citizens from doing the right things and help criminals do the wrong things? How about stopping all the plea deals that go on for gun violence and put these people away? How about not putting a profit margin on peoples health and provide them with the care they really need? How about teaching the public that YOU are responsible for the actions they take and will suffer REAL consequences when they do something wrong? How about making prison a place that isn’t like a Hilton resort with walls? How about no more 24 hour news cycles making these poor excuse of a human being a nation name, or star for their purpose? Where is the medias responsibility for creating a “cool” level of entertainment for these lunatics? There’s a start and I have plenty more, but it won’t happen. Instead everyone will push for the SAME gun bans that don’t work, pass “feel good laws” that make good press releases but require honest hard working Americans to jump through MORE hoops for no good reason and in the end doesn’t do a d@mn thing to stop the problem. We will continue to blame objects for the actions of people. As for armed guards in schools, I would rather have some sort of a chance then none at all. We just saw what none at all does. We have passed so many laws now that neither you nor I can go about our daily routine with out breaking at least one of them. At what point does it end? The people we pay to protect us can’t even do their job anymore because there are laws that stop them from doing the right thing! I realize we need law and order to have an organized society, but at some point the laws we ALREADY have need to be enforced, to the fullest!
Stephan Sonn says
If you won’t address the problem for what it is,
there will never be a solution for what it is.
I don’t think of the issue as gun control
I have no problem tagging potential mass murders
And please, no lectures about their civil rights.
Robert Sweetman says
But how do you define “potential mass murders?”
And no matter if we like it or not concerning their
Civil Rights, There will be attorneys who jump up
and down and scream bloody murder about their
clients rights being violated.
Robert Sweetman says
Some sound advice from the Alabama Homeland Security Agency
RUN-HIDE-FIGHT
How to survive an Active Shooter Incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ESNae7OoyM&feature=player_embedded#!
Stephan Sonn says
The relationship between men and guns is primal.
The issue is exactly who should not have access.
Weeding them out cyber-monitoring that sub group
Spending to do it and bucking the privacy freaks.