By John Stark
Many readers of Atlantic Monthly were startled a couple of weeks ago when they opened their December issue to find an report suggesting that violent crime might be reduced if more law-abiding citizens carried guns.
Among other things, this article by Jeffrey Goldberg directly addressed mass slayings like the Dec. 14 slaughter of innocents at a school in Newtown, Conn. Goldberg’s article appeared before that catastrophe, but the event naturally focused even more attention upon it even within the magazine and its website. Two of its best-known writers, James Fallows and Ta-Nehisi Coates, have already weighed in, challenging some of Goldberg’s arguments.
Fallows agrees that any attempt to ban guns would be no more than another futile example of the prohibition of something that millions of people will go on doing, no matter what the government says. But he also argues that it would be a big overreaction for large numbers of people to arm themselves so they can defend themselves against the next gun-wielding lunatic in a mall or a movie theater. He notes that the likelihood of anyone actually being confronted with that scenario is “vanishingly small.”
Coates’ short piece is an extended contemplation of the issue rather than advocacy of a position. He does note that sane, previously law-abiding people have used their guns to kill people inappropriately at times: ”What do we say to the ghost of Jordan Davis, shot down over an argument of loud music, by a man who was quite sane?”
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, in his “The Factchecker ” blog, takes a look at the research on whether concealed-carry laws have helped reduce crime. The bad news is, researchers are divided on the issue. No quick answer.
UPDATE: Here is a piece on Huffington Post by the mother of a deeply-disturbed 13-year-old boy that will give most people a very deep chill. Perhaps you have already read it. Lots of people on Facebook are sharing it–people on the far right as well as the far left, among my own FB posse. She titled the piece “I am Adam Lanza’s mother,” and it describes life with an intermittently homicidal and suicidal boy. Mental health professionals tell her that her best option is to get her son charged with a crime so that he can be incarcerated.
But it seems as though Adam Lanza was nothing like this woman’s son. The Washington Post reports. Until last Friday, the police in Newtown did not know who he was. As of now, there appear to have been no major warning signs before the slaughter.
I introduce this topic with some misgivings. This debate is already raging almost everywhere else, it seems–including on Facebook, where some longtime-friends seem to be coming to virtual blows over the issue. It’s not as though the world needs one more place to talk about guns. But there may be value in having a local venue for the discussion. As you craft your comments, stop and ask yourself if your comment is adding value to that discussion.
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen has weighed in this morning, calling for improved mental health services as well as a limit on high-capacity ammunition clips:
“My family and I join all Americans in grieving for the children, teachers and staff who had their lives taken from them in the vicious attacks at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Larsen said. “As the first children are laid to rest today, we must pledge never to forget the victims of this senseless act of violence.
“From the attack on Congresswoman Giffords that left six dead to the shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin, Oregon and Connecticut, it is too painfully clear that we must take meaningful action to make our communities safer. The 2008 Skagit County mass shootings that killed six brought this type of tragedy to our home. No single law can prevent the actions of a madman, but that is no excuse to not take action.
“I continue to hold my position that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and ban high-capacity ammunition clips above 10 rounds per clip, as proposed by Rep. McCarthy. These military-grade weapons serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life.
“We must close the gun show and private sale loopholes and strengthen background check requirements to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill are unable to purchase guns.
“Gun control is part, but not all of the solution. Mental illness has been shown to be a factor in some of these mass shootings. Mental illnesses are often misunderstood and under-diagnosed. Health providers need to give mental health the same attention that physical health is given. Congress should direct more research into mental illness and provide more funding for effective care of mentally ill patients.
“We have not seen the last of violent crimes in our country, but if Congress and the President act, we can make our communities safer and shrink this cycle of violence.”
Getting Rick Larsen to say anything of substance is always difficult, so his statements here are welcome. As for Jeffrey Goldberg, he’s a neoconservative, and every foolish word that comes from him should bear that in mind. These are the same people who dreamed up the Iraq War. Regarding gun nuts in general, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that most are stockpiling weapons not so much to ward off an intruder in their homes or to stop a mass shooter in his tracks. What most of them are doing is preparing for the day that the “brown socialists,” or some derivation thereof, take over. It’s white paranoia, writ large. It’s also dripping with racism. It is also much of today’s Republican Party.
Is there any kind of gun regulation measure that can get through the U.S. House of Representatives? This is not a rhetorical question. What do you think? I’m hoping to hear the thoughts of gun rights advocates here.
There is a reason for the second amendment. Read the Federalist papers.
Mental illness was a factor in some of the shootings? It was in ALL of them.. sane people aren’t psychology capable of these massacres.
With emotion running high, this is a particularly bad time to have a policy discussion.
Regardless the common thread running through all of these massacres is mental illness and those with mental illness to have access to guns.
My guess is that if the tow sides of the gun debate do not begin yelling at each other, they would both discover that there is virtually nobody who supports people with mental illness having access to guns.
In virtually everyone of these massacres, there have been years of warning signs, but the law does not allow the taking of gun ownership away from people with a history of mental illness or instability.
If a person is diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, they can still legally purchase a gun. This is a fact that must change.
Only previously committed can be stripped of the ability to purchase a gun, which is too high a standard.
Letting the insane have guns, is insane and I doubt you will get any argument on this from either side of the gun issue.
So if we can agree that the insane should not have guns, then lets get a law passed.
It seems to me that people are more informed (not necessarily better informed) about gun control than about mental illness. How long has it been (Reagan era?) since we started closing mental hospitals – safe refuges and skilled treatment centers for people as disturbed as this young man — and turned them onto the streets in the fond belief that they would voluntarily submit to medication? It’s been long enough that a generation of decision makers has come of age under the new paradigm. It’s going to take years of public debate before we collectively concede that we made a mistake.
Meanwhile I think we have no recourse but to exercise collective control over the ammunition for assault weapons. There is no practical reason for anyone to own more than a few self-defense rounds. We’ve heard all the “freedom” arguments in favor of indicvidual citrizen owning unlimited firepower, and they no longer make sense.
Let us ban large spoons, because they make people fat.
Let us ban high carb dietary intake, because it causes you to die earlier in life.
Let us ban cars, because people die in auto accidents. (NTSB, 2010, 32,885)
Let us ban common sense, because we all know that bullets just magically discharge from weapons indescriminately on a daily basis.
The last assault weapons ban (which limited magazine size) has no lasting effect on these types of outrages. Let us instead look to the mental health of those that are in possesion of weapons. Fix the person, and the problem resolves itself.
Actually the movement to empty the mental health facilities goes back to the early 50s. There were a series of movies that depicted the horrors of the places then known as insane asylums. The concept was that people were mistreated in them and that with medication they could exist in society’s main stream. The problem is that the medication was unpleasant for the patient so they refused to take it once released. In fact by mainstreaming, many of these people they ended up becoming homeless street people. Several of the recent killers were people whose families had unsuccessfully attempted to get committed.
When slow thinkers like Larson talk about restricting magazine sizes all they do is increase the sales of the folks who manufacture and sell such items.
Dems just don’t understand facts. Its people not guns that kill. I’ll lay money that all of the victims to murders wish they were armed so they could have possibly saved theirs and other’s lives. Sweden has the toughtest gun laws yet someone was able to murder over 70 people, again, I’ll lay money down that some of those wish they could have been armed to protect themselves. Dems are just loony people who just can’t grasp reality. I personnally do not own any guns, yet, but I can tell you that if I’m armed and see some nutjob pull out a rifle and start to shoot, I would have the opportunity to return fire and hopefully end something before it starts, versus being counted amoungst the victims.
The reasoning for the Right to bear arms has little to do with self-defense, but is mostly to inhibit government from becoming too powerful and mis-treating its own citizens, of which there are all too many illustrations of.
The armed citizen was the last bastion of defense against government tyranny.
Leading up to the Revolutionary War one of the British Governors first moves was to ban gunpowder, and this is precisely why the people insisted that the Second Amendment be included into the Bill of Rights. Thank golly for the fishermen of Marblehead who smuggled the gun powder for Lexington and Concord through the British lines in Codfish barrels, or we would all be speaking with a London accent today.
The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment, it was added latter by the insistence of the people along with the right to free speech, religion, and a jury trial by common citizens.
See the pattern.
I suspect in years of Olde that the insane were disarmed.
So the police and military will still be able to get these guns and clips? What happens when they go postal?
gun control is nothing more then mind control. It’s truly upsetting hearing people comment on the issue who have no idea what they are talking about such as automatic rifles, clips, assault weapons. None of which this shooter used according to there true definitions.
Congress sucks.
Period.
If not for the slaughter of those sweet little angels in Connecticut the issue of gun control would not be on the lips of our representatives or in the news.
Disgusting political posturing.
Camille you seem to get it as usual where so many posters don’t know what they are talking about or have an opinion that comes out of some dimension of lunacy.
Thanks Tychon; coming from you, that is high praise.
In discussing the immoral use of drones to kill innocents I received the following reply:
“War has sanctioned impersonal killing of innocents forever – just remember Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Vietnma, Iraq, and on and on.
Once war is used as an option, there is no boundary.”
We need to move the world beyond all war and promote the power of non-violence to solve all conflicts.
Interesting conversation. But every discussion about revising laws should start with a basic review of the laws already on the books. Here’s a link to help start the discussion. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41
The shooting in Bellevue at a night club raises some old, but nevertheless important questions. How do we keep guns out of the hands of individuals who will not obey the law? For instance, the alleged perpetrator is 19 years old. How did he get in to a bar when he is obviously under age, and it is against the law for him to be in a bar? Second, it is illegal to bring a firearm into a bar. Third, there is a law currently on the books that states an individual between the age of 18 and 21 can only own a hand gun but it can only be kept at his/her residence, at a fixed place of business, or on real property under his/her control. Here’s the link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.240
So, how do we regulate the behavior of individuals who will not obey our laws? And, if our goal is to put fewer semi automatic weapons and high capacity magazines in circulation – why panic the public into stampeding into gun stores to purchase those items in unprecedented numbers? Many stores are now completely sold out of the weapons and magazines they had in stock. I’m not interested in having a debate about creating additional laws banning weapons. There are millions of guns already in circulation in this nation. Many are owned legally. Many are not. Regardless of how many laws are passed in response to these horrible crimes, those weapons and high capacity magazines will still be in circulation. Don’t misinterpret me. I support passing laws to protect the members of our society. But right now, I’m more interested in having a serious discussion regarding the way we identify and provide medical treatment for individuals who suffer from mental illness. I’m also interested in discussing how we prosecute individuals who are banned from owning guns, but still manage to own guns, despite the numerous laws that prevent them from possessing them. And, last, but no less important – how do we, as a society, deal with the pathology of violence that has taken a hold of our nation? I don’t pretend to have any of the answers. But I am certainly eager to observe the discussions that will take place between our local, state and federal elected officials as they attempt to address the senseless violence that is taking place in this nation.