I shouldn’t be surprised by what Fox News does ever, but I have to tell you, their response to the shooting in my home state has me furious. In a segment on Fox and Friends, they discuss the shooting as an Attack on Faith, fail to mention Reverend Clementa Pinckney’s role as a State Senator, and don’t even mention the race of the shooter and victims until the very end of the segment, when they do so only to s0w doubt — instead they choose to speculate on the anti-Christian motivations of the shooter and suggest that pastors need to start arming themselves to kill intruders. Turn the other cheek while you reload.
“If we aren’t safe in our churches then where are we safe?” asks Elisabeth Hasselbeck
1. Acknowledge that, in a time of modern weapons, the Second Amendment makes no sense.
Until we are OK with individuals having tanks and nuclear weapons, we have to accept that the ability for the people to overthrow the government is not going to come from individual possession of guns.
Is there a single legitimate use of firearms that requires more than six rounds of continuous fire? Certainly not hunting. And not any sort of self-defense that’s realistically imaginable, unless you’ve recently antagonized a Mexican drug cartel
4. Code guns so that they can only be used by the person they are registered to
I saw it in Skyfall, it must be possible and Wikipedia confirms! The technology is imperfect, but if there was a push, it could undoubtedly be effective very soon. Adapt all guns, except those that are being kept as historical relics, to be adapted so that they can only be shot by the person with matching the fingerprints or biometrics of the person to whom it is registered. No more easily stealing guns from your mother to mow down kindergarteners.
5. Limit gun purchases to one every thirty days
Ponder, for a second, the fact that I cannot walk into a C.V.S. today and purchase half-a-dozen packages of Sudafed, but I can walk into a gun dealership and purchase a .50 caliber rifle of the sort that U.S. snipers use in Afghanistan. In fact, I can buy six or ten—there is no limit imposed by law. Should the gun dealer think it fishy that I might want to acquire a weapon capable of downing a small aircraft (much less six of those weapons) he may report the purchase to the A.T.F. But in most states, he’s not required to.
We are never going to eliminate gun deaths, there’s just no way to do that. In the same way we cannot eliminate all car deaths, but we can make it safer and there are no good reasons not to. When someone protests that an individual law isn’t going to completely end gun violence it needs to be recognized that this is a useless argument.
What happened last week was a horrific tragedy, but the number of gun deaths on a daily basis is just as much of a tragedy. In 2010, 180 children under the age of 11 were killed by guns. As tragic as 20 children being taken in one incident is, where’s the outrage for the other children?
Sandy Hook reminds us that we have about five times the murder rate of any other advanced country, and that most but not all of the difference is guns, and in particular concealable guns… But Sandy Hook is utterly atypical of our homicide problem.
8. Accept that people love shooting guns that are incredibly dangerous, and keep those guns many of us would like to ban at special gun ranges where they can be stored and taken out onto the range
Here’s an idea: If people really have a need to shoot Glocks and Sig Sauers at a firing range, how about the firing range own them and keep them, and enthusiasts drop in and rent the firearm of their choice for an hour or whatever? I know this violated the capitalist principle of ownership, and yes, it impinges on “freedom,” but it seems to me to slake the thirst in a way that maybe people could get accustomed to over time.
I think it’s important here that people could still own their guns, they just would have to store them in a safe place. In the same way that Israel requires guns to be left behind by soldiers rather than taken home — the implementation of that policy reduced soldier suicides dramatically.
9. Teach the actual statistics of gun crimes and gun control
I know this is a difficult and intractable problem of part of the public being resolutely uninformed and denying reality, but to have a real discussion about fixing the problem, people on both sides of the debate need to talk about the actual facts and what has and has not worked in the past. There have been hundreds of example cases of gun control policies — instead of knee-jerk saying we need to ban guns or that gun control couldn’t possibly work, both sides need to look at the actual facts on the ground. Let’s recognize that gun control more obviously affects suicide rates than homicide rates and recognized that reducing suicide rates is also a worthy goal, not a reason to ignore policy.
10. Let’s stop talking about “bans” and “control” and start talking about “regulation” and “safety”
Gun control is not gun elimination — it is about regulating the use of guns and who can have them. In the same way the name of the “pro-life” movement has framed the abortion debate, the idea of “bans” and “controls” are language that is used by the NRA and other gun-enthusiasts to frighten people away from sensible ideas that are really gun “regulation” and gun “safety measures”. Surely if we are OK with drugs being regulated, we can be OK with guns being regulated — and drugs are designed to save lives, not to destroy them!
11. Create ammunition policy as well. License, regulate, and track bullets.