Some Facts, A Curmudgeonly Solution ... and a Healthy Dose of the Truth

Every time there is a mass shooting in America (well, almost every time; more on that later), the following cycle ensues:  thoughts and prayers offered; debates on Facebook and cable media; proposed legislation; people forget; Congress doesn't act.

Now I'm not arguing that Congress should act, necessarily.  I've rarely seen an instance in which Congressional action actually fixed anything or solved any problem, going back in the history books to before the Curmudgeon roamed the earth.  In fact, more often than not, they muck things up even worse (witness health care and homeownership expansion).

Having said that, I will weigh in on the topic with some thoughts on reasonable gun control measures.  First, however, it's always important to be armed - with the facts.  I posted the following on Facebook in June 2016, after the Orlando nightclub shooting.  Because the same misinformation is all over cable and social media today, it bears repeating, so let's start with it as a factual foundation.  (And apologies in advance for a lengthy post.)

"I'm not some hard-core gun aficionado, but I do believe that before this topic is discussed - especially with any posturing of moral authority - people should educate themselves so that the discussion can be informed and intelligent. In other words, we should let the facts get in the way of the rhetoric.

First, some basic definitions are in order: an automatic weapon, vs. an assault weapon, vs. a semi-automatic weapon, and just what an AR-15 is. This may help prevent the proliferation of memes quoting Ronald Reagan as saying that AK-47s should be banned (which he did say), then twisting that to imply that Reagan was in favor of banning AR-15s (which he never said).

An automatic weapon is one that can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull - like a machine gun. This is likely what comes to mind when people hear news stories of mass shootings, such as the ones that took place in Orlando and San Bernardino. After all, these are the weapons used by Rambo and Tony Montana ("Scarface"). We've seen those movies, so we envision the shooter blazing away with a similar weapon, firing round after round while they hold down the trigger. But that hasn't been the case. And - most importantly - automatic weapons cannot be purchased legally in the US.

"Assault weapon" has several definitions. They're generally defined as weapons that can be switched between semi-automatic (single-fire) and fully automatic (burst mode). In other words, a weapon that can potentially be automatic, and thus would be illegal anyway. Because of that, these weapons are also illegal.

The assault weapons ban signed into law in 1994, which expired in 2004, expanded the definition to include semi-automatic (single-fire) weapons that had other characteristics, like folding stocks or threaded barrels - features that made the weapons look more like automatic weapons, but didn't really make them any more lethal. It was about the optics. And, that law was established with a ten-year expiration for a reason: to see whether it would be effective. Whether it was is still inconclusive today, but the bottom line is that criminals simply use the weapon of choice, which was and remains the semi-automatic weapon in its basic form.

The focus on optics leads us to a fairly clever definition I read recently: it's any weapon that looks like something those opposed to gun ownership would want to ban.

And a friend - ex-military - recently defined "assault weapon" as … a weapon. That's a pretty intuitive observation, and it puts the lie to the argument that only "defensive weapons" should be allowed. When using a weapon to defend oneself, one would be using it in the exact same manner, with the exact same intent, as the person using a weapon - perhaps the very same weapon - to put one in a position to need defending. Any weapon can be used in a lethal assault, including a hammer.

Now, a semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a single round with each trigger pull. That includes your grandpa's deer rifle, a Colt .45, or an AR-15. Semi-automatic weapons can be legally purchased in the US. Not automatic weapons. Not assault weapons, according to the traditional definition.

The AR-15 seems to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters (a variant of it, made by Sig Sauer, was used in Orlando, not an AR-15). Many people mistakenly assume the "AR" in "AR-15" means "automatic rifle" or "assault rifle." Here's where we really need to educate ourselves, for the AR-15 is neither of those things. The "AR" stands for the name of the manufacturer: ArmaLite, which first produced it in 1959. Thus, "AR" stands for "ArmaLite Rifle," just as "VW" stands for "Volkswagen," not "vehicle of war." It's a brand. However, like Kleenex or Coke, it's become synonymous with other similar products, like the Sig Sauer used in Orlando.

Why is the AR-15 the weapon of choice with mass shooters? Is it any more lethal than any other gun? Not necessarily; it's more lethal than a derringer or a pellet gun, but less so than many legal guns. It's popular with them for the same reason it's popular with hunters, law enforcement and the military: it's reliable, it's well-made, it can be customized by hunters for use hunting anything from squirrels to coyotes to wild boars, and it's been thoroughly field tested. Reliability, quality of manufacture, customizability, thorough testing - that's what I want in a car, a cell phone, a laptop … or a rifle, if I chose to own one.

The AR-15 is also widely available and reasonably priced, which adds to its popularity among all buyers, nefarious or not. True, it was originally developed for military use. So were most guns, including the Colt .45 and your grandpa's deer rifle, which was probably a Henry lever-action rifle (or some variant thereof), originally produced for use in the Civil War.

And the AR-15 is black, so it looks like those automatic rifles brandished by Rambo and Tony Montana in the movies. Again, that's strictly optics. You could produce a version with a wooden stock, like grandpa's deer rifle of yore. But it would be heavier, and more expensive. While that arguably might deter some criminals, it would also deter hunters, and in any event it wouldn't make the weapon any less lethal. (If you're anti-hunting, talk to a game warden; that's another topic entirely.) Also, requiring wooden stocks on rifles would deplete natural resources, something that most gun ownership opponents are also opposed to.

Those are merely the definitional arguments, intended to educate and inform in order to provide a foundation for informed, rational civil discourse. They do not, prima facie, support a ban on AR-15s and their copies. And I should note that, again, I'm not a big gun aficionado, nor do I own an AR-15. I merely did my research, wanting to be better informed on the topic before I weighed in. I wanted the facts to supersede the rhetoric, in other words."

Okay, so hopefully that takes some of the hysteria out of this debate.  Now, what would the Curmudgeon propose as a possible solution?

Well, I don't know that there is one.  But there are some reasonable "gun control" measures I wouldn't have a problem with.  (Note that I support the Second Amendment but am not a member of NRA, and the only reason I own a handgun is that my Dad brought it home from WWII and it has sentimental and historic value, seeing as it was taken from an SS officer.  I've never so much as purchased ammo for it.

• I'm fine with thorough background checks, and a sufficient waiting period to take possession of a firearm to allow them.  If I'm planning a hunting trip in the fall, and I need a special gun to hunt whatever I'm going to be hunting, I have plenty of time to plan the purchase in advance.  Needing a gun right now is a red flag to me.
• I'm definitely in favor of required training in the proper handling, storage, cleaning and use of a gun for anyone who wants to own one.
• While I'm normally a proponent of states' rights, this is one area where I believe national laws are needed, so that we have one set of standards.  That way, maybe someone like the Vegas shooter can't amass an arsenal of weapons and ammo purchased in different states, under different laws, without being detected.  And different states have different laws around gun show purchases.  They should all be the same: a mandatory background check and a waiting period, just like a gun purchased in a store.
• In concert with the previous point, I'd be okay with a national database of gun owners, and what they own.  Again, that would alert law enforcement if someone is amassing an arsenal.  If they're a legitimate collector, they should have no problem proving that.  If they aren't quite playing with a full deck, that's another story.  Now, the hard-core gun aficionados adamantly oppose this.  They view such a registry as the first step in the government taking everyone's guns.  I see the point, and no, I don't trust our government much either.  But I look at it rationally: for that to happen, the government has to either completely abandon the Constitution (highly unlikely), amend it (read Article V to see just how challenging that would be - getting a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate to vote for it, and then getting two-thirds of the state legislatures to ratify it), or the Supreme Court would have to come up with some extremely creative arguments to warrant gun confiscation under the Second Amendment (equally unlikely).  Then, they'd have to have sufficient law enforcement resources to round up all the guns.  We readily admit we don't have the resources to round up every illegal immigrant; how the heck are we going to round up everyone's guns?  But hey, if it did come to an attempted gun grab ... well, that's exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to resolve.
• Bump stocks should be illegal, along with any other modification to a semi-automatic weapon to make it function as an automatic weapon.
• Ban suppressors, for all I care.  Suppressors are referred to as "silencers" by those who apparently obtain their knowledge from the movies (like Hillary Clinton).  But in the real world, they don't reduce the sound of a gun firing to the "Pffft! Pffft!" of the James Bond movies.  Reportedly, a suppressed AR-15 is about as loud as a jackhammer.  And while they do afford some hearing protection for hunters and recreational shooters, there are other means to achieve that.
• Want to restrict magazine capacity?  Okay.  Just know that a competent, trained person can drop and replace the magazine on a semi-automatic weapon in a matter of seconds.  Ten rounds maximum vs. 30 won't matter much.
• Let's enforce the laws on the books.  That also means following up on credible tips about people who might be planning a mass shooting.  Maybe if the FBI weren't pre-occupied with spying on Americans due to their political affiliation based on dishonestly obtained FISA warrants, they'd have the resources to follow up on a tip from someone close to a potential school shooter signaling that they intend to turn that potential into reality.

"Increased spending on mental health" has also been mentioned as a possible solution.  I don't disagree, but let's not assume the government doesn't already spend money addressing mental health through various programs and block grants.  But I do believe that not enough attention is paid to mental health issues.

Now, for that healthy dose of the truth I promised you: none of the above would put a stop to mass shootings, whether they be in nightclubs or schools.  The first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth points above would not have stopped the Vegas shooter, although the fourth and sixth might have slowed him down.  So maybe he'd have only killed 30 people instead of nearly 60.

What would stop mass shootings?  Probably nothing.  Other factors bear some responsibility: a breakdown of family values.  Increased bullying, supported in part by the anonymity of the internet.  The 24/7 cable news cycle that gives notoriety to these horrific events.  Increased violence in TV shows, movies, video games and music.  The opioid crisis.  The ability to find just about any information on the internet.  (To that point, when I was in high school, we had several bomb threats a year, usually from some kid wanting to get the school closed for the day.  One kid did detonate a pipe bomb in his locker, but it only blew off the door and the walls of the two adjacent lockers.  Today, that kid could do a google search and learn how to use nails and ball bearings to turn that pipe bomb into an IED.  Not a mass shooting, but a potential mass killing.)

People also need to speak out about social media posts that raise alarms.  Let's follow up "see something, say something" with "do something."  Don't take the law into your own hands, but report, and follow up.

And we might want to try securing our schools.  This is going to keep happening even if we ban all future gun sales, because there are too many of them already out there, and it's too easy to obtain one illegally, or steal one.  After 9/11, we secured our airports, and we've done a pretty decent job of it, all things considered.  Maybe it's time we create the Education Security Administration.

I'm saddened, horrified, and dismayed by events such as the one that took place in Florida last week.  I want desperately for those events to stop.  But gun control isn't going to stop it, nor is increased spending on mental health.  As for the factors noted in the preceding paragraph, those genies are out of the bottle.  It's tragic, but this is the world we live in, the current state of the human condition.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to change it for the better.  But don't expect miracles, and don't think gun control is a panacea.

Gun control isn't going to end mass shootings.  But neither are some reasonable measures a precursor to a bunch of jack-booted government thugs coming in the night to grab everyone's guns.  The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.  But sadly, the middle ground on this issue is about as vacant as a sand-state subdivision of spec houses in 2007.

A final note, one that occurred to me just this morning.  In the first sentence of this post, I noted that the calls for gun control don't occur after every mass shooting.  Sure, they did after Columbine, Sandy Hook and Parkland.  They did after San Bernardino, Orlando and Vegas.

But what about when a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican Congressmen practicing for a baseball game?  That was intended to be a mass shooting with multiple casualties; but for the bravery of Capitol Police, it would have been.  Where was the outcry then?

In the wake of the Florida school shooting, Nancy Pelosi said, "I would rather pass gun safety legislation than win the election," and, "the victims are paying the price for our inaction."  (If you believe that first quote, I'll lease you the beachfront in my backyard.)

In the wake of the Congressional shooting, she blamed not guns, but Republican rhetoric.

Many of my Facebook friends have posted memes, articles, and their own opinions in support of gun control in the last week, often in anger

Not one of them - not. one. - posted such things after Rep. Steve Scalise was wounded in the Congressional shooting.

That tells me that this is a partisan issue, which saddens me even more.  Every life lost to or attempted to be taken by gun violence is tragic to me, be it a suicide, a gang shooting, a family killing, an accident, a school student, a teacher, a concert goer, an employee at an office Christmas party, someone enjoying themselves at a nightclub ... or a politician, regardless of party, practicing for a baseball game that's intended to put aside our differences and, for a few hours, bring us together.

Does Nancy Pelosi feel the same way?  More importantly, do you?