I remember very clearly what I felt when I first heard the terrible news of the 17 innocent lives that were lost in yet another military-style assault on a public school, this time in Parkland, Florida. All of the things I felt every time one of these disasters has taken place in the past. Sorrow, both for the victims, and those who knew and loved them. Anger, that something so utterly preventable and unnecessary could have ever happened even once, let alone the obscene number of times it has happened already in the past several decades.
And one more thing.
Despair.
The despair that comes from having to associate phrases such as "yet another" and "this time" and "every one of these" to these awful events. Because they have happened again and again and again. They follow the same basic pattern, each time. And there is an aftermath in which we reveal the damaged character of our divided nation, with one side of the divide expressing its outrage to those who are supposed to protect us, public officials, and those who think that the pattern can be best explained by poor school security. By untreated mental illness. In short, by anything but guns, the ultimate idols of worship in a society that has historically defined itself by violence.
And then, the aftermath fades. The public officials, who have been bought by the gun manufacturers, offer "thoughts and prayers" tweets, and then uncharacteristically run away from the microphones as fast as they can. The manufacturers use the tragedy to sell more guns to those who worship them. Everyone else falls into a state of hopelessness, as they catch on to the fact that our nation is in the grip of those who define public order solely by violence. And we go on living in fear, waiting for the vicious circle of gun violence to start all over again.
But, maybe, not this time.
For one thing, this time, the victims' families and friends are not going away quietly, the way that the gun fanatics think they should. They are speaking up. Loudly and clearly. Especially the children, the ones who suffer the most, whether as victims, or as survivors who will have their entire lives defined by a single, senseless, horrible moment. And they are not content with thoughts, prayers, or any other sanctimonious method for making them go away. Take a look. Take yet another one.
For yet another thing, there are some signs that the media might not be in a hurry to walk away from this horror show. It's possible that their coverage of it might linger a little while longer and, in turn, might help the survivors find a way to light a fire under the cowardly tails of government "leaders." After all, it's one thing when the New Yorker refers to gun violence in schools and other public spaces as "a national disgrace." It's quite another when Rupert Murdoch's New York Post declares that it's time to rethink the national position that the Second Amendment confers an absolute right to bear arms--and to suggest government action in restricting their use. After all, the Post loses money on a regular basis, subsidized as it is by Murdoch's liberal business interests in Hollywood. If he's willing to risk more red ink over this position, that has to be treated as a sign of a potential sea change among the moneyed classes on this issue.
Too, it may not just be Republican business interests that are turning against unrestricted access to guns; it may also be the Republican donor class. This guy, at the moment, looks like a bit of a lone wolf. But there's always the possibility that, where there's one, there's another, and another ...
And there's one more thing. This time, there's incontrovertible evidence that the shooter was connected with the white nationalist movement. In other words, the very people who did so much to put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and whose violence he has at least indirectly encouraged by referring to them with such compliments as "very fine people."
Whatever else can be said about Trump, he spares no effort to pander to his base, and is quick to see a potential threat to its support of him. Here are his "thoughts" on what could have been done to prevent the disaster in Parkland. That's right: he does exactly what conservative advocates of law-and-order police tactics accuse liberals of doing--blaming the victims. Of course, he has shown many times that he is as cowardly as he is dishonest, so its hard to expect him to do anything else. The same goes for Florida Governor Rick Scott, who blamed the FBI for not investigating information it had on the shooter and called for the FBI director's resignation. Hey, Rick, what have you done about the unbelievably permissive laws your state has concerning guns? Maybe you ought to resign.
Despite some foolish statistical inflation to be found in a handful of recent polls, Trump remains what he was on the day of his election: a president supported by a minority of the American people. It's doubtful that either he or the current Congress is going to produce any sensible gun regulation, so long as they are willing to kneel before the National Rifle Association and have its money shoveled into their pockets.
Then again, that's what elections are for, among other things. To change the nation's course when the nation is signalling that it is ready to do so. And, this time, I believe that it is ready to do so, barring more interference from Trump's patrons in the Kremlin. We as a people have an opportunity to make that change at the end of this year.
But, once we do so, what should we ask of a new Congress and new state legislators? Is it as simple as reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban, for which there is at least some evidence that it had an impact on reducing gun-related deaths while it was in effect? Are there lessons to be learned from the experiences of other countries? Australia, in particular, could be a useful model for the U.S., especially since, like our nation, it began its existence as a frontier nation settled largely by violent means. Do we try to find a meeting point between what experts and the public both support?
We can do all or some of those things, and certainly we need to try at least some of them. But many of them have been tried before and, however effective they have proven to be, they have in many cases proven to be all too susceptible in the long run to demagoguery from gun fanatics in and out of government. Which leads me to think that it's probably past time to try a couple of new approaches.
For one thing, we don't need to regulate guns. Just the one indispensable thing that makes any gun dangerous: bullets. After all, the Second Amendment says nothing about ammunition. This is not, strictly speaking, a brand-new idea: it has been proposed in the past by such diverse advocates as Chris Rock and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But it has thus far only been enacted in a few states. Enacted on a national level, such laws could do a lot more to stop the senseless carnage in lost lives. They might even help to pay for the damages that result from gun violence, by raising taxes on the sales of ammunition and using them to create a fund to compensate the families of victims.
Or, there may be an even more effective approach.
Since gun-rights advocates "sincerely" believe that all regulation of guns is terrible, why don't we let them have their way? Why not a federal law that outlaws all restrictions on guns? One that would allow literally anyone to carry a gun anywhere at any time?
Including the halls of Congress. By the members themselves. By their staffs. By reporters. And, above all, by the visiting public.
After all, if all gun regulation is bad, why permit any at all? Why not given the public a chance to back up a beef they have with a representative or a senator with a piece? Could give them a whole new source of leverage.
Ah, but I think we're forgetting the operative guiding rule of Republican politics and policies. The best of everything for me, but not for thee.
Well, if gun restrictions work so well for Republicans on the Hill, it's high time that we had a Congress that made them available to the rest of us. Especially to children. The first duty of any government--literally, any government--is to protect its people. The modern Republican Party doesn't protect the people. In so many ways, and by no means just with regard to gun laws, it protects itself.
That has to end. And it has to end right now. This time feels different; it absolutely MUST be different. Before there is even one more Parkland. So that America can not only be the land of the free, but the home of the brave AND the safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment