It is easy to be numbed by repeated tragedy, and the equally repeated rituals after the tragedy that all but ensure that we will have to endure repeated instances of the tragedy and the rituals. Again, and again, and again. With no end in sight. And, seemingly, with no collective memory of the ever-increasing number of victims, and the seeming unending futility of finding a solution to the problem.
This is why, I suspect, less than three weeks after the latest horrific episode in American history involving large-scale gun violence and an unbelievable death toll, people have seemingly moved on. The conversation, in social and mainstream media, has already moved on to other topics. Including the latest round of bankrupting tax cuts Americans don't need and aren't asking for.
There is certainly no greater indictment of our national political system, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, than the certainty that Congress and our lame excuse for a President will do absolutely nothing to even try preventing any future recurrences. Even across the proverbial pond, this level of political apathy and antipathy for any government measures against gun violence is obvious. If a Conservative British Prime Minister can see the shooting epidemic as a problem that demands a solution, and yet doubt that we will attempt to enact a solution, that should tell you all you need to know about the current state of apathy in this country when it comes to protecting innocent people from random shootings.
In fact, as the linked article mentions, in the wake of Las Vegas, gun sales went up, and Congress continued to consider legislation making it easier to buy silencers. Easier to buy silencers! One of the reasons that there weren't more victims three weeks ago is the fact that the gun shots were loud enough to be heard, and potential victims evacuated the site of the concert that was under attack more quickly that they otherwise might have done. If Congress would just drop the silencer bill--which everyone knows is being considered for the benefit of gun owners and users, that might be a contribution all by itself.
But no, now that "thoughts and prayers" have been offered up, and the national media agenda has switched its rubbernecking focus to newer train wrecks, it's back to "business as usual." What else would you expect from from a Congress with people like Senator John Thune, who quite literally blames the Las Vegas victims for their own deaths? Or Congressman Steve Scalise, himself a near-fatal victim of a random shooting, who declared his faith in the Second Amendment affirmed by those deaths?
As long as you have a Congress filled with people who operate at the level of evil that Thune and Scalise operate, you are never going to have a solution to the problem of gun violence. There are small signs, here and there, that people are beginning to recognize that fact. George W. Bush's ethics advisor has called on voters to research the gun positions of their Representatives and Senators, and vote out of office anyone opposed to sensible firearms restrictions. And at least one cultural figure from red-state country has reversed his pro-gun stance as a response to the Las Vegas carnage.
Even so, this may now be a problem that doesn't lend itself to a majoritarian solution. Not when half of all guns in America are owned by just three percent of the population. Not when a talk-show host has to hire protection simply because of his public willingness to advocate for action. Not when this has come about due to the willingness of the National Rifle Association to do anything and stop at nothing, including the promotion of civil war itself, simply for the sake of maximizing the profits of gun manufacturers (the organizations the NRA now really represents, not gun owners as was originally the case. This has led Keith Olberman to advocate declaring the NRA to be a terrorist organization, and treating them as such under relevant law.
I have no objection to doing so, frankly. I think the fact that most of the guns are owned by a tiny fraction of the population supports Olberman's view that the problem is mainly guns in the hands of individuals and groups that are property viewed as enemies of lawfully-constituted society, and not shopkeepers and hunters seeking protection and food.
For that matter, there are steps that are larger and smaller in scale that could and arguably should be taken. For example, we could enact the kind of simple, sensible gun restrictions that seem to have worked in countries like Australia, and elsewhere. Or we could take the approach of identifying people who profile as potential shooters, and attempt to intervene with mental-health programs and other forms of support (question: what if the "intervention" isn't accepted by the less-than-grateful would-be "recipient"?). Or we could wait for either a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court that would reverse the damage done to our gun-rights jurisprudence by District of Columbia v. Heller, a subject on which I have already written previously (and about which you can read more here, here, and here). Or we could wait for a repeal of the Second Amendment itself--something that even conservative columnists, in at least one case, might be willing to advocate.
But structural changes in our society involving the Supreme Court and the Constitution take the kind of time that future victims and present survivors do not have. Even changing our approach to the NRA, or even common-sense restrictions like outlawing so-called "bump stocks" (one of which gave the Las Vegas shooter extra firepower), might not do much, given the sheer number of guns that have polluted America.
My 25 cents? Go after the NRA and the gun manufacturers where it hurts: in their wallets. They're the only ones who have benefited from the carnage in any way. The rest of us have either lost lives or loved ones, or found themselves paying for the social burdens imposed on society by a frontier mentality toward firearms. The hell with that, and the hell with them. Impose a surtax on their profits, to go into a fund for victims and over-stretched police departments. Make insurance policies on guns, particularly military-type arms, mandatory, and make them required for both gun owners and gun makers. Funnel the proceeds from such polices into the aforesaid fund. If you put the financial cost of gun violence on the parties who are principally responsible for it, you may find that they have a greater appetite for--ahem--"alternative solutions."
And, on the Constitutional side of things, there's this. The Second Amendment discusses the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about the right to sell them. At least one appellate court has figured that out. Maybe, just maybe, even a Supreme Court with a stolen seat can do the same thing.
This much I do know: public safety has always been, and will always be, the strongest rationale for the existence of government, and the first duty that it owes its citizens. "Gun rights" fanatics cannot be allowed to trump--no pun intended, but it is appropriate--that obligation. There must be no more Las Vegases. Or, at least, damn few.
No comments:
Post a Comment