Mass Shootings in the USA
I have written this story repeatedly over the last few years and each time I have refrained from posting it as I’m on the other side of the world and feel it’s not really my place to say anything, especially as something that I haven’t experienced. I generally try to avoid controversial topics that I haven’t lived through myself — who am I to comment on or judge something like that? One I did actually post was about the US healthcare system and attempts by elements of the Republican Party to remove the Affordable Care Act. At this point that process has suffered some setbacks, but attempts still continue. Back then, as now, I felt that it’s just so strange to see politicians acting in complete opposition to the vast majority of their constituents’ best interests that it was worth highlighting. But perhaps I can share this with people who might not have lived in the USA and won’t have experienced anything beyond what is on the news.
This topic is even more divisive than healthcare in the US, is that of Gun Safety or Gun Control. I visited Florida and found the views on gun ownership fascinating, especially with my own generally gun-free upbringing in the UK. Over here, civilian gun ownership is sparse and restricted. Of course, we still hear about it over here each and every time a major US mass shooting reaches the media, often at a school. The difference is that if there is a single firearm murder in the UK, it will be on national news, whereas it appears those are frequent enough in the US for only those with ‘sufficient body count’ to be newsworthy here. Isn’t that awful? Quite the indictment.
One time, I read about it on Twitter with a mother describing her conversations with her daughter after her first day at secondary school. This was something that I had read about every so often, but seeing it from a parent was a new angle, another time I saw tweets from teachers trying not to cry as they described teaching this to their own classes.
On another occasion an older pupil had related their own experiences. These really brings it home, away from the news reports and the footage and the statistics. I remember being at school and I can’t imagine, on top of the fire drills, having a brief on where to go and what to do if an armed assailant enters the building and starts shooting, or as a parent hearing that a shooter has been spotted at their child’s school. Things like that make for heart-rending reading.
The ‘Gun Control’ issue in the US appears to have become so enflamed that getting small changes to tighten gun ownership laws appear to be incredibly difficult to pass on a federal level. One of my abiding memories of the Obama administration was his repeated appearances in front of the media for each and every mass shooting, looking increasingly haggard and defeated. Indeed, his administration was only able to get a small change through in those 8 years that made it more difficult for those with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. This change was incidentally rolled back by President Trump in his second month in office.
But I find the incredible breadth of available weapons a strange one, on top of that, the huge array of aftermarket parts and accessories to enhance these weapons in some way is dizzying.
I was able to visit a store in Orlando on my last day there before I flew back across the Atlantic, and was able to see just some of the things you could buy. The former airsofter in me would have enjoyed it more, but it was great to be able to visit and try to understand it. The staff were very polite and genuine in advertising the application of these weapons for home defence and protection of self and family. Some of these weapons were magazine-fed rifles of the style of many militaries around the world, easily accurate out to 300m and beyond with easily replaceable magazines. I’m not sure about folks in the USA, but unless you’re having to defend your home like something out of Assault on Precinct 13, I would question the need to have access to that kind of firepower. However, I didn’t feel comfortable to question them at the time, I was just a Brit abroad and a guest in their establishment.
But I did have some training with weapons with the UK military, so I can speak a little from that experience, and this is my opinion: Guns are cool and are advertised to be cool. They make loud noises, they can destroy things, they require a certain amount of training to use and practice to use well. They are used by the heroic characters of films and tv and games. They can be accessorised for form and improved function and they can be used for hobbies. The sky’s the limit for spending money on them, and it’s often easy for others to see the results of the extra investment you’ve made to trick them out.
Each of those things can absolutely apply to a fast car just as much as firearm. Yet why does the USA trust its people not to misuse firearms more than vehicles? You can do serious damage with vehicles and with firearms, yet the process to legally obtain and use a car requires more paperwork. Here’s a number of things that have more regulation than firearms:
Guns are cool, but do we really need to make facsimiles of those available to military and law enforcement available to civilians?
I have no problem accepting the existence of firearms, or their continued presence in the USA, but the sheer effectiveness with which military-style civilian-legal weapons can go about causing havoc is a big problem.
For me it’s all about the potential effectiveness. I don’t mind the target shooters with their bolt-action heavy .303s at 800yd ranges or the folks who want to shoot clays with their shotguns. Those hobbyists, frankly, have spent hours on the range honing their craft and their weapons aren’t effective at killing large numbers of people particularly quickly without compromising them. Compare that to a legally purchased Bushmaster .223 with an accurised 11.5" barrel, extended magazine with a suppressor, some lovely Magpul furniture, an Eotech holosight and some quickdraw mag pouches and there is a world of difference. A reasonably well-trained individual would be able to hit targets at range, accurately, and keep up a steady rate of fire with quick reloads. Not only that, but with a suppressor, not only would it be initially more difficult for civilians to know they were under threat, it would be a fair bit more challenging for law enforcement to locate the perpetrator, putting other civilians and themselves at risk for longer.
One example of this kind of accessory being unnecessary was used by the Aurora shooter in July 2012. He used a rotary drum magazine for his .223 rifle. That potentially gave him access to 100 rounds without any need to reload. It is believed that he fired around 76 rounds from it in quick succession before it eventually jammed and the shooter was forced to ditch the weapon as there were no rounds being fed into it. He had two other weapons with him, allowing him to continue his spree.
One argument about this event from those who are against gun control was this by Colorado state Senator Bernie Herpin. He was trying to remove a recent ban of magazines with a capacity of 15 rounds or more which had been enacted following the mass shooting by preceding Colorado senators. Herpin said that it was a good thing the Aurora shooter used a high capacity magazine as it was more likely to jam, forcing him to stop shooting. Of course, this is nonsense — he was only able to fire a mere 76% of the total magazine. The time it would have taken him to swap between 5 or 6 smaller magazines could have been critical for the survival of his victims. Of course, that higher capacity magazine, along with the weapon they were attached to were previously illegal for sale under the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban, but that lapsed in 2004 and hasn’t been successfully revived since due to some concerted lobbying by the NRA, their membership and the wider gun lobby.
I don’t want any of this to sound callous, I watched the smartphone footage of the Las Vegas concert shooting, as it came in and felt utterly awful, and I don’t want to see it again. Hearing the stippling crack of automatic fire is probably the most terrifying noise when it’s heading towards you. You can hear a subtle but critical shift in the sound from it heading somewhere else to your direction, and that can be heard throughout the videos that people in the crowd had recorded. It is a disgusting noise that no civilian should have to hear, let alone those minding their own business enjoying a concert. Each and every school shooting rips through the psyche of its community in the US, and you will never see more ardent anti-gun opinions as parents and teachers at a school.
So what should change? Let’s be honest, the examples are out there and are wheeled out each and every time something like this happens. After the Dunblane school shooting in 1996 the UK has done well since banning the vast majority of civilian-owned firearms; after the Port Arthur Massacre that same year, Australia did the same. Germany introduced tighter laws after a 2006 school shooting, measure included police inspections, minimum ages for use of rifles and increased fines. The political will came from each country’s experiences with these mass shootings. Each had amnesties on weapons being handed in as well as buy-back programmes, and there have certainly been gun-related homicides since, as well as illegal possession of weapons, but due to their rarity, the difficulty with obtaining weapons like those used in mass shootings, forces their prices on the black market up and up. This is why those seeking to maim and murder large groups of people in Europe are often forced to use blades, vehicles and homemade explosives. Firearms are simply too hard to obtain.
Is there a solution? I think there is. A new assault weapon sales ban is needed and a nation-wide buy-back scheme. As I mentioned before, military-style weapons and magazines have no place in civilian hands. If that is too drastic, then the government should force huge federal taxes onto these weapons. The more dangerous they are, the more expensive those taxes get. Nobody needs to put that many rounds down range that quickly or for a concerted period of time, but those that want to pay huge amounts for those weapons can be taxed and registered and forced to pass huge amounts of background checks for them. Meanwhile, those who have ‘lower risk weapons’ — handguns or shotguns for clay shooting will have far lower taxes.
But that isn’t going to happen in the USA any time soon. The public and politicians are divided on this issue and getting a bipartisan agreement across that chasm is too difficult. On top of that, there are many lawmakers that owe huge amounts of funding to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby, just like Senator Herbin, whose campaign received huge amounts of support from those who sought to push for the ouster of the gun control-enforcing Democratic senators that preceded him. This kind of lobbying has prevented little federal progress on this issue, even with public support widely in favour of increased restrictions on gun ownership. The previous President even had the stated manifesto aim to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. That failed repeatedly over his 8 years, and that single piece of related legislation he did achieve has already been rolled back in the first year of the current President. He is one of those politicians who relies strongly on the gun lobby, and draws much of his support from their members, so we shouldn’t expect any changes from his quarter. Roll on the 2018 midterms!
