The spasm of gun violence last weekend that left at least 34 dead in El Paso and Dayton has led to both thoughtful and thoughtless responses from the nation’s gun control warriors. As is the case with the killings, none of the arguments are new.
The Second Amendment absolutists assert that new restrictions on guns would be little more than feel good legislation that wouldn’t stop gun violence. A law banning so-called assault weapons ban would infringe on responsible gun owners’ rights without curbing murders. They and President Donald Trump say that mental illness is a large factor in mass killings. Shooters, not their weapons, cause these murders.
Those who support gun control argue that states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. Various studies bear this out, but the data is not the best because the federal government has been barred from studying gun violence since the 1990s. They also cite statistics that show the United States has firearm violence rates far above any other developed nation. And many gun control advocates wonder why law-abiding gun owners, such as hunters and those who shoot for sport, need guns designed for the military.
A federal response would obviously be best. But so long as 50 states have widely varying gun laws, there isn’t any way to stop the flow of weapons from states with loose gun laws to those with tougher restrictions. One modest measure that has already been approved by the U.S. House would finally treat gun violence as a public health crisis. The House measure would allocate $50 million to be split between the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control for research into gun violence and safety. The bill was approved in June, but the Senate has not considered it.
The American College of Physicians called recently for addressing firearm injuries as a public health threat. But the National Rifle Association mocked this proposal, labeling the group “self-important anti-gun doctors.”
Given the red state, blue state chasm on this issue and a Republican-controlled Senate that seems in thrall to the NRA it has been up to states to see what can be done to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. And that is where it may continue to play out.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island are two ocean-blue New England states with strong gun laws. Yet the restrictions in Massachusetts are tougher than Rhode Island. The Ocean State’s Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo cited this when she recently criticized General Assembly leaders who failed to approve her gun control proposals in the recent legislative session.
The governor has a point. Rhode Island trails Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey –states that have all based assault weapons. Some anti-gun control folks say that state gun restrictions don’t stop gun crimes. They cite cities such as Chicago, which is in a state with relatively strong gun laws, but still has a high level of gun crime.
That’s true, but there is a difference between inner-city crime, caused by gangs and drug dealing, and the random murders of mass shootings. Most people know they are putting themselves at risk if they get involved with the social pathologies that fuel urban violence. That’s different than being murdered randomly at a school, church or Walmart.
And since when did we tailor our laws to crimes that are hard to combat? Drug dealing is an epidemic, but we have laws against it. Ditto for drunk driving. Why does a country once known for its can-do spirit just throw up its hands in the face of this horror?
Then there is the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment does allow gun ownership. But to say these gun rights can’t be restricted to fight violence is sophistry. When the Constitution was back in the horse-and-buggy era, there were no automatic weapons. The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, but there are restrictions. There are laws to protect citizens from libel. And you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater.
On the national level, the Republican Party has for years been a roadblock for stronger gun restrictions. But that isn’t true in New England, where Republican Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts has shepherded the nation’s toughest restrictions. And the GOP’s Phil Scott of Vermont has favored gun controls in his hunter rich state.
Rhode Island and Massachusetts have gun violence rates that are lower than the vast majority of other states. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better. Maybe Massachusetts will be John Winthrop’s a City on a Hill on this topic in the 21st Century.
Scott MacKay’s commentary can be heard every Monday at 6:45 and 8:45 and at 5:44 in the afternoon. You can also follow his political analysis and reporting at our web site at ThePublicsRadio.com
