Are We Doing Everything We Can to Prevent Gun Violence?

No one expects Washington to crack down on guns. But we can still work toward a national agenda.

 Guns seized by the New York Police Department (NYPD), in the largest seizure of illegal guns in the city's history, are displayed on a table during a press conference on August 19, 2013 in New York City.
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
May 29, 2014, 3:40 p.m.

Those won­der­ing what set of policies might have pre­ven­ted last week­end’s tragedy at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Santa Bar­bara) are ask­ing the wrong ques­tion.

Would tough­er gun-con­trol laws have stopped El­li­ot Rodger from ob­tain­ing the weapons he used in his at­tack? Would broad­er men­tal-health coun­sel­ing have flagged his prob­lems earli­er? In each in­stance, it’s im­possible to con­clude any­thing more defin­it­ive than: maybe.

But the right ques­tion isn’t wheth­er any new law or reg­u­la­tion might have stopped this in­di­vidu­al killer. The real is­sue is wheth­er we are do­ing everything we can to im­prove our odds of pre­vent­ing at­tacks like this — and the routine fu­sil­lade of gun vi­ol­ence that on av­er­age pro­duces 30 hom­icides daily. The ap­pro­pri­ate test for pub­lic policy is wheth­er it max­im­izes our chances of achiev­ing the out­comes we want as a so­ci­ety. And when it comes to pre­vent­ing gun vi­ol­ence, in­clud­ing mass shoot­ings, it’s im­possible to ar­gue that we are do­ing that.

“If we tight­en up the sys­tem there is no ques­tion that we will im­prove our odds of stop­ping things like this, and vastly im­prove our odds of stop­ping more reg­u­lar­ized crime com­mit­ted by garden-vari­ety crim­in­als,” says Matt Ben­nett, a vice pres­id­ent at the cent­rist Demo­crat­ic group Third Way, who has ad­vised the fam­il­ies of the 2012 school shoot­ing in New­town, Conn.

After a GOP-led fili­buster last year blocked Sen­ate pas­sage of a uni­ver­sal back­ground check for gun pur­chases, no one ex­pects Wash­ing­ton to “tight­en up the sys­tem any time soon. Like oth­er is­sues rooted in cul­tur­al af­fin­it­ies, gun con­trol unites Re­pub­lic­ans by ideo­logy but di­vides Demo­crats by geo­graphy. So long as red-state Demo­crat­ic House and Sen­ate mem­bers res­ist gun con­trol, and Re­pub­lic­ans from blue and swing states don’t feel ir­res­ist­ible pres­sure to sup­port it, Con­gress is un­likely to ap­prove ma­jor le­gis­la­tion re­strict­ing ac­cess to fire­arms.

But that’s no reas­on to stop for­mu­lat­ing an up­dated na­tion­al agenda to con­front gun vi­ol­ence. In pres­id­en­tial polit­ics, gun-con­trol ad­voc­ates face a more com­pet­it­ive land­scape than in Con­gress. Meas­ures to re­strict ac­cess gen­er­ally draw strong sup­port with­in the grow­ing con­stitu­en­cies (par­tic­u­larly minor­it­ies and col­lege-edu­cated white wo­men) and the states that have provided Demo­crats the edge in most pres­id­en­tial elec­tions since 1992. Ad­van­cing new ini­ti­at­ives to re­duce gun vi­ol­ence could strengthen the Demo­crats’ hold on that win­ning co­ali­tion in places like the sub­urbs of Den­ver or Phil­adelphia — and pres­sure the GOP nom­in­ee to re­spond.

Any re­for­mu­lated agenda would re­flect an im­port­ant shift: The fo­cus among gun-con­trol ad­voc­ates is evolving from hard­ware to people. Al­though a ban on as­sault weapons still car­ries emo­tion­al power, more voices in the gun-con­trol camp con­sider it too easy to cir­cum­vent with cos­met­ic ad­just­ments. And, as Ben­nett notes, while a ban on high-ca­pa­city am­muni­tion magazines might have more im­pact, so many of them are already in cir­cu­la­tion, “it’s in­cred­ibly easy for people to get their hands on them.”

Think­ing about gun vi­ol­ence in­stead is tilt­ing to­ward work­ing harder to deny weapons to people likely to ab­use them. That agenda’s center­piece is the uni­ver­sal back­ground-check le­gis­la­tion that would close the cur­rent loop­hole ex­empt­ing gun-show and In­ter­net sales from such re­quire­ments. That idea still draws over­whelm­ing pub­lic sup­port in polls.

The fron­ti­er of new think­ing fo­cuses on the nex­us between men­tal health and gun vi­ol­ence. Pres­id­ent Obama’s post-New­town re­view of gun laws ac­tu­ally made im­port­ant pro­gress on two fronts: The ad­min­is­tra­tion is­sued reg­u­la­tions tough­en­ing re­quire­ments on health in­surers to fund men­tal-health ser­vices, and it strengthened the fed­er­al data­base used to screen gun buy­ers un­der the “Brady bill” by cla­ri­fy­ing fed­er­al pri­vacy rules that dis­cour­aged some states from shar­ing men­tal-health re­cords with the sys­tem.

The Brady law blocks gun pur­chases for people who have either been in­vol­un­tar­ily com­mit­ted to a men­tal in­sti­tu­tion, ad­ju­dic­ated as men­tally ill, or who fit a few oth­er cat­egor­ies, most not­ably a con­vic­tion for do­mest­ic vi­ol­ence. Sarah Bi­an­chi, who led the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­view as Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s do­mest­ic policy ad­viser, says the biggest ques­tion for any fu­ture gun-con­trol agenda is wheth­er to ex­pand those cat­egor­ies. “This is­sue “¦ needs a new way of think­ing,” she says.

Broad­en­ing these ex­cluded cat­egor­ies raises com­plex is­sues; men­tal-health pro­fes­sion­als com­plained after Con­necti­c­ut’s post-New­town le­gis­la­tion denied guns for six months to any­one who had been vol­un­tar­ily hos­pit­al­ized for men­tal ill­ness. A re­cent Johns Hop­kins Uni­versity-led com­mis­sion of gun-vi­ol­ence ex­perts pro­posed to tar­get ex­pan­ded ex­clu­sions not at men­tal ill­ness but at be­ha­vi­ors that might sig­nal fu­ture vi­ol­ence, in­clud­ing con­vic­tions for vi­ol­ent mis­de­mean­ors or al­co­hol and drug ab­use. Oth­er poli­cy­makers are ex­amin­ing the equi­val­ent of re­strain­ing or­ders to tem­por­ar­ily ban gun pos­ses­sion.

These tough ques­tions point to a fi­nal pri­or­ity for any gun-vi­ol­ence agenda: more re­search. Obama’s re­view, through a new leg­al in­ter­pret­a­tion, lif­ted con­gres­sion­al re­stric­tions that had blocked the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion from study­ing gun vi­ol­ence for more than 15 years, but fund­ing re­mains scarce. If a for­eign ter­ror­ist had at­tacked UC­SB (or New­town), we would ex­haust­ively study every chink in our de­fenses. It’s in­defens­ible to turn away just be­cause the vi­ol­ence came from down the block.

What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×