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 »
“PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS”
Clinton Rips Into Trump
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Just a day after Donald Trump called her a bigot, Hillary Clinton delivered a scathing speech tying Trump to the KKK and so-called “alt-right.” This new frontier of debate between the two candidates has emerged at a time when Trump has been seeking to appeal to minority voters, among whom he has struggled to garner support. Calling him “profoundly dangerous,” Clinton didn’t hold back on her criticisms of Trump. “He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” Clinton said.

SEVEN-POINT LEAD IN A FOUR-WAY
Quinnipiac Has Clinton Over 50%
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 51%-41% in a new Quinnipiac poll released today. Her lead shrinks to seven points when the third-party candidates are included. In that scenario, she leads 45%-38%, with Gary Johnson pulling 10% and Jill Stein at 4%.

Source:
PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
MIGHT STILL ACCEPT FOREIGN AND CORPORATE MONEY
Chelsea to Stay on Board of Clinton Foundation
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

Is the Clinton family backtracking on some of its promises to insulate the White House from the Clinton Foundation? Opposition researchers will certainly try to portray it that way. A foundation spokesman said yesterday that Chelsea Clinton will stay on its board, and that the "foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, might continue to accept foreign government and corporate funding."

Source:
MOB RULE?
Trump on Immigration: ‘I Don’t Know, You Tell Me’
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

Perhaps Donald Trump can take a plebiscite to solve this whole messy immigration thing. At a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity last night, Trump essentially admitted he's "stumped," turning to the audience and asking: “Can we go through a process or do you think they have to get out? Tell me, I mean, I don’t know, you tell me.”

Source:
×