Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence

Advocates push measures that might reduce everyday crime, but absent a ban on ownership, no recent tragedy would have been averted by regulation.

**ADVANCE FOR WEEEKEND, APRIL 12-13** A row of weapons is seen at the Richmond Gun Show at the Richmond International Raceway on Sunday, March 30, 2008.
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
Sept. 18, 2013, 1:32 a.m.

Nothing that gun-control advocates are pushing for in Congress would have prevented Monday’s shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard. And unless this country bans all personal ownership of guns, another mass shooting will occur.

This is the greatest hurdle for the gun-control movement. They seek changes to the law that a majority of the public supports — expanded background checks, an assault weapons ban, and limits on high-capacity ammunition. But they are up against formidable opponents in the gun-rights groups. And the only time they get to talk about it is after a splashy, tragic incident that does not represent the bulk of gun deaths — suicides, street crimes, accidents.

“You have to base the push around more than the outrage on any one tragedy. It has to be based on our collective desire to make this be the country we all want it to be,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “In order to create the most meaningful change, we have to look at the gun violence that happens every day.”

Preventing everyday gun violence is hard, and it’s not going to happen overnight. Curbing gun violence from criminals would require serious attempts to understand how guns get into their hands in the first place. Criminals have only a few ways to get a gun, assuming they can’t pass a background check — buying it at a gun show or online, buying it on the black market, or stealing it.

Stopping that is like a game of Whack-a-Mole. For each way that a criminal gets a gun, you need a different rule to stop it. Background checks at gun shows are an obvious way to get rid of one of a criminal’s options for getting a gun. But that doesn’t stop him or her from buying a gun privately from straw purchasers. There are other ways to prevent that kind of gun trafficking, but those laws inevitably will have loopholes or no one would be able to buy a gun at all.

Stopping gun trafficking is even harder if it has to happen state by state. A now-expired Virginia law that only allowed people to buy one gun per month dramatically reduced the number of Virginia-purchased guns recovered at crime scenes. That’s because “crime guns” are often purchased illegally by someone who buys them in bulk from a legitimate dealer. But even when Virginia’s law was in place (it expired in 2012), the number of “crime guns” from other states increased.

And then there are the mass shootings, which are even harder to prevent. “A deranged crazy person, largely in suicidal range, decides to take out as many people as possible — that’s the most difficult of all,” said Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.

To wit, the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis had a history of violence, some brushes with the law, and a history of negligence with a gun. But the current background check laws couldn’t stop him from buying a gun because he wasn’t decreed by a court to be mentally incompetent and he wasn’t a convicted felon. He even had a security clearance that gave him access to a military compound, courtesy of an employer that didn’t know about his standoffs with the local police or his problems in the Navy Reserve.

Background checks have to actually detect problems or they’re not going to work. “This was a guy with a history of violent behavior and recklessness with firearms,” said Ladd Everitt, communications director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “There is no other civilized society that would allow him legally to own a gun and carry it in public. “¦We have a regulatory system in this country that is riddled with loopholes and a joke.”

Some call them loopholes. Some call them legitimate protections of gun owners’ rights. Either way, the process of creating and using any rules to curb gun violence will take gun rights into account. That means compromise, and that means exceptions to the rules that could allow another violent incident to occur. It’s inevitable.

Does that mean the gun-control advocates should give up? They certainly show no signs of it, although Gross thinks they should start talking about the issue more holistically. “We need to be having a conversation about guns like we have a conversation about everything else in society that presents risks and rewards — automobiles, swimming pools,” he said.

And even though the gun control advocates couldn’t muster the support to pass a Senate bill that expanded background checks in April, that only added fuel to their fire.

“Sarah Brady, after the Senate vote, turned to me and seeing how upset I was — this was my first big policy fight — she said, ‘Sometimes it takes a good defeat,’” Gross said.

Sarah Brady ought to know. As the wife of Reagan White House spokesman Jim Brady, who was shot in an assassination attempt 1981, she spent more than a decade trying to get the first handgun background check bill to pass. It took six votes in Congress over seven years.

What We're Following See More »
ONLY 14 NO VOTES
House Approves Opioid Package
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The House on Friday overwhelmingly passed sweeping bipartisan opioid legislation, concluding the chamber’s two-week voteathon on dozens of bills to address the drug abuse epidemic. The measure combines more than 50 bills approved individually by the House focusing on expanding access to treatment, encouraging the development of alternative pain treatments and curbing the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S. It was passed 396-14, with 13 Republicans and one Democrat voting against the package."

Source:
NEVERMIND THE TWEETS
Trump Tells Congress North Korea Remains a Threat
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a letter to Congress on Friday, President Trump wrote that he's continuing the national emergency status with respect to North Korea, citing the country's “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions," which "continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. In a series of tweets following his meeting with Kim Jong-un, Trump said Americans could sleep well at night because North Korea no longer poses a nuclear threat.

Source:
ZERO-TOLERANCE FALLOUT CONTINUES
Navy Document Outlines Plans For Detention Camps
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s 'zero tolerance' policy for people caught crossing the Southern border." The document outlines plans for "temporary and austere" internment camps for 25,000 migrants "at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle," and in Alabama, for 47,000 people near San Francisco, and "as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton" in California. The document estimates that operating a camp to detain 25,000 people for six months would cost approximately $233 million.

Source:
LASERS USED IN DJIBOUTI TOO
U.S. Military Aircraft Targeted By Lasers
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Lasers have targeted pilots of American military aircraft operating over the western Pacific Ocean more than 20 times in recent months," said U.S. officials. The lasers appeared to be coming from Chinese fishing boats in the South China Sea, said the officials, which is the setting of a "long-running dispute between China and Japan over the control of nearby islands ... The incidents likely will come up as part of a broader discussion of issues when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visits Beijing next week and meets Chinese President Xi Jinping."

Source:
EMPHASIZES SECURITY AND JOBS
Trump Overturns Obama Orders on Oceans
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump has unveiled a new policy that depicts the world’s oceans as a resource ripe for expanded business opportunities, reversing the Obama administration's emphasis on protecting 'vulnerable' marine environments." Rather than emphasizing environmental protection, as Obama's policy did, "Trump’s directive speaks mostly to the oceans as a resource for promoting national security" and creating jobs.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login