Recently there was a mass shooting in Las Vegas. 58 people died and hundreds were injured by a single person with a huge collection of guns. Gun control has been a huge topic on the internet as a result, and stocks in gun companies have shot up on the assumption that people will buy guns trying to get ahead of possible gun control laws.
The debate is a mess. Talking about it is tough because we get bogged down in details, when what most people want is for action to be taken that will change the status quo. For example, people will call for bans on assault rifles, not realizing that 'assault rifle' is not a well defined thing. What differentiates a semi automatic rifle from another one that is classed as an assault rifle but which is pretty much equally dangerous? Random details in the gun laws, that is the only practical difference. Ban assault rifles and gun manufacturers will just make new guns that are outside the definition of assault rifle and you are back to where you started.
It is true that 'ban all assault rifles' is nearly worthless as policy, but the trick is that gun regulations in general aren't particularly effective as policy. 25% of Canadian households have guns, and 38% of American ones do, and yet the mass shooting rate in the US is somewhere between 4 and 6 times higher, depending on how you count it. Most shootings don't include really powerful, large, military grade weapons either. The difference is less in the number of guns or who owns them, and more in the culture.
You can't legislate away the toxic masculinity that goes along with gun fetishization. You can't write a law that tells people that going out in a hail of bullets is pathetic rather than brave. You can try to write laws to get the most dangerous of the guns out of people's hands, but those are only going to be modestly effective, especially in a country like the US where there are already more guns than people.
What is actually necessary is a change in thinking.
The US needs it especially, but the rest of the world could use a dose of venerating nonviolence. The culture of honour that demands that you be able to defend yourself violently from attackers is incredibly destructive and it leads to all kinds of deaths, both deliberate and accidental.
We will get modest results at best from legislating away guns. We should still do it, but that isn't actually the thing that needs changing most urgently. The real culprit is the belief that having guns and using them makes you a big shot, powerful, worthy of respect.
"Ban assault rifles" is not useful policy. This is true. But the appropriate response to such a statement isn't "Bah, we can't define this correctly, so we shouldn't bother."
The appropriate response is "Guns are a problem, so I am going to get rid of my guns, and so should everyone else."
When people minds have changed, and guns are seen as the problem rather than the solution, then the laws will change with them pretty nearly effortlessly.
As to how to convince the gun enthusiasts to come around en masse and advocate for a gun free society... I don't have a lot of good answers for that. I wish I did.
I've been seeing a parallel between the condescending attitude that the flyover states complained about with regard to economics and the one that is directed at people who don't understand guns. "You don't know what a suppressor is" and "gun control laws won't be effective" are the equivalent of "those coal jobs are never coming back" and "actually, the economy is doing well".
ReplyDeleteWe should be looking to experts to give us solutions, not just condescension because we don't know how to frame the problem. At some point the calls for a solution are going to get loud enough to win out, and people who are legitimate experts on the issue aren't going to be allowed to be part of solution that is implemented.