In a departure from my usual writing, this is a very serious issue, and it must be discussed in a serious manner. There is no humor today, and I write this as one who has dedicated his working career to education. Because of my background and training, I’m very sensitive to the life lessons we teach our young people, and to the behaviors that teachers do and must model. I personally shudder at the thought of pulling a trigger on a young person. After our most recent example of gun violence in a school, followed up closely by analysis (or spin, perhaps) of the problem led me to look first at some statistics that should direct our national discussion of solutions. Here’s what I’ve found.
The Gun Violence Archive is a non-profit organization, begun in 2013, that tracks and verifies incidents of gun violence in the United States. To date in America in 2018, and remember we’re only two months in, there have been over eight thousand (8,446 to be exact) “incidents” of gun violence, of which about a quarter have resulted in death. Just over five hundred children and teens have been killed or injured by guns just since the new year began. That number is staggering. Of further interest, according to this organization, 243 incidents involving gun violence at all ages, or just under 3% have been termed “defensive” – guns used by people to protect themselves, while another 256 incidents, or another 3% are categorized as “unintentional shootings”. I’ll presume that the toddler pulling a loaded handgun from mother’s purse and killing her with it in the Northwest a while ago falls into this grouping.
Is this a “mental health” issue, as many gun advocates suggest, or is it a “prevalence of guns” issue, as others have indicated? Events and investigations after the fact, particularly in school shootings, tend to suggest that the two are intertwined. The shooters have, even when they have not been officially diagnosed, been marginalized – “a loner”, “didn’t have many friends”, or scariest of all, “wanted to make a statement” – killing people as a way of gaining attention and a universal “revenge” – often following up on social media postings that have planted seeds in perpetrators’ minds. The event becomes part of a perverse sense of personal “honor” that must be carried out.
It was both interesting and ironic that, as President Trump was suggesting we arm school teachers, visiting Prime Minister Turnbull of Australia commented that his country passed significant weapons legislation – specifically banning the sale and use of assault weapons – in the 1990’s, and he pointed out that Australia has not had a school shooting since that legislation passed. Amazing – roughly twenty five years without a school shooting. Wouldn’t it be interesting to poll Australian high school students, along with their American counterparts, to see how their perceptions of school safety vary? So, that brings us to the central question – are more or fewer guns the solution?
In its constant desire to be at or near the top, the United States has succeeded spectacularly in both the proliferation of guns and gun-related violence. In 2016, the last year for which comprehensive figures have been compiled, the US posted 3.85 gun deaths per 100,000 people, according to an NPR report. (National Public Radio Sections, Oct. 6, 2017) How does that compare to the UK, with .07, Denmark at .06, China at .06? Singapore and Japan had the lowest gun violence rates in the world, but even poor countries like Bangladesh (.16) and Laos (.13) manage not to shoot their own people as do Americans. In the Middle East, only one country has a higher rate of gun violence than the US – Iraq. That America’s rate of gun violence is significantly higher than other high socio-economic, well-educated countries, and surprisingly well above many poor, developing countries, can really only be explained by the fact that Americans have more guns and convinced themselves they need them.
So, back to the original question. Does the physical presence of guns and their use deter incidents of violence? The evidence tends to suggest they don’t. Though not by much, even accidental shootings outnumber “defensive” incidents. Law Enforcement professionals will tell you that even the statistics are unconvincing in gun battles between police and perpetrators. “The New York Police Department is the nation’s largest police force and among the best trained, yet its own study showed between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate was 18 percent for officers in a gunfight.” (The Atlanta Journal – Constitution; February 22, 2018) Can we expect a math teacher to do better in the heat of school gunfire? In addition, there is compelling evidence that school shooters, like the ones at Columbine High School in Colorado, typically don’t intend to survive. In Colorado, the two shooters left farewell messages for their parents. All of this would tend to refute the “take them out early” as deterrents or preventative measures.
As someone with teaching history of almost forty years, I tend to veer toward two solutions. The first is that we need to tie gun purchases much more strongly to the histories of troubled students. Background checks need to flag potential shooters much sooner, and there has to be a real impact at point-of-sale. Perhaps the FBI might have stepped in sooner based on reports of this tragically dangerous student in Florida, but he could and did buy the guns. The system under which gun merchants operate is at least as responsible as law enforcement, and Florida reputedly has some of the least stringent gun regulations in the country. The second is that all assault weapons need to be out of the hands of the general citizenry. That’s what Australia did, and it seems to work. Only the military and law enforcement should have these weapons. Think how the shooting in Las Vegas would have been different without assault weapons equipped with bump stocks. That person didn’t, and probably would never have appeared on anyone’s radar as mentally unstable, but if nobody can buy those weapons, . . . . . .
Finally, and this is a budget item, Mr. President. If you truly want to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening over and over, we as a society, and you as head of our government need worry less about saving wealthy Americans’ tax money and much more in allocating far more funding to social priorities like the Florida shooting. Far more resources must be dedicated to treatment programs and facilities for clearly identified troubled young people such as Nikolas Cruz, who ended up living with a family completely ill-equipped to help him.
I'm Thinking...No! 