The Gag Rule on Guns
WASHINGTON — For all the dysfunction in our political system, a healthy pattern usually takes hold when a terrible tragedy seizes the nation’s attention.
Normally, we engage in a searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely. Sometimes we act, sometimes we don’t, but at least we explore sensible solutions.
Unless the tragedy involves guns. Then our whole public reasoning process goes haywire. Anyone who dares to say that an event such as the massacre at a Colorado movie theater early Friday morning demands that we rethink our approach to the regulation of firearms is accused of “exploiting” the deaths of innocent people.
This is part of the gun lobby’s rote response, and the rest of us allow it to work every time. Their goal is to block any conversation about how our nation’s gun laws, the most permissive in the industrialized world, increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort.
First, the gun lobby goes straight to the exploitation argument — which is, of course, a big lie. You can see this because we never allow an assertion of this kind to stop conversation on other issues.
Nobody who points to the inadequacy of our flood-control policies or mistakes by the Army Corps of Engineers is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a deluge. Nobody who criticizes a botched response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to a natural disaster is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a hurricane or a tornado.
Nobody who lays part of the blame for an accident on insufficient regulation of, say, the airlines or coal mining is accused of “exploiting” the accident’s victims.
No, it’s only where a gun massacre is concerned that an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe. God forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.
The lobby then goes to its backup moves. The problem, it insists, lies in the failure to enforce existing laws — conveniently ignoring that the NRA’s whole purpose is to weaken the gun statutes we already have.
The worshipers of weapons also lay heavy stress on the psychological disabilities of the killer in a particular incident to create a sense of futility and resignation. Crazy people, they say, will do crazy things, and there is nothing we can do about this. Never mind that more rational laws would help keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness. Never mind that it’s harder to get a license to drive a car than it is to own a gun. Never mind that even a Supreme Court ruling that gave an expansive reading of the Second Amendment nonetheless acknowledged the right of the people through their legislatures and Congress to enact sensible gun regulations.
Oh, yes, and then there is their trump card: We’d all be safer, says the gun lobby, if every last one of us owned a gun.
Why is there so little pushback against assertions that are so transparently designed to prevent rather than promote dialogue? The answer lies in a profound timidity on the part of politicians in both parties. The Republicans are allied with the gun lobby and the Democrats are intimidated.
Sure, there are some dissenters. Many of the nation’s mayors, led by Mike Bloomberg of New York and Tom Menino of Boston, have tried to organize a push for carefully tailored laws aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But they are the exceptions. President Obama has done little to challenge the NRA, and yet it attacks him anyway.
There are many reasons for this politics of timidity, not the least being a United States Senate that vastly overrepresents rural voters relative to suburban and urban voters. (The Electoral College overrepresents rural voters, too.) Add to this a Republican Party that will bow low before any anti-government argument that comes along, and a Democratic Party petrified of losing more rural support — and without any confidence that advocates of tougher gun laws will cast ballots on the basis of this issue.
So let’s ask ourselves: Aren’t we all in danger of being complicit in throwing up our hands and allowing the gun lobby to write our gun laws? Awful things happen, we mourn them, and then we shrug. And that’s why they keep happening.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Share This
Good one, EJD. I usually don’t agree with his columns, put this one lays out the truth nicely.
Obama missed a golden opportunity to push for legislation after the Gifford’s tragedy. He didn’t. They are all afraid of these gun nuts.
Our only hope is with the mayors that push back and that just creates a buffer zone.
Agree with EJC and dd. Our culture has a serious problem with firearms and is too spineless to even talk about it forthrightly.
I’m of two minds here. On the one hand there is no reason to shy away from using tragedy to advance a position.
Oops had a comment hiccup I guess. I’m of two minds here. On the one hand there is no reason to shy away from using tragedy to advance a position. On the other using a tragedy when it’s fresh (such as today’s) introduces a lot of assumptions and unverified information into the debate.
The problem as always is what would you do to limit guns in the world’s gun nuttiest country in the world?
What can you do with laws when the problem is the people who won’t follow the laws?
Especially since we have the NRA threatening to take the head of any politician who dares to suggest any limitations on the rights of any US gun manufacturer to sell guns. Even Micheal Moore who had ready answers for our health care crisis (cough, cough) couldn’t come up with an answer to that question at the end of Bowling for Columbine. He admitted that there are no easy answers
Canada has made a complete muck of their fire arms registration system. It may never be useful but it certainly is expensive. And in Heller the Supreme Court pointed the way to gun registration as the constitutional way to control guns.
“The problem as always is what would you do to limit guns in the world’s gun nuttiest country in the world?”
I think the solution lies in not necessarily limiting the guns, but changing the was our culture relates to guns.
I grew up in a house full of guns. My dad (an NRA member) had several shotguns, a deer rifle, and my older brother had a few small caliber rifles and a 7mm Mauser.
One night when my dad was cleaning one of his shotguns, I picked up the barrel and looked down the business end. The weapon was disassembled, but from my dad’s reaction you’d have thought I pointed a loaded pistol at my head.
A few years later when I went to a hunter’s safety course (at the ripe old age of 12) I was way ahead of the other kids in understanding that you never, ever pointed a gun at another human being. Not even close.
Now, human memory is a fallible thing, but if I remember correctly, the NRA from back then (30 years ago) was mostly dedicated to promoting gun safety, responsible hunting, and maybe a little bit concerned with restrictive gun laws and politics.
Now the organization seems hell bent on politics, fighting every gun law in existence, and maybe as an afterthought promoting gun safety.
cjjack..I too remember when the NRA was just an organization that promoted safety. Up until just a few short years ago, they sponsored target shoorting, Sheet shooting and other gun sports in the rural schools in our area. Not anymore with the PC that has taken hold of the country and the fact the NRA is now just trying to protect any ownership of any guin by any person.
But I have two comments concerning this article.
1. Could you not even let them get the bodies out of the theater before beginning the polticial messages concerning gun control?
2. Who really believes that one moderate form of gun control will not grow into a try to completely ban guns in the future?
Does anyone beleive that once the government has its foot in the door, the whole body will not follow?
RP- I don’t buy the slippery slope argument- it is used every time this happens as an excuse to do nothing. If there were real restrictions, gun owners would contribute more to the NRA and everything would be repealed. Those that dared to pass anything meaningful would be voted out and those who replaced them would never dare to broach the subject. We saw it happen in the early 90′s when Clinton was first in office. That is why we hear so little about gun control from Obama or today’s Democrats even after the Giffords tragedy.
“Who really believes that one moderate form of gun control will not grow into a try to completely ban guns in the future?”
I wouldn’t frame it as “gun control” at all.
E.J. is correct when he says we tend to abandon our reason when the topic turns to guns.
Is it “car control” when we demand that operators of motor vehicles get a license and insurance before they hit the road?
If you want to put up a structure, is it “building control” if we demand that the proper permits be acquired prior to construction?
If you want to take to the skies in an aircraft, is the fact that we require certain conditions and tests before you get to legally fly mean we’re in the business of “aviation control?”
The answers to these questions are no, no, and no.
I’m not arguing for gun control at all. I think we need people control.
I apologize for the formatting error in the above post. TMV, why did you remove the “edit” feature??
By all means, let’s have the conversation! Does anybody know what the current federal gun laws are? Where did James Holmes acquire the weapons? Assuming they were purchased from a licensed dealer… did the dealer violate the law by making this sale?
And what is Holmes’ background? Does he fall into any of the categories that would disallow his possession / purchase of a weapon?
If we don’t know the answers to these questions (as far as I know, we don’t yet), then how can we know whether the conversation should revolve around enforcement or modification of current legislation?
Yes! Edit please!
MSNBC has this up:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12854157-aurora-suspect-james-holmes-was-buying-guns-dropping-out-of-graduate-school?lite
At least one dealer saying all checks were performed, legal purchases. I’d really like to know if that’s correct, as well as whether his psychological disorder (apparently known to his family?) was accessible to a background check.
i really hope many read and consider your thoughtful mature substantive post…thanks
RP, like bluebelle, I don’t buy the slippery slope argument. If that were the case, the National Firearms Act of 1934 should have brought much tighter controls on non-fully automatic weapons after 78 years on the books. I don’t see anyone arguing that there is a compelling need for someone to own a fully automatic weapon so I’d judge this as a moderate form of gun control. And likewise I see no one citing this act as justification for further controls, so it doesn’t appear to be a very slippery slope.
Can anyone explain why military assault weapons with magazines holding up to 90 bullets are legal in this country for private citizens? Most of the deaths appeared to be the result of firing the AR-15. These weapons are for one purpose – to kill humans. I’ve never known a hunter to use one for killing animals.
Greater gun control will be a part of our nation’s natural evolution towards a higher level of humanity.
It will happen…the only question is how long will it take.
Did this guy’s Glock have a 32 round magazine?
After the Gifford’s tragedy, many of us asked for legislation banning the magazine. The silence was deafening from both parties and an opportunity for a “moderate’ measure was lost. At least it would have been a start.
Our natural evolution seems to be headed towards societal & emotional rot, not enlightenment.
dduck introduces an important point: because a semi-automatic automatically loads the chamber after firing, the actual weapon is not the real factor. The real determiner is the number of rounds.
But even this question immediately gets sticky. How many rounds are too many? If the weapon will fire 6 rounds, that could be a massacre in the making. Or it could be a revolver.
@jdledell..I offer that it could be the reason clips of this size and assault rifles are legal is due to elected officials more interested in getting reelected than to open conversations on proposed legislation to place controls on weapons of this type.
@bluebelle stated “Those that dared to pass anything meaningful would be voted out and those who replaced them would never dare to broach the subject.” I ask two questions. Is it more important to risk your position in congress and get meaningful gun control passed, or is it more important to do nothing and get reelected. Two, why can we not have a bipartisan discussion on guns that would make the NRA and other radical opinions appear radical and out of the centrist right positions that many voters hold in this country.
Polimom, these weapons are usually designed and probably come with a standard magazine, usually 9-15 rounds, I think. Banning the 32 rounders would just be a token gesture, but it wouldn’t hurt to start somewhere. I know the slippery slope group will object, too bad.
BTW: what little target shooting I did was either with a bolt action rifle or the M1 Garand.
I made expert by firing carefully and slowly. Is that so bad? Even in hunting, careful aim is fairer than a machine gin approach.
“Semi”-automatic is a huge understatement. Have any of you ever shot a semi? I have shot guns like this, and I admit it is “fun” in the proper environment ( shooting range ). It is fun because you just pull the trigger and a stream of bullets appear. I actually had to ask what is the difference between this and a “full” automatic — and even my gun friends couldn’t convince me that there were many differences other than the rate that you move your finger. Its such a silly distinction >> finger movement = what separates semi-automatic from full-automatic. Whatever. Again, I admit it was fun in the proper setting.
I do not OWN a gun, as I dont feel unsafe in my neighborhood.
I would be more likely to leave my neighborhood than I would be to purchase a gun. Straightforward reasoning so far.
NOW. Here is where it gets tricky.
There are two types of people that you *could* need to protect yourself from
1. citizens (neighbors, robbers, etc)
2. government (police, military, etc)
To protect yourself from CITIZENS, you presumably want equal or greater firepower and of course solid mental capacity. By setting laws at any level, this means that only criminals will have the bigger guns. Setting the laws at an even higher level — everyone can own fully automatic weapons — could mean that the criminals one up and get RPGs and explosives. But this is now insane, and you are talking potential for all out civil war.
To protect yourself from the GOVERNMENT, there is basically nothing you can do. The military is now so advanced, that if it wanted to it would erase your neighborhood like dragging a file into a recycle bin. Guerrilla tactics have resisted US troops in iraq and afganistan only because we dont carpet bomb. Like everyone else, I’m against carpet bombing. I’m just saying that resisting the government with firearms is fools gold. The military has weapons of all sorts, that fly and shoot missles and you can’t even dream of defending yourself.
TL;DR:
If you are defending against citizens, more restrictions seem practical, but criminals such as robbers could end up with more firepower. If you are defending against the government, there is no basically no point in thinking you can defend yourself. They have missiles, and you can’t shoot a spy plane. The second amendment was written before the unholy marriage of military and technology .
Another strategy that NRA followers use continuously is; ” because there are a ‘ few crazies’ they should not have the power to cause our guns to be regulated” ….
Why not?
Why should gun laws be different than how regulations are set in this country so often by the extreme minority.
Such as recent anti-terrorists legislation and hopeful bank regulations.
It is more common than not for a few outside of human decency and sanity to impact the greater whole when it comes to safe and secure regulations..
Ordinarysparrow: exactly. If a crazy does get a gun, damage would be far less without the availability of high-capacity semiautomatic weapons. Kills would be slower, reload times would give pauses, more could go wrong. It wouldn’t stop a Gabby Giffords incident, but the casualties at a Auroro would be far less.
Various points…
-I support gun control.
-I do so not because I think it will prevent tragedies like this one, but because I think it will reduce the all the nameless incidents where someone shoots someone because there is a gun handy.
-I think debate over gun control is appropriate here (though, like one commentator, I think it would have been better to wait a few more days).
-Few will change their positions because of NRA media tactics, that part of the article does little other than make opponents feel righteous (and it is a shame he lead with it).
-I also have to confess that if someone had raised a point he disagreed with, I have to confess that Mr. Dionne would have no problem finding that to be exploitative. (Such is the deep hypocrisy that runs through partisan politics.)
Thats not nessasaraly true. I think you made this argument on another thread that I responded to but let me do so again. This is a nut looking for a body count. The idea that something as simple as mag capasity limits would make some major difference is a bit wishful thinking. The most logical response would just be more, and more powerful, guns and not necessarily any real difference in the body count. For instance if I cant use a high capacity 9 then why not go with a much more powerful round. Sure he might of gone thru 3 pistols (a new gun being the fastest reload) but the possibility of Giffords surviving a shot from a more powerful round is small if any.
“they should not have the power to cause our guns to be regulated” ….”
That isn’t what the NRA says so your point seems a bit off.
I’ve heard this before and it makes no sense to me. What country would we be in if anything like that happened? The truth is forcing the Govt to go to extremes to eliminate it’s own citizens would most likely be an automatic win. The president would be out of office in a flash, special elections, and god knows what else. Sometimes it’s about standing up but while police action may be tolerable, military action wouldn’t be. Those resisters don’t have worry about fighting the military just police actions. While they may not “win” if the military is used the administration whop calls out the military would lose bigtime and quick.
More rounds, without jamming, equal fewer shots.
Will all killer nuts, be so prepared as to have several handguns, maybe, but some might not, and that makes fewer potential casualties.
Respectfully, I dont see how your scenario would happen.
A citizens rebellion against the government, as has been seen both in America and elsewhere numerous times would have little use for “special elections” and “the president”. Democracy would be lost.
Here is a scenario I find unfortunately easy to believe. If banks got bailed out yet again and the government physically secured banks at the expense of killing their own people.
sorry, equal MORE shots.