So the fallback against the NRA and NRA-backed Washington politicians continues in the aftermath of the recent Texas school shooting in Uvalde. Indeed, as there always is - and always should be - after such a mass shooting, there is anger, even rage, by millions of people.
Unfortunately, with the way things work in this country, it has not been enough to actually change things. It seems unlikely that this will be enough, for that matter. What would it take for things to change? I hate to even guess. In the past, my own feelings would be that it would take an unimaginable massacre that would grab the attention of Americans - even the most tone deaf, gun fanatics among us - like never before. Perhaps a mass shooting with over one thousand victims? Or maybe some kind of massacre at an NRA rally or gun show, or some kind of pro-guns political rally? Or maybe some kind of mass shooting that somehow is broadcast live before thousands, if not more, viewers, and which then goes viral, despite best official efforts to take it off the internet?
Frankly, I just do not know. I mean, we have had numerous mass shootings where the victims number in the dozens, and I do not have to do internet research to remember some of them (and probably, neither do you). Columbine. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Sandy Hook. Orlando night club. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. Parkland. El Paso Walmart. And now, of course, Uvalde. That numbers 10, and I am probably forgetting a few of them. And again, those are only ones from memory that killed at least a dozen or more, and does not include any of the "smaller" shootings, where less than 12 people were killed.
In other countries, there was a sense of urgency enough that political action to restrict gun access came almost immediately, and by popular demand. And you know what? Gun violence in those countries worked, and incidents of gun violence were significantly reduced. All of those conspiracy theories about how restricting access to guns would surely lead to the most brutal dictatorship in history proved not to be the case in any of those countries, either. Guns were restricted following mass shootings in Norway, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Not one of those countries is what anybody would describe as a totalitarian regime today, where citizens have been forced into concentration camps by an evil government suddenly springing into action once the population has been disarmed.
Indeed, these countries listed above proved to be solid examples of countries that finally decided to restrict access to guns following a mass shooting. Did it work? Well, the proof is in the pudding. We rarely hear about mass shootings in other countries, but we hear about them all of the time here in the United States, where action to restrict guns never seems to happen anymore. So it does indeed appear that these countries more or less resolved their issues with mass shootings.
But some Americans absolutely loathe being compared with other countries. We're different. We're exceptional, right? Many Americans would not hesitate to say that and more, suggesting that this is the greatest country in the world. Personally, I think that this smacks of arrogance, mixed with no small amount of ignorance. Still, let's take it at face value. If indeed, for some reason, the United States is different, and some kind of serious limitation on access to guns happened here, would it work?
Well in fact, we did have legislation that effectively did just that. And we do not have to go back to the distant past to look at what might happen, and what the results were. It happened during the Clinton years, with the passing of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). It went into effect in 1994 and was valid for 10 years, but was allowed to expire in 2004. In fairness, studies are mixed as to how effective it was, with some studies suggesting that gun violence did decline, while others (a number of others) suggested that there was no clear decline. That said, mass shootings in particular seemed to go down significantly. The one really huge mass shooting that I can remember during those years was Columbine. If you would like to look more into the specific findings of the various studies which were done (and which often seemed to contradict one another, here is where I went to find out more:
Wikipedia: Federal Assault Weapons Ban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Yet still, far too many Americans ignore any and all evidence, in other countries or in the United States itself, that suggests that even moderate gun restrictions might lower gun violence. Many feel that the answer is, paradoxically, to bring in more guns into the country. That is the old "good guy with a gun" theory, in which advocates believe that violent people with guns will only be stopped by good and brave citizens carrying guns. These people believe that it is the duty for pretty much all Americans to not only own guns, but to know how to use them, and to carry and then use them as necessary. These are the people who believe that teachers should carry weapons in schools. In other words, teacher should not only be prepared to teach kids, but to kill them as well, if it is deemed necessary.
Among the advocates of this theory is Ted Cruz, who was recently filmed giving a journalist platitudes about how great this country is while quickly running away to avoid the line of questioning that he clearly did not like. Between that, his licking Trump's boots after Trump had attacked both Cruz and members of his family personally during the 2016 presidential campaign, and running away for a short getaway in Cancún while his state of Texas faced a devastating winter storm, it is very difficult to take Cruz seriously as a strong man of character or serious moral fiber. Yet, he is from Texas, where many of these shootings seem to take place (the Dallas shooting in 2016 that killed five police officers, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, and now Uvalde), and so his voice is always one of the most prominent once we hear whenever there is a mass shooting like this (especially in his home state). Here is what he said to the media recently, in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting:
“We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”
Here's the thing: that's just Not true. Wishing it to be true does not make it so. In fact, the presence of armed guards did not work in a number of school shootings. Frankly, since a number of them have happened in Texas, it stands to reason that Cruz, of all people, should be well aware of that. What were some of the school shootings where armed guards did not work out as well as Republicans like Cruz would like you to believe? Here are some (and not all by any means) of the examples: Columbine (1999), Marshall County High School (Kentucky, 2018), Parkland (2018), Santa Fe High School (2018), and Great Mills High School in Maryland (2018). Also, let us not forget that Uvalde had what many considered a great deterrence plan against any potential school shooting, including four police officers for the school district. Plus, police responded within minutes of the reports of the shooting at the elementary school. We are only too aware that this did not work out nearly as well as many would have believed and obviously hoped. Let us also not forget, also, that Uvalde in particular had a number of what sure seemed to be impressive measure specifically designed to either prevent such a school shooting or, in the event that one actually took place, to minimize the extent of the damage.
Also, let us not forget that Virginia Tech had a police force on campur, but that did not prevent the school shooting there, which still ranks statistically as the deadliest school shooting in American history. Also, there have been not one, but two mass shootings at Fort Hood in Texas. That's a military base, and military bases tend to be very well secured. It did not prevent a horrific mass shooting in 2009, where 13 people were killed and another 30 people injured. Nor did it prevent another shooting at the very same military base in 2014, which killed 4 and injured 14, 12 by gunshot. True, Fort Hood was not a school, but it certainly had strong measures in place similar to what many gun enthusiasts are advocating for our schools. Yet, it did not prevent two horrific mass shootings there.
Indeed Uvalde - and specifically Robb Elementary School, where the recent shooting actually took place, seemed to have addressed the danger of a mass shooting quite adequately. Here are some of the measure that were already in place before the recent shooting there earlier this week:
Robb Elementary School had measures in place to prevent this kind of violence. A fence lined the school property. Teachers were ordered to keep classroom doors closed and locked. Students faced regular lockdown and evacuation drills.
Also:
According to a district safety plan, Uvalde schools had a wide range of measures in place to prevent violence. The district had four police officers and four support counselors, according to the plan, which appears to be dated from the 2019-20 school year. The district had software to monitor social media for threats and software to screen school visitors.
Some impressive steps had been in place that the school and the district took to address this issue. When the time came, however, not everything went as smoothly as planned:
Yet when the gunman arrived at the school, he hopped its fence and easily entered through a back door that had been propped open, officials said. Behind the locked door of a fourth-grade classroom, he gunned down children and teachers.
Okay, so armed guards do not appear to necessarily at least be the deciding factor in preventing school shootings, or even in limiting the damage once they begin. Some other people - it seems like a growing number - who also do not want to think about any kind of gun restrictions as an answer to this problem feel that schools themselves should be better secured. Armed guards are a no brainer, although of course, this has just been proven again to not be the fool proof answer. One coworker of mine suggested that all schools, across the country as a rule, should have tall fencing around them. He dismissed the idea that this would make them seem a bit like...well, prisons.
First of all, that would be very costly. They would have to be very tall indeed, because the shooter in Uvalde easily hopped that fence. Many of the very people who are opposed to any kind of restrictions on access to guns support candidates who are budget hawks (at least when it comes to spending on anything other than the greatly inflated military budget). Are they going to go for such fences? Also, are we sure that they will work? After all, ever since Columbine and especially since Sandy Hook, many advocated armed guards as the sure answer to prevent school shootings. But I already showed five examples of school shootings that nevertheless occurred despite the presence of armed guards. Four of them happened since Sandy Hook. Three of them - Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde - now rank as among the deadliest school shootings in American history, and I was not including Virginia Tech, which had a police presence on campus which failed to prevent that horrific shooting, which ultimately killed over 30 people. But it is worth mentioning. So if this is the new cure all solution, as armed guards were in the past, will this one actually work to prevent such school shootings?
And my own question is this: once a shooter manages to scale such a fence and gain access into a school, as seems inevitable, then what? Will the answer then possibly be watch towers for the armed guards, to make the schools look and probably feel even more like prisons, or even concentration camps? After all, isn't the main rationale against any kind of gun control legislation that it will ultimately lead to more people in concentration camps? Are they really advocating for our own children to daily go into schools that outright begin to strongly resemble concentration camps? Is that an acceptable price for their "freedom?"
All of these proposed solutions by gun enthusiasts seem a bit immaterial to me. They claim that the problem is mental health. Sure, that seems to be part of the problem. But then whenever there is any actual effort to try and lower the costs of healthcare, so that those in need of mental health can actually get the care that they need, the very same people and politicians who claim that the issue is mental health all stand firmly opposed, many claiming the old, tired fascist dictatorship and concentration camp conspiracy theory as the reason for their objections. So that appear to be a no go on that solution. Then, they claim that armed guards will fix the problem. But the evidence seems to show otherwise. Now, perhaps taller fences will be the next solution. And I am willing to bet that even those will not solve the problem.
So what will? Well, I do not know the answer for that. What I can tell you is that for all the outrage that gun enthusiasts have whenever there is any mention of what most people, according to polls, feel are moderate restrictions on the deadliest guns, they sure seem to give certain politicians a pass. To me, the very heart of the problem is the hold that an organization like the NRA has over Washington politicians. Just like with other glaringly obvious failure in our American democracy, from everything to free and fair elections, to the ridiculous healthcare situation, to the absurdly bloated military budget, the problem is a blatantly corrupt political system that allows moneyed lobbyists providing considerable funds and huge benefits to politicians, who then serve the interests of their masters, and not the American people they are elected to represent. And this is true with the gun lobby.
Many prominent politicians - and I mean some very influential people who have had presidential ambitions - have taken in enormous sums of money from the National Rifle Association (NRA). According to a very recent Washington Post article by Timothy Bella:
Nineteen current or recent Republican senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Joni Ernst (Iowa), have taken at least $1 million each in campaign contributions from the NRA over their careers, according to data compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2019.
For the full list, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, please click on the link that is added below.
Many, many names are included, with the amount of the NRA funding that they accepted. That includes 16 who have raked in over one million dollars of NRA money for their political campaigns. Some of the most famous names include Mitt Romney (over $13 million of NRA money), Marco Rubio (over $3 million) and Mitch McConnell. (well over $1 million). Ted Cruz, who has not been around in Washington quite as long, has taken over $176k. Rand Paul has taken over $100k. Lindsey Graham has taken over $66 k. Where's the outrage over this blatant, in your face corruption?
You want to know the real reason that gun violence in America is so ridiculous, so out of control, that it has hurt the reputation of the country around the world? The unchecked influence of the gun lobby over such prominent Washington politicians, some real movers and shakers in the political sphere, would be a huge, glaring problem. But you rarely seem to hear about that, and my guess is that it is because it would open up a can of worms about lobbying in general, which would of course compromised faith in our whole American political system, our very democracy, which has been proven to be far more fragile than many had believed possible.
Frankly, I am tired of all of this, and perhaps especially the tragedy of our issue with gun violence. We all have heard some grim statistics that compromise what many Americans still wish to believe about the United States and our desired image as the "shining city on the hill," as Reagan used to boast. Ted Cruz recently echoed those idyllic sentiments recently when he dodged tough questions about gun violence in the country. But some realities seriously detract from this glowing image that they would have Americans believe. We lead the world with the most expensive healthcare costs in the world, and it is not even close. We also lead the world in terms of the most people incarcerated behind bars, and it also is not close. China overtook us as the most polluting country, yet we still are number two and, furthermore, still pollute more per head, and historically were the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases for many decades. And of course, we rank among the highest of all nations in the world in terms of gun violence, and we far and away lead all countries with advanced economies. And I'm afraid that despite politicians from both parties continually assuring as that we are the greatest country in the world, and presidents of each party ending every speech with assurances that God will continue to bless the United States of America, we are increasingly being judged - and harshly - for our shortcomings. Getting angry or saying that we do not care what the rest of the world thinks about us actually does no good in resolving these issues, nor is ignoring them and pretending that they are not a problem. Frankly, we should have the bravery and honesty to take a good, long look at ourselves as a country, and address these problems - and they most certainly are problems, in a forthright manner. If we ever do manage to do this, something that seems far from certain, we could begin with the most obvious place: our supposed leaders in Washington, and blatant corruption that they have grown only too comfortable not bothering to even hide anymore.
Here are the links to the various sites that I visited and researched in writing and preparing this particular blog entry. Please feel free to explore this topic by visiting these and other websites:
These Countries Restricted Assault Weapons After Just One Mass Shooting by Eloise Barry, May 27, 2022:
https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/
Gun Violence in the US Far Exceeds Levels in Other Rich Nations Published by Bloomberg, May 26, 2022:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/
Joe Biden stated on May 24, 2022 in a national address from the White House.: "When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled."
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/
Ted Cruz stated on May 24, 2022 in remarks to the media: “We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/26/ted-cruz/research-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/
Despite Ample School Security Plan, Texas Shooter Found Gaps by Associated Press, May 27, 2022:
https://www.voanews.com/a/despite-ample-school-security-plan-texas-shooter-found-gaps/6592834.html
WHICH SENATORS HAVE TAKEN THE MOST NRA MONEY? by Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators
After Texas shooting, Republicans face online anger over NRA money Image without a caption by Timothy Bella, Updated May 26, 2022/Published May 25, 2022:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/25/school-shooting-uvalde-republicans-nra/
No comments:
Post a Comment