Just about all of that happened after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting ( with the one extra element of the GOP blaming the FBI, because the GOP has been anti-FBI since the FBI started to investigate Donald Trump ), but something else has happened too. The fellow students of the Stoneman Douglas victims have started to organize in a way the families/friends of mass shooting victims have never organized before. It is easy to be cynical about the chances these kids have to make any lasting impact on the gun debate in the USA, but one can't deny that some unprecedented progress has been made in the last week. Until a week or so ago, most people were not aware that lots of companies offer NRA discounts, much in the way companies offer AAA discounts. Thanks to these Stoneman Douglas kids, many more people became aware of these NRA discounts, voiced there displeasure to these companies, and many of these companies ended their NRA discount programs.* For example, last week I learned that every major rental car company offered NRA discounts, and now all of them are ending their NRA discount programs. I know that may seem like a really small thing, but it could potentially be one of first steps forward in changing the gun culture in America. When all those companies ended their NRA discounts, they were well aware that they would be alienating the NRA and many members of the NRA. They knew they were risking losing the business of NRA members. However, they are apparently believed that the risk of losing the business of people who despise the NRA was greater than the risk of losing the business of NRA members. In other words, these companies were more afraid of gun control advocates than they were of the NRA. If we can get members of Congress to feel the same way, we can really start to make progress in the fight for gun control in this country.
Of course, it could still be a long time before we can get Congress to feel the same way, because GOP members of congress seem to joined at the hip with the toxic narratives put forward by the NRA after every one of these mass shootings. I'd like to spend a little bit of time addressing some of those narratives.
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"
I can't deny that if somebody wants to kill another person, there are plenty of ways to do it. Somebody could build a bomb, or stab a person, or start driving on the sidewalk to run down people. However, while there are many ways to kill a lot of people, there really isn't an easier way to kill a lot of people than by using a semi-automatic assault weapon. Building a bomb takes technical knowledge most people don't have, a knife or sword can't be used to kill people from distance, and a car is a tool that is not designed to murder people. A car could be used to murder lots of people if enough people are in close proximity, but the main purpose of a car is transportation. The main purpose of an assault weapon is to kill many things in a short amount of time. Yes, people do kill people, but with that in mind, why they hell would we every want to make it easier for people to kill other people?
"The real problem is mental illness, not guns"
This argument always makes me think of a cartoon I saw taped to one of my professor's door back in my college days. The cartoon had two panels. The first panel had the title "Crazy person with a gun", and showed a crazy-eyed man with an assault weapon firing multiple shots. The second panel has the title "Crazy person without a gun", and showed a crazy-eyed man with his fingers in the shape of a gun shouting "BANG! BANG! BANG!".
"If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns"
Well, first of all, most people in favor of gun control are not in favor of outlawing all guns. Many gun control advocates would like assault weapons like AR-15s banned. Presented with that fact, I think that many advocates for gun rights might responds with a quote like "If you outlaw AR-15s, only outlaws will have AR-15s". However that revised quote would not be accurate either, because if AR-15s were outlawed, police SWAT teams and the armed forces would still have access to AR-15s and guns with far more firepower than AR-15s.". I know that some people feel they need an AR-15 for home-protection, but feel like guns like that should be left in the hands of trained professionals ( I'll comment more on this in the "good guy with a gun" section below ).
The second point I want to make here is that every single illegal gun on the street was originally a legal gun ( There could be an extremely rare exception of a criminal who crafts guns from scratch, but c'mon, I don't see why a criminal would do that when so many gun are in circulation ). A certain percentage of legal guns manufactured get bought/sold/stolen illegally and become illegal guns. If the gun industry keeps manufacturinglegal guns at the pace they are making them, there will inevitably be more illegal guns on the street. Outlawing sales of assault weapons to civilians won't take assault weapons out of the hands of criminal, but it help dry up the supply of illegal assault weapons for criminals. Why wouldn't we want to dry up the supply of illegal assault weapons and give our law enforcement officers ( who would still have legal access to assault weapons ) a fighting chance?
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
We've been hearing variations of this one a lot lately. People have called for arming school security guards, and Donald Trump has suggested that school shootings could be prevented by arming a certain percentage of teachers.
There are so many problems with the "good guy with a gun" idea, that I barely know where to begin.
Let me start by conceding there are certain isolated scenarios in which a teacher or a security guard with a gun could save the lives of students. For example, if a teacher and students were cornered by a school shooter, and there was no way to escape, I'm sure that a teacher with a gun would have a better chance to save students than a teacher without a gun. However, the benefit of having guns for self-defense in schools in that very specific scenario is far outweighed by the dangers posed by having guns in schools on a daily basis.
While an armed teacher or a security guard could potentially save students in a school shooting situation, it is far more likely that the "good guy with a gun" is going to wind up getting more people killed. If you look up statistics on "friendly fire" in the military or statistics on shooting accuracy for police ( This study indicates that police only hit their targets 18% of the time in a gunfight ), you'll see that even trained professions have a hard time hitting their targets in high stress situations. In a school shooting situations, it is reasonable to expect that teachers or security guards wielding guns would have terrible accuracy. There is a great chance that more children would die in the crossfire if a teacher or security guard tried to play Rambo, and even a greater chance that a teacher or security guard trying to be a hero would be gunned down by the first police officer who saw them wandering the halls with a gun in a school shooting scenario.
In addition to the issues that would be introduced by additional gun-firing individuals in a school shooting situation, having guns in schools on a daily basis will almost certainly lead to additional shooting incidents in schools. Teachers and security guards are human being with human flaws. They have the potential to lose their temper or become mentally unstable. There also have the potential to get an "itchy trigger finger" and shoot people when they mistake minor problems for serious threats. There are already far too many unarmed people shot each year by trained law enforcement professionals. I'd hate to think about how many people could be shot in schools by teacher of security guards who are asked to "play cop" without the training a cop receives.
I hear the next two narratives a lot when a Democrat happens to be in a Oval Office. For the next two narratives, I'm going to address the people who hold these view directly in blue text.
"I need guns to protect me from government tyranny"
The federal government has far more powerful guns than the ones you might have stashed in your basement. The federal government also has tanks, fighter jets, Apache Helicopters, drones, and various bombs and missiles at its disposal. Your private stash of guns is not going to be able to protect you from any of that. If the federal governments wants to impose their will on you, you will not be able to stop. If the federal government wanted you dead, you would have been dead yesterday. When it comes to stopping tyranny, a ballot in your hand is a far more effective tool than a gun in your hand..
"I'll give ups my guns when the President gives up his Secret Service protection"
The President needs armed Secret Service protection because there are millions of people all over the world who would like to kill him.
Nobody wants to murder your sorry ass.
"The government can't regulate my guns because of the 2nd Amendment"
2nd Amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Rich
* I don't know if any of the Stoneman Douglas kids were directly responsible for spreading the word about NRA discount programs, but I'm sure that information would not been publicized last week if the Stoneman Douglas kids had not shined a light on the NRA.
