Barack's speech to the nation was right on. It was a call to do something. Certainly, the US can't claim to be the greatest country in the world given the level of gun violence here. Certainly we can do better.
I'm tired of discussions about whether it's appropriate to have a discussion about gun violence. Of course it is. And it seems Barack is calling for those discussions. Let's have the discuss on DailyKos. Perhaps we can contribute something to the national discourse hopefully about to begin.
It seems to me we in the US have at least three different problems regarding gun violence: Shooting accidents in general (according to xajaxsingerx in "Every Wasted Day = 38 More Wasted Lives" diary, 8 innocent children are killed every day in accidental shootings), Urban (seemingly random) gun violence that occurs on the streets of our inner cities every day, and mass shootings that occur all too frequently, but much more rarely. All claim innocent victims. All are urgent problems that need to be addressed. I want to discuss mass shootings (as happened in Newton) in this diary.
Here are the options of what to do about gun violence that I recall hearing:
1. Gun control
A. Limit the availability of guns
B. Limit the lethality of guns
2. Arm everybody - the opposite of gun control
3. "Harden" public places - metal detectors, soldiers with automatic weapons in public places.
4. Mental health screenings and treatment (or gun ownership restrictions).
Limit the availability of guns
If we could pull off eliminating public ownership of guns in America, we could virtually eliminate mass shootings, of course. But besides 2nd Amendment problems there is the problem of reality. There are just too many guns owned by the public. If guns were banned, crime lords would spring up and violence would be many times greater than during the Depression.
What about limiting gun ownership - say to screen for mental health issues more effectively? Certainly, we should require background checks at gun shows. But stricter background checks would not have prevented the Newtown massacre as the guns were owned by the first victim. And the shooter probably would have been able to pass the strictest of background checks. Today's screenings to not effectively address mental health.
Limiting the lethality of guns is a common sense move that the gun lobby sees as an assault on it's profits. We should continue the fight to limit magazine sizes, the availability of armor piercing bullets and the like. Here is is link to An Atlantic Article, "The Geography of Gun Deaths" in which the authors report the results of their study as to the factors that lead to fewer gun deaths in general. They found that requiring trigger locks, safe gun storage, and assault weapon bans are associated with significantly lower rates of gun deaths. Clearly, there are steps we can take on a national level to reduce gun deaths in general, but I expect these would have only a modest effect on the number or toll from mass murder tragedies.
The shooter, armed with a semiauto rifle (similar to an AR-15) and a couple of other guns brought hundreds of rounds of ammo with him. He apparently decided to end his life when he heard police arriving (about 10 minutes after he started his rampage). High capacity magazines were not a factor.
Arming everybody - the opposite of gun control has also been proposed. A few states allow virtually anyone to conceal a gun. If we expect every citizen to be armed, how many "Zimmerman" killings will result? A few have opined "if only teachers in that school were armed" ignoring the number of shooting accidents that would result from arming every teacher in America.
Our forefathers recognized the dangers of armed citizens in the wild west - requiring visitors to check their sidearms either when entering town or entering certain sections of town. It's reported that all of the shooting deaths in a 15 year span of Dodge's most violent past occurred in the rowdy part of town where visitors were required to check their guns. Further, in it's most violent past, there were an average of 1 shooting death a year. Many of our inner cities are approaching 1 death per day. I think this says a lot about the "arm everybody" argument: They recognized that carrying sidearms is reasonable when out in the wide open spaces, but not in town. Also, it seems our modern inner cities are approaching the "arm everybody" state and are where almost of the gun violence is occurring. Some will say that sometimes shooters are shot. Yet it seems that for every shooter shot, new shooters are stepping up to take their places.
If we were to arm everybody, would we stop massacres? They would probably be stopped much more quickly. There would be fewer victims. But we would not be able to prevent the start of such events. And how many "Zimmerman" events would occur?
It's very discouraging to me that none of the above solutions seem to be the "magic bullet" to kill mass shooting behavior. Yes, I support common sense measures to control who has access to guns and their lethality. But it seems these measures would have only a modest effect on the number of tragedies or on their death toll.
Defending public places like schools and malls
Some schools already have metal detectors. Sandy Hills had a security system
Earlier this year, the school principal, Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, ordered a new security system installed that requires visitors to be visibly identified and buzzed in. As part of the security system, the school locked its doors each day at 9:30 a.m.
The event started around 9:30. It's not yet clear whether the shooter had to force his way in. Apparently there was no armed officer present. And having one probably would have made a difference. Clearly, a security system alone is not enough. One or more armed guards are required to prevent these tragedies. We are learning to live with metal detectors and security guards in our inner city schools. Is it time to extend these measures to all schools?
While security systems would never work in shopping malls, armed guards (or more armed guards) would seem to be appropriate.
Mental Health
This is the area where I see the most potential.
In this country, mental health coverage currently is sketchy at best. PocketNaomi discusses the problems of obtaining (mental) health care in her recommended "Serious Discussions" diary. People who admit seeing a "shrink" are often stigmatized as deficient somehow. It's not like going to a medical doctor. Analysis is viewed as not very helpful, so those in it are viewed as dangerous or at least "off". We do a very poor job of identifying, supporting and helping those in need of mental help. Certainly, there is room to do better here.
Rachel Maddow interviewed Dave Culen, author of "Columbine", on her show Friday. It's a must see segment in my opinion. If you haven't seen it, view it here. Skip to the 6:00 mark, where Rachel introduced Dave. Dave pointed to two government studies, one by the FBI, the other a joint effort by the Secret Service and the Department of Education. Both he said came to the same conclusions. There is no one type who commits these massacres. But most are committed by one of three types. And of the three, the most common type is suicidally depressed teens. Dave says that most depressed teens want help but can't or won't talk to parents or teachers. He called for a national program for screening teens annually for depression, conducted by 3rd parties. Although not discussed in the segment, it seems such a program would have to be combined with free, private, non-stigmatized health care to treat the teens identified as suffering from depression. And herein lies the rub. We are not very good at treating depression.
The first rule of treatment should be "do no harm". However, treating depression all too often relies on antidepressants that have become linked to increased violence. Some of these shooters were apparently already being treated for depression! We need more effective treatments before we embark on a program that makes the problem worse.
Clearly, this is a complex problem. Just as there is no single "type" who commits these attrosities, there is no single magic bullet solution. We must attack this problem on multiple fronts. Solutions will likely be expensive. And we must proceed carefully to ensure our actions are effective and positive.