Those who would ban all firearms in the U.S. point to Australia as a success story. Why not just do what they did after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre? After all, they have not had a mass shooting since. Sounds easy, doesn’t it?
Below is an excerpt from a 2017 editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald that someone re-posted on Facebook after the Parkland, FL shooting:
“It is incomprehensible to us, as Australians, that a country so proud and great can allow itself to be savaged again and again by its own citizens. We cannot understand how the long years of senseless murder, the Sandy Hooks and Orlandos and Columbines, have not proved to Americans that the gun is not a precious symbol of freedom, but a deadly cancer on their society.
We point over and over to our own success with gun control in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, that Australia has not seen a mass shooting since and that we are still a free and open society. We have not bought our security at the price of liberty; we have instead consented to a social contract that states lives are precious, and not to be casually ended by lone madmen. But it is a message that means nothing to those whose ideology is impervious to evidence.”
This is making the rounds on social media, being re-posted by those who are outraged that “AR-15 Assault Rifles” are still legal in this country. And who are desperate for a quick, easy solution. I empathize with their frustration, but don’t agree with many of the solutions being proposed. They are the same old talking points and don’t address the root causes.
Before making a case against some of the typical arguments, let’s agree that no one wants this to happen. Of course we all want safe schools and an end to this violence. Every single death by violence no matter where it happens is tragic. So, we agree on the ends. What we disagree on are the means.
In addition, we can all agree that mass shootings at schools probably get a disproportionate amount of media attention. Schools and school children are rightly seen as innocent by-standers and vulnerable, and that is likely one of the reasons. But there does tend to be a double-standard when talking about gun violence.
Let’s get some perspective. Since 2000, about 200 deaths have occurred in school shootings, with another 200 injured. In the city of Chicago alone, there were 650 murders in 2017 with 3,457 victims of gun shootings. So 650 deaths in one year vs. 200 deaths in 17 years! You don’t seem to hear the same hysteria in the press about those statistics as you do school shootings. The fact is that the amount of human suffering because of violent crime in some large U.S. cities like Chicago vastly exceeds that of mass school shootings.
While the reasons for the difference in media coverage is an interesting topic in and of itself, let’s focus on the main point of this article: mass shootings in schools and whether the Australian model is appropriate for the U.S.
First, let’s set the record straight on an AR-15, or other variants of that platform. “AR” does not stand for assault rifle, but instead stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” after the company that invented it in the 1950’s. It is now a ubiquitous name of a sporting rifle platform. It is not a military style weapon. If you ban AR-15-style weapons, then you might as well ban every other semi-automatic rifle and handgun. So before you start throwing out names of guns, get your facts straight so we can have an honest debate.
The implication is that banning one style of weapon leads to a precedence where there is now justification for banning all weapons. And then, that is just one step away from justifying confiscation. Those who support gun rights, therefore, are obviously loathe to give any ground. Why? Because the truth is, those who don’t believe citizens should own an AR-15 also don’t believe any of us need any kind of weapon at all, and would just as soon see them confiscated and off the streets entirely. That, I believe, is the true end-game for the progressives who want more gun control laws. It is just a step along the way to the ultimate goal. Just like Obamacare was really one step towards universal healthcare. (Then Trump happened.)
Second, for those Australian’s who think they are free to criticize us, as the Sydney Morning Herald editorial staff is apt to do, maybe they should become more informed on our Constitution, and their own history as well.
There are only three countries in the world that protect a citizen’s right to keep arms: the U.S, Mexico and Guatemala. In other words, Australia never had that right enshrined in their Constitution to begin with. The two country’s histories are completely different. It is like trying to compare apples to oranges. You cannot assume that what is right for Australia is right for America, and the other-way-around.
Our right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, and specifically in the 2nd amendment. There is a much debate on both sides of the issue about the meaning of the 2nd amendment, just like there is debate about other amendments and our Constitution in general. That’s a worthy debate. Without a doubt, though, the Founders who wrote our Constitution were afraid to give the central government the exclusive right to control the arms, and exclude that right from citizens. They also had a profound understanding of human nature. They were afraid of the central government becoming tyrannical, which is why we fought the British in the first place.
There are many of us that fear an ever-growing federal government, controlled by over-intellectualized progressive elites who believe they are the only ones capable of saving us from ourselves. Our Founders believed that our rights come from our Creator, not our Government. That we the people give our consent, but if those who we provide consent ever abuse that right, we are obligated to alter or abolish it.
The progressive movement in this country which started with Woodrow Wilson was an inflection point in our history. Before that, we by-and-large adhered to our Founders libertarian worldview. From Woodrow Wilson to FDR to LBJ, the progressive movement gained the upper hand, and the government became the solution. The answer to all that afflicted the human condition. That is why so many of us will do everything in our power to protect the 2nd amendment and all the protections we have in the Constitution against a tyrannical government. You only have to read history to know that despite what the elite here in the U.S. in government, academia and the media want you to think, our government can and has become tyrannical in many ways. It has just happened slowly, like the proverbial frog in a pot of cold water on the stove.
Third, what Australian’s typically fail to point out is that in addition to banning firearms after 1996, they combined that with mandatory confiscation. Even if you accepted that as a part of the solution here in the U.S., what makes you think that a country that has a population of about 323 Million, with about the same number of guns in circulation could ever hope to do that? Australia has a population of 24 Million. So, the US has a population that is more than an order of magnitude bigger. Sorry, that will never happen here. If progressives in this country ever succeeded in their end-game of confiscation, it will not end well.
Fourth, what happens when you make something illegal? Here in the US, many illicit drugs are illegal. That does not mean you cannot get them. If guns were made illegal, the only ones who would not have guns would be those of us who adhere to our laws. Criminal elements will control the guns, just like they control the illicit drug trade.
There are likely other arguments, but the real issue is finding a solution. The problem, those who would ban firearms are conflating cause and effect. Gun violence is the effect. A permanent solution will only be found if we address the root causes.
In addressing root causes and solutions, however, I would contend there are two groups with different goals. First, there are all of us: conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian and everyone in between, who truly do want to find a solution to the root causes. We may not agree on the means, but we agree on the ends.
The other group may in fact want a solution, but that is secondary. Their real motivation is power, and they are dangerous. I am talking mostly here about career politicians and wealthy power brokers like Soros. I believe strongly that there are some politicians who have a deep seated aversion to the average citizen owning a gun. They want that power reserved for the ruling elite. It makes life much easier for them. Or they are pandering to their constituency for votes.
Again, our Founders understood human nature. They understood how well-intentioned people could become corrupted. They never, ever envisioned the career politicians like 88 year-old John Conyers who represented the Detroit, MI area for 52 years before being caught up in Hollywood/Politician sex scandals.
More laws are not the answer. You cannot legislate morality. I actually don’t have a problem with background checks, but the fact is, the shooter in Florida bought the gun legally. The real tragedy is that FBI failed to follow their protocol when they got a tip that the shooter in FL wanted to be a “professional school shooter”. So if all the laws and processes that are in place now did not work, what makes you think more laws will work? It is just a reaction to the situation and will have no meaningful effect. Doing anything is better than doing nothing, except for the “law of unintended consequences”.
Should we assess and increase security at schools? Seems to make sense. Schools are classic “soft targets”. Being a soft target, and in essence advertising that a “professional school shooter” will not be met with lethal force because a school is a “gun free zone” just seems to invite tragedy.
We know where every school is. Why not hire retired military and law enforcement, arm them and put them in schools. Especially in high risk areas? We obviously have to re-think security. So if we are talking about simply addressing the effects, that would be a much more effective than a belief that you can somehow remove all guns from circulation, and the bad guys will never get them. That is wishful thinking.
In all fairness, the school in FL had one armed security guard. That was obviously not enough given the size of the campus.
The root cause of this violence I think is related to 1) the continuing break-down in the family structure, 2) a lessening of a belief in God and the moral grounding that it provides, and 3) the increase in the mental health issues and how to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. These are all interrelated to some degree.
As the family structure has broken down, kids like the FL shooter are all too common. As his public defender said, he is a “broken human being”. That in and of itself is profoundly saddening and lost in the debate. I don’t have the answer, but that is what we should try and address. We need to do everything possible to support the family structure, as it is the basis of a civil society. The problem is that as the family structure has broken down, government and schools are being expected to be a substitute. That is a recipe for long term disaster. We may have already reached a tipping point.
Many of my liberal and progressive friends will cringe when I say that a lessening in a belief in God is also part of the problem. But, it’s true, at least based on my worldview. We may have already reached the point of no return on that issue as well, as any of us who want to make that argument are shouted down and marginalized by a secular society who mocks religion and God. Who place their finite human mind at the center of the universe, and believe they have all the answers. You have to look no further than what Joy Behar said of Mike Pence’s faith. Sorry, folks, I talk to and listen to God as well. For those who mock that “conversing with Jesus” is a mental illness, you will never get it and I feel sorry for you. I guess I am mentally ill as well!
Religion and a belief in a higher power reverses your view of yourself. Rather than looking inward, you look outward. It is the basis of human dignity. You no longer look to others or the government to define you, or validate you as a person. You no longer blame society and others for your failures or misfortunes. It is the source of empathy for others. It is the source of meaning in your life. It gives you power over how you respond to every situation. There was a fascinating article by Nancy Pearcey recently that made the connection between the sex scandals, purpose and a belief in a higher power.
What can you do? Start with yourself. Change yourself first, and maybe you can change someone else. Maybe you can be a positive influence on a struggling teen. If you are a parent sending your child to a university, pay attention to what they are being taught and exposed to. Universities are dominated with progressive thinking that celebrates relativism. That spurns any concept of absolute moral truths. The bottom line? If you really want to know who is to blame for the gun violence in this country, look in the mirror. It is every one of us. Stop trying to find someone or something else to blame.
Finally there is the issue of mental health. I am in no way an expert in the potential solutions, but it seems like that is an area ripe for new thinking, and yes, maybe more funding. Those with mental health problems should not own a gun if they are a threat to others or themselves. Just exactly how that gets embedded in a fair process is the real challenge.
In conclusion, there are no easy and quick answers, or one specific solution. Anyone who thinks that is just plain wrong. It has to be a combination of solutions that address the causes, not the effects. And for those in Australia who think they want to lecture us on why we should look to them for a solution, you need to back off and focus on your own problems.
Jeff Groh is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. He believes more often than not, both sides of the political spectrum agree on the ends, but it is the means that fuel disagreements, with the far right and left resorting to name-calling rather than a pursuing a rational debate on the issues, trade-offs and unintended consequences. He is also District Captain in NC 113 for the Convention of States Project. His consulting company, New Product Visions, helps companies improve their innovation management practices, and he is passionate about the creation of economic value and prosperity by restoring our country’s manufacturing base. Want to email me? jgroh@newproductvisions.com
rationalconservativeblog 