by Roger A Wilbanks
This is a nice sentiment, but I fear that ship sailed a long time ago. So, rather than rehash exhausted arguments, I want to talk instead about the Federal Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2004 and how that action injected politics into this debate to the point of paralysis.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994 with former US President Ronald Regan leading the way in support. "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity"." (1)
This ban kept the weapons we are haunted by today off the market and out of the hands of civilians.
This ban expired in 2004 after congress allowed its sunset provision to act.
Three years after passing the AWB, Congress banned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from doing any research that could be used to “advocate or promote gun control,” effectively ending federally funded public health research on gun violence through the Dickey Amendment (2), a rider tacked onto a Federal Spending Bill in 1997 that has quietly been renewed and renewed and renewed.
The NRA has lobbied and donated to Congress in an ever increasing scale, spending almost $55million in 2016 (3)
The NRA also threatened boycotts to manufacturers Colt and Smith & Wesson when they attempted to work with Washington to proactively include safety controls in the weapons they manufacture. (4)
In all cases, when action was talked about, money or the threat of boycott from the NRA prevented any action from taking place and in fact, exasperated the issue by potentially stymieing any further action by threat of retribution. (5)
So what we have on the one hand is a group of politicians and doctors that try to understand gun violence and enact legislation to curb it, and on the other a powerful lobbying force dead set against even the contemplation of said understanding.
So I will say Politics has been involved here for a long time by the very same people telling us to keep politics OUT of this debate.
That said, I have exhausted myself banging my head against the same wall that most of America has. I have exhausted my care when I see another dozen school children gone. I have exhausted my horror when I hear of another heroic teacher, cop or bystander who lost their lives trying to shield innocents from lunatics. I have also exhausted my patience with the revolving debate that happens with each of these events.
What we can agree on:
*Gun Violence is a bad thing
What we can't agree on:
*What we can do to stop it
The most effective solution to this is getting rid of guns. All guns. From everyone.
This will never happen because our Constitution specifically enshrines that right for all US Citizens as God Ordained, and I agree with that.
Another effective solution is banning Assault Weapons. We did it before, and while that ban was active. (from 1982-2004) we experienced 34 mass shootings.
Since the expiration of the AWB in 2004, the nation has seen 64 mass shootings with the frequency rising.
Yes we need to look at this problem from ALL sides.
We need to break down all of the factors involved in these shootings and look at them logically. Looking at these from the POV of the shooter, their thought process from start to end, would be a good place to begin the conversation.
Look at every single factor: Motivation, instigation, equipment and methodology.
Find commonalities. Find weak points.
We have no chance against this epidemic if we aren't allowed to even look at it honestly without angering an unelected Lobbying Association.
If I say "Ban all guns!" I am wrong because that is only one third of the issue.
Systemic - The access to the weapons that they use.
Personal - The motivations of the shooters.
Societal - Our apparent and absolute lack of empathy or compassion.
We need to take all three of these phases into consideration and evaluate this problem without the politics. THAT much I agree with Ted Cruz on. But I also would like to see him remove his politics from this discussion. Marco Rubio also says now isn't the time to politicize this. Again, I find myself agreeing. In fact, I think ANYONE who accepted a contribution from the NRA be exempted from this discussion to assist them in their goal of DE-politicizing the discussion. (6)
footnotes:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
(3) https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082
(4) http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/politics/13nra.html
(6) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawmakers-who-take-the-most-money-from-the-gun-rights-lobby-2017-10-03
