It's old and annoying, this thing we do after every publicized mass shooting. I know it is because I'm even annoyed now by having to say how old and annoying it is. Rather than collectively mourn, pledge resources, offer prayers, generate tributes to victims, work to assist devastated families, the majority of our high-profile figures – from politicians to reporters to organizational leaders – immediately assume their defensive positions and begin launching rhetorical cruise missiles at one another.
On one side, it's the guns: No other country has this problem. No reason for someone to have military grade weaponry. Background checks are insufficient. Gun show loopholes.
On the other side, it's extenuating factors: Doors weren't secured properly. It was a soft target. The culture of lawlessness these blue cities generate is fueling increased violence. Gun regulations and laws kept good guys with guns from helping.
The tragedy is used and exploited, turned into a political football until everyone gets bored or distracted by the relentless drumbeat of "breaking news" that surrounds us each day. Nothing really changes, which just adds another rhetorical missile that can be utilized in the fight next time.
Everyone claims to be on the side of common sense and yet there seems to be an overriding refusal to accept some obvious realities:
- The mental health crisis in this country is manifesting in horrific acts of violence that are incredibly difficult to anticipate and prevent.
- Good guys with guns, while having proven to be effective in reducing the magnitude and scope of some attacks, aren't a solution to mass shootings.
- There is no conceivable way to confiscate weapons from those most likely to abuse their right to possess them.
- Any attempted government shutdown on the manufacture and sale of guns would be no more effective than prohibition was at shutting down the manufacture and sale of alcohol.
- A sweeping government confiscation guns (of any kind currently in circulation) would end very poorly and would be remarkably ineffective anyway.
- Disarming law-abiding citizens in order to prevent mass shootings is not a logical solution.
- Red flag laws, which could be considered "if you see something, say something" on steroids, are certainly reasonable suggestions – but rational people will take time to weigh their potential for abuse.
I sincerely don't know why the majority of us who (1) care about our families, (2) desire safe neighborhoods and peaceful communities, and (3) believe in civil liberties, can't agree that this is not a problem that can be easily solved. That's why these kinds of statements from national leaders are so unhelpful:
As though all it would take is to pass a law. It's clear that President Biden doesn't really believe that, or he would have seen that magical law enacted when his party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We get nowhere with this kind of rhetoric. Nor are we well served by silly conclusions like this:
Masquerading as common sense, this is just mindless. We aren't living in the wild west where there are armed guards stationed at the town bank all day. Most bank branches don't even have a full-time uniformed security guard – most train their tellers to be compliant and non-confrontational in the face of a robbery because there are better ways to safeguard against losses than shootouts in the lobby.
To use the Louisville horror as justification for not "beefing up" security in schools is a macabre form of defeatism that would surrender children to violence for what? Pride? No one is saying that "fortifying schools" is a solution to these high-profile acts of violence. But that doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate response.
In light of the increased frequency of these horrors happening in school buildings, it makes sense to increase protection proportionally. Why should that be a controversial suggestion?
It would be nice if we could solve problems together. How remarkable it would be if we could admit to one another that while this problem is not likely to have any permanent "solution," given the wickedness of man's heart, its impact could be minimized and diminished in scale.
And to me, after the loss of life and suffering families, that is the hardest part about all of this: Knowing we could accomplish something if we could get past our entrenched obsession with pretending we have all the answers and treating those who disagree as evil incarnate.
