There's been a lot of discourse (a lot of it extremely vitriolic) in recent weeks about gun control and how to handle mass shootings in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by a number of tragic gun related deaths recently involving law enforcement. Here was my take in an online discussion with regards to gun control vs the Second Amendment. I don't think those two concepts are mutually exclusive from each other. (This doesn't address the issues of race and law enforcement in this country, which is an extremely important and specific topic that would deserve its own section/thoughts separate from this.)
The problem with the discourse on this issue is that it almost immediately degenerates into "us vs. them" regardless of your stance on gun control vs. the 2nd Amendment and any reasonable discussion completely goes out the window in favor of trying to win the argument/crush "the enemy."
To say that guns have nothing to do with these types of incidents is a fallacy. Of course they have something to do with it. They are the instrument used to commit the act. That's like saying alcohol has nothing to do with people who drink and drive. Gun control laws/enforcement are not going to prevent every shooting or even every mass shooting, but it's wrong to say they won't prevent any either. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. The country does have gun laws, but those laws are so wildly inconsistent state-to-state or even county-to-county in some cases that they can rule each other out. It doesn't matter how tough the gun laws are in Chicago if I can hop a border nearby and pick something up legally there and bring it back with me.
Here's the thing- the 2nd Amendment is an important reality, but it already has limitations. The right to bear arms...what arms? It doesn't say which arms. I think we can all agree that a private citizen should not have access to a nuclear weapon. Or a rocket launcher. Or a grenade. A tank. Those are arms, as the term "arm" in this context simply means "weapon." We've already got restrictions on certain weapons. And those weapons are not as frequently used in terrorist attacks, because they are so much harder to acquire. It doesn't stop everyone. Grenades still get used, for example. But it's much less common in attacks by a civilian. The idea that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals or terrorists is simply inaccurate. Certain types of knives are illegal to carry depending on where you live, and a knife is an arm as well. There simply isn't as strong of a knife lobby out there.
So, we all actually agree on "arms" control to some degree. But, it's only effective when those laws are the same across the country and enforced. Now where do we draw that line? That's the real debate, and I don't have a specific opinion on that. But nobody in the history of ever in the President's office that I'm aware of has ever tried to make weapons ownership as a whole illegal. This "they're coming for all our guns" argument/fear is, at this point in our history at least, not based in any actual fact or circumstance.
Background checks are not carried out, or at least aren't mandatory, at gun shows for private sellers. Why? Why is a gun show different from buying from a dealer in a store? Waiting periods often aren't done at gun shows either. Why? The only reason seems to be political pressure by the NRA. I agree with the 2nd Amendment to a degree (again, no nukes or grenades to Billy at the end of the block) but the NRA is not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about money. Pure and simple. The NRA as an entity (meaning their management) could give a damn about a well-organized militia. They're a bought and paid for lobby group who purposely spread fear and purchase clout in Washington to keep people buying weapons. They love these types of tragedies, because gun sales always spike right after them. They feed off of them. They're not patriots (to be clear again, I'm not talking NRA members- I'm talking the NRA brass/management. I'm not attacking gun enthusiasts, that defeats the whole purpose of the conversation) they're salesmen. The NRA simply sell a product, and fear is their advertising message. And they're very, very good at it. And Rule 1 is shutting down discourse when it comes to any gun discussion. Why aren't gun shows faced with the same regulations as gun stores? A lot of NRA members I know don't understand why either. The answer is because sales would decrease.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Here we are. Again. Having the same meaningless debates that never change anything. Again. Until the next one happens. Again. Rinse and repeat.
"Destroy terrorism" is also not a policy, yet people keep saying "destroy terrorism instead of taking our guns.". It's a general term that can get a cheer at a rally and means absolutely nothing. Do we need to constantly re-examine our strategies for combating terrorism domestically and overseas? Of course we do. But that conversation requires specific details, minutia, context and knowledge, which is not the type of conversation that sells weapons or gets ad clicks on a website, so it's not part of the public discourse outside of "Crush them" or "America, F' Yeah!"
Gun control is also not the same as gun outlawing. And a background check and a license are not the same thing. A background check shows you ideally have no criminal history, mental illness or violent tendencies that would/should preclude you from owning a firearm. A license shows that you have a certain level of knowledge, expertise, training and responsibility to use that firearm in a way that is safe and won't endanger the lives of others. I had to pass a background check in order to get a license when carrying a weapon was an option where I used to work. I don't know if an outright ban on assault weapons would or would not drastically affect the number of mass shootings in the country, but closing the gun show loopholes, streamlining the background check process and initiating more consistent standards across the board would at least be a start in making this type of tragedy less likely/harder to commit.
We can't "prevent" this. Not totally. Not with 100% certainty. That's the truly heartbreaking part. But disavowing an option because it won't solve 100% of the problem is foolhardy. Seatbelts won't save 100% of the people in auto accidents. We still have them, because they can help. Let's start with 5%. 20%. 30%. Because those numbers aren't numbers. They're people. People that were here a few days ago and no longer are. Guns are not the sole reason for that. But to say they aren't the reason at all is insulting to the memories of those who were cut down by them.