Days later, we still don’t have many answers about the gunman in Las Vegas and why he set out to kill dozens and wound hundreds attending a country music festival. But we certainly have moved on to the same argument we always have after mass shootings — or more accurately, the same argument about whether we should even be arguing.
Launching straight from a tragedy to a policy debate is criticized as “politicizing tragedy,” a charge those doing the politicizing no longer bother to deny. We should politicize these terrible events, they say, because the “political process” is how we solve problems in our representative government.
They have a point. But in another important way, they miss the point.
It’s true the political process is how we solve problems. Also true: No matter the circumstances of these shootings, we hear the same proposed answers. That’s a big reason gun proponents call it “politicization.”
For example: One of the most anti-gun lawmakers, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, wrote this in an op-ed for The Washington Post:
“(C)ontrary to the mythology spread by the gun lobby, there is not much real controversy around the first steps we should take to trim rates of gun crime. Large majorities of Americans support universal background checks, permit requirements for gun ownership and bans on the most dangerous kinds of weapons and ammunition. The gun lobby, and the loud vocal minority it echoes, make the issue seem like more of a hot button than it is.”
There is some truth to this, although the Pew surveys Murphy cited show some wide gaps between the opinions of gun owners and non-owners. But it’s also true in the case of universal background checks, the item on Murphy’s list with the most agreement, they didn’t stop the Las Vegas gunman.
The shooter reportedly passed at least two background checks in the last year. That fits with the shooters in Orlando, Aurora and Tucson, all of whom passed background checks. The Virginia Tech shooter passed two background checks (although he likely shouldn’t have, given his history of mental illness). The Sandy Hook shooter didn’t have to pass a background check, because he stole the guns from his mother, who bought them legally (and who became his first victim).
Talk about background checks, when they haven’t prevented most recent mass shootings, and are pitched as a first step toward harsher, more controversial proposals, certainly sounds like politicization.
It’s not really about whether “nothing can be done,” the attitude pro-gun folks are accused of holding, but what can be done that would be effective. Murphy’s op-ed referred to an estimated 40 percent drop in gun crimes (it appears he actually meant gun homicides) in Connecticut between 1996 and 2005 after that state passed gun-control measures. But that is consistent with a drop in the national gun-homicide rate during that time.
In any event, it’s unclear that expanding the Connecticut laws to other states would result in fewer mass shootings, the impetus for this whole discussion. After all, the terrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., took place well after those laws were passed.
How might we talk about these tragedies without “politicizing” them? Wait for the facts to be gathered. Think deeply about what kind of policies might have prevented it, or at least made it far less likely. Measure those policies against other mass shootings, too. Recognize the due process concerns that arise when one talks about taking away others’ rights. Aim for incremental steps that might garner consensus rather than sweeping reforms.
Sound difficult? It should. That’s how the political process in our country is supposed to be.
About the Author
