Issues Surrounding Gun Ownership

Gun violence in America has always been a great concern to communities, families and law enforcement officials. But in recent years gun violence has received a great deal more publicity and public concern because of the mass shootings -- particularly in schools -- that the media focuses on in great detail. In other words, a law-abiding family living in a quiet small town in Vermont is impacted emotionally when a gunman enters a school in California or Connecticut and murders innocent children. This paper identifies recent trends in mass shootings, potential laws that would attempt to keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed and violent individuals, and how the National Rifle Association (NRA) uses unethical tactics to promote its paranoid obsession that government is out to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners.

Recent Mass Shootings

Of the many gruesome mass killings that have been reported on television screens and in newspapers across the country over the recent past is the bloody slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This heinous crime stands out as the most egregiously inhumane among all the mass killings recorded in the past twenty years or so. A twenty-year-old individual, clearly deranged and lacking in human feelings, entered Sandy Hook on Friday, December 14 in 2012 and "…executed 20 young children and six teachers and administrators" (Thompson, 2014). There were reports that some of the children were shot in the forehead multiple times. The killer, Adam Lanza, turned a gun on himself and took his own life, but the damage he did could never be undone and the parents of the twenty kindergartens and first grade children have to live with this tragedy the rest of their lives.

Thompson, writing in the peer-reviewed journal Society, mentions that between 1997 and 2012, "…ten boys have killed 73 students, parents, and teachers, and wounded 99 more," in the nine school shooting incidents that have received the most attention (Thompson, 2010). Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who attended Columbine High School in Colorado, are among the most highly publicized of young killers. The pair killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves, but they had much bigger plans than just killing fellow classmates.

Thompson explains that they had planned (for over a year prior to the attack in 1999) to "…bomb and level the entire school in a series of massive explosions and then shoot everyone left alive" (there were 2,000 students and 150 teachers and staff at Columbine High School) (2010).

FBI Confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings

For people who pay close attention to the news -- even grim, violent news -- have seen what seems like an increase in mass shootings over the past fifteen years or so. What seems like an increase in mass shootings is in fact just that -- a dramatic increase. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported in September, 2014, that there have been, on average, 16.4 mass shootings each year between 2007 and 2013 (Schmidt, 2014). In the years 2000 to 2006, there were an average of 6.4 mass shootings reported, so the increase since 2007 (Schmidt, p. 1).

Four hundred eighty six people have died in mass shootings over the past 13 years, and 366 of those were killed over the past seven years, Schmidt explains. The FBI report did not take into consideration shootings based on gang violence or domestic disputes, and it found that in 44 of the 64 cases the gunfire lasted "less than five minutes" (Schmidt, p. 1). In 23 of the 64 cases the gunman finished his evil deed in less than two minutes, so the data shows that perpetrators go into situations with multiple weapons loaded, intending to shoot quickly before they could be stopped, killing as many people as possible.

The FBI report also noted that in 21 of 45 mass shootings in which officers confronted the gunmen, "…nine officers were killed and 28 were wounded," which led to the suggestion that "…local officers need to be better trained and equipped to stop gunmen intent on slaughter" (Schmidt, p. 2).

Harvard Research -- Mass Shootings have Tripled Since 2011

Data compiled by Harvard University researchers and published by Mother Jones magazine show that a mass shooting has occurred "…on average every 172 days since 1982" (Cohen, et al., 2014). The data gathered for this research deliberately left out killings in private homes, where domestic troubles contribute to violence against family and friends. Instead the data gathered involved public shootings "…in which the shooter and the victims generally were unrelated and unknown to each other, and in which the shooter murdered four or more people" (Cohen, p. 2).

Since September 6, 2011, 14 public mass shootings have occurred at an average interval of "less than 172 days"; and in the research it reveals that in the first 29 years studied, beginning in 1982, there was a mass shooting every 200 days "on average" (Cohen, p. 3). But in the subsequent three-year phase, mass shootings have occurred "every 64 days on average" (Cohen, p. 3).

Meanwhile an article in the Christian Science Monitor explains that "…children have been dying from gun violence in schools for generations" (Schneider, 2013). The first school shooting took place before the U.S. Constitution was ratified. In 1764 a Pennsylvania teacher was shot and killed in front of his students; in 1853 a student in Kentucky murdered a teacher for punishing his brother; in 1891 a man, 70 years of age, fired a shotgun into a school playground where students were enjoying a lunch break; and in 1946, a 15-year-old student was murdered by gunfire in his school in Brooklyn by "seven thugs" (Schneider, p. 2).

Americans live in a country with a "celebrated gun myth -- a largely invented history of heroism, rather than murder that is steadily renewed by groups like the National Rifle Industry" (Schneider, p. 2). Do more guns mean more deadly violence? Or do more guns in the hands of citizens mean fewer murders? According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, there is "substantial evidence that more guns means more murders" (Schneider, p. 2). States with tougher gun safety laws "…have had fewer gun-related deaths," Schneider explains, citing data compiled by economist Richard Florida.

Schneider concludes his article by pointing out that school shootings are not a new phenomenon, but because weapons "…have gotten bigger, faster, and more accurate… the death toll has become greater" (p. 2). What Schneider omits in his review of weapons is that handguns have the capability of handling clips that hold more than thirty rounds. In the case of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre of 33 students, the killer had fired 174 rounds from two handguns. He may have reloaded his clips during his rampage, but clearly, Schneider is correct that school shootings are not new but the weapons used are far more lethal.

What is the National Rifle Association's reaction to Mass Shootings?

The number one advocacy and lobbying organization for the defense and promotion of guns in the U.S. is the NRA. Following the mass slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Executive Vice President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (Castillo, 2012). In fact what LaPierre said was that all public schools should have armed guards, to protect children from potential violence at the hands of a disturbed person with lethal weapons.

LaPierre said the same thing after the horrific killings at Virginia Tech -- arm the campus with more police and more weapons -- and it is clear the NRA is "doubling down on its own position: more guns, not fewer, provide true security" (Castillo, 2012).

Following the killings of small children at Sandy Hook, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden proposed some gun safety regulations that might limit the number or weapons that get into the hands of deranged people. For one thing, the president proposed that gun shows be required to conduct background checks for those individuals wishing to purchase weapons. Previously gun retail shops have been required for years to conduct background checks, and records show that a substantial proportion of those attempting to buy weapons at gun shops were denied due to the fact that they have felony records or that they are known to have psychologically troubling pasts.

The NRA's lobbying effort was instrumental in preventing the legislation -- a bipartisan bill sponsored by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- from having enough votes to defeat a filibuster. When the vote failed in the U.S. Senate, two women in the Senate gallery shouted, "Shame on you!" (McAuliff, 2013). One of the women was Patricia Maisch, who had grabbed the third gun clip from the gunman who was firing in Tucson, Arizona and who hit then Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (McAuliff, p. 2). The second woman who yelled from the gallery was Lori Hass, whose daughter was shot but survived the gunshot wound she sustained at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Given that over 90% of Americans in several polls supported background checks at gun shows, it was very disappointing for President Obama. "All in all, this is a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said (McAuliff, p. 2). "The American people are trying to figure out -- how can something that has ninety percent support not happen?" Obama added (McAuliff, p. 2).

The NRA is Paranoid and Propagates Falsehoods

What the NRA always falls back on when it opposes background checks is something LaPierre wrote in a recent article on www.nra.org. In attacking presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, LaPierre asserted that "…Clinton knows, as every gun-grabbing government has known for over a century, that gun registration is the key to gun confiscation. And as history proves, gun confiscation follows gun registration as invariably as thunder follows lightning." When speaking at a recent Republican convention, LaPierre launched into the following diatribe against Hillary Clinton: "Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair forced upon the American people to endure" (Schelzig, 2015). This statement -- more hyperbole than rhetoric -- indicates the style of the NRA's leadership, ripe with vitriol and outrageous falsehoods but short on facts and specifics.

LaPierre, the most visible NRA spokesman, asserted that countries like Jamaica, Greece, England, Australia and others -- along with New York City and California -- have seized guns after gun registration has become policy. Quick research could not verify that law enforcement officials in California or New York State have been seizing weapons from law-abiding citizens or anyone else based on gun registration. There are conspiracy-themed websites like "The Blaze" that present instances where someone "reportedly" had a gun confiscated, but there are no valid, respected news sources that can back up these allegations.

But it is part of the power of the NRA to make outrageous statements and claims that the government is going to take guns away, and that there is the threat that the 2nd Amendment is going to somehow be removed or changed. It should be noted that in the last one hundred years or more, no proposal to remove or change or alter in any way the 2nd Amendment has been put forward. In order to propose an amendment, both houses of Congress must approve the proposal by a two-thirds vote (Longley, 2010). And then two-thirds of state legislatures must call upon Congress to call a national convention to add an amendment, and "This method has never been used" (Longley, p. 1).

Moreover, three-fourths of state legislatures must approve a change in an amendment or a new amendment. The 21st Amendment (ending prohibition) is the last time states and Congress have come together to change the constitution. So the rhetoric that the NRA uses to promote their agenda, "Help us defend the 2nd Amendment," is basically a smokescreen to promote the idea that the more guns society has the safer the country is, which flies in the face of the fact that "…close to 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire every year" (Medlock, 2005).

"A large part of the NRA's success is due to its ability to manipulate existing irrationalities -- things that make people go real, real crazy -- among its supporters to intensify and mobilize opposition to gun control" (Medlock, 41). LaPierre argues that there might be as many as "…2.5 million more crimes each year & #8230; with an additional incalculable cost in loss of property, health, and life," if law-abiding citizens were not allowed to "exercise their right to self-defense with firearms" (Medlock, 47).

The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Vernick, et al., 1993). Many scholars interpret that amendment to mean that the right to bear arms should not be infringed "by Congress" (Vernick). Does the 2nd Amendment mean that any person in any state can possess a dozen assault rifles, or does it mean that at the federal level, no restrictions on gun ownership can be applied by Congress? The NRA believes the former passage is true.

How Powerful is the NRA?

Recently President Obama's nominee to fill the vacant position of Surgeon General was held up for nearly a year because the NRA didn't like what the candidate (Vivek Murthy) had said about gun violence. Murthy is a Harvard and Yale-educated physician, and well qualified to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. But because he said in an interview well before he was nominated, that gun violence is a public health issue, the NRA "mounted fierce opposition to his nomination…" and that succeeded for the better part of a year before the Senate finally agreed to vote on his confirmation as Surgeon General (Siddiqui, 2015).

More than 100 national organizations stood behind the nomination of Murthy, and the top health officials "under Presidents George W. bush and Bill Clinton also penned letters urging his nomination" (Siddiqui, 2015). But even when the Senate finally got around to voting on the nomination, the NRA, which lobbied heavily among Republicans and Democrats, did not back down. The NRA said that any senator that voted to confirm Murthy would face strong advertising against them in their next election cycle (Siddiqui, p. 2).

Is gun violence a public health issue? Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said, "Go to an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night, and you will tell me that gun violence isn't a public health issue? Gun violence is a public health issue -- no apology necessary" (Siddiqui, p. 2).

On the subject of the NRA threatening to attack candidates who don't support their positions, a good example of the power of the NRA was presented in Colorado in 2013. Colorado's legislature had responded to the mass shootings at an Aurora, Colorado movie theatre, in which a dozen people were killed and more than 70 injured. The new laws that were passed after the movie massacre included "background checks for private gun sales and a limit of ammunition to 15 rounds" (Healy, 2013).

But the NRA launched a recall effort to remove two Colorado Democrats who had supported the new laws, and indeed, the NRA's money and political muscle carried the day and Angela Giron of Pueblo and John Morse of Colorado Springs were bounced out of office in a successful recall campaign (Healy, p. 1). The NRA spent an estimated $362,000 to "oust the two Democrats" who had voted for the gun safety laws; to many observers, the campaign to recall those two elected officials "felt like an attempt to bully legislators who had taken tough votes, and represented a costly hijacking of the democratic process" (Healy, p. 4). A poll taken later in 2013 (that was conducted statewide) found that "Coloradans overwhelmingly opposed the recalls" (Healy, p. 4).

Some States Responded to the Newtown Massacre

While the federal law that President Obama tried to get passed (requiring gun shows to institute background checks), some states did tighten gun laws to some extent, according to CNN. At least five states have tightened gun laws, including Colorado (in response to the killings at a movie theater, as previously mentioned in this paper), Connecticut (where the Newtown massacre took place), and New York State. In Connecticut law makers added "more than 100 guns to its list of banned assault rifles, banned armor-piercing bullets, and limited gun magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds" (in Colorado the limit was put at 15 rounds for ammunition clips) (Drash, et al., 2013).