Yesterday I wrote saying it could be dangerous to knock on the wrong door.
Today Nick Kristof wrote about it in the New York Times.
I think I can gift this article to readers, even if you don't subscribe to the NY Times. Click here.
My post was framed as a warning to readers. Americans keep buying guns, now at the rate of about two million a month. The more Democrats talk about restricting guns, the more people buy them. An idea getting increased traction among Americans is that they should have a gun handy for "personal protection." I warned they are using these guns if they are angry or spooked. Kristof, too, gave a warning. He warns potential new gun owners that having a gun makes a person more likely to be the victim of gun violence. He cited statistics that gun violence has now eclipsed motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children and teenagers. The drift of Kristof's post is to discourage gun ownership.
I think this is a lost cause. My Democratic friends want to ban "assault rifles" and get guns out of the hands of the "wrong people." I think is a nice wish, but unrealistic, given the politics of guns, the current interpretation of the Constitution, and human nature. It is backfiring as a political issue. Americans -- a great many of them -- like their guns. Americans -- pretty much all of us -- don't like being told we cannot do something we were accustomed to doing. (Republicans are learning that about abortion and mifepristone. The issue is backfiring on them politically. Moreover, like people worried about losing access to guns, blue state health departments are stocking up on mifepristone, just in case.)
Many of the "wrong people" will have guns. I have talked with my own county sheriff about "red flag" restrictions. They are meaningless.
People are free to buy, own, and carry handguns [*** see note below] if they meet the minimal qualification of not being a felon, not having been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past four years, and not being the respondent in a current restraining or stalking order. That's it. Being "dangerous" or "crazy" is subjective. What constitutes a "threat" is subjective. Police departments aren't staffed to do mental health examinations and then defend them in court. In my county one can be crazy as a loon shouting gibberish at strangers in public parks, a stumble-down drunk, or a person notorious for making statements wishing the early violent death of public officials, but that person can carry a loaded weapon anywhere. It isn't illegal to be a walking time-bomb. Only when it goes off. Be warned.
Can Democrats do anything to stop gun violence? Possibly Democrats could make it less about the right to acquire and carry a gun and more about requiring gun owners to know the law and safe use of their guns. Kristof made the point that it is far more rigorous to adopt a dog than it is to own and carry a gun.
We don't attempt to prohibit people from buying or driving cars, but we do require people pass a test on driving laws, pass a vision test, and pass a driving test. Would it be impossible to require gun owners and carriers to pass a test on the legal use of the gun? Is it too much to ask that people know how to aim and fire it and hit what they intend to hit? Isn't there a constituency for protecting bystanders from wild shots?
Even the strongest abortion-rights advocates accept the idea that abortions should be performed by people trained to do them, not by just anyone. They accept that abortion drugs must be dispensed by licensed professionals and sold in pharmacies, not alongside candy in convenience stores. The fact that abortions are safe is part of why there is majority support for them.
If it is inevitable that Americans will own guns if they want them --and I think that is the case--then perhaps Democratic focus could be on gun safety, not gun possession. Gun owners should know how to use them legally and safely. Let gun-rights advocates argue the position that citizens don't need to know anything or need to be able to hit what they aim at. It will not stop mass shootings. Bad people will get guns and use them. This is America. The guns are here. The attitudes are intrenched. It will be decades or centuries before that changes. But here and now it might turn the public debate from pro-gun or anti-gun into safe-gun or free-for-all. That is much stronger political space for doing something about gun injury and deaths.
It is a start.
[*** Note: An earlier version of this post inaccurately included the word "concealed" handgun in my report that a person needed no instruction. People can purchase and carry a handgun freely, but people seeking a concealed handgun permit are required to take and pass a handgun safety course and pay a $60 fee.]
I remember when the NRA was focused on gun safety.
Responsible gun ownership involves keeping firearms locked up and unloaded. Should you need it for protection, you have to scramble to get it ready. There are alternatives arguably better than fumbling around while danger approaches. One is wasp/hornet spray, an aerosol can that easily shoots a stream of insect poison well over twenty feet that will blind an assailant. A second is an aerosol horn used for nautical signaling. Its 100db screeching will disorient or at least frighten. When time is of the essence you are more likely to use one of these.