Last week, the nation was horrified to hear about the mass shooting that occurred at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. But were people shocked? Unfortunately, probably not.
Mass shootings have become an integral part of American culture. Since 2005, there have been at least 32 mass public shootings. We’ve become numb to these massacres. It’s just another day in the land of the free.
There are clear reasons behind our reluctance to confront the problem. The most obvious is the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has most of the politicians on Capitol Hill in its pocket. In fact, the NRA and its allies have funneled over $81 million into the House, Senate and presidential campaigns since 2000. In 2012 alone, the NRA gave $650,000 to members of Congress. (Ninety percent of the recipients were Republicans).
Yet, despite its abundance of money, the NRA often seems to fall short on words. The NRA handles mass shootings with one tactic: silence. After the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting in 2012, the NRA’s Twitter account was inactive for 10 days. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Four days.
The pro-gun lobby has successfully manipulated the national conversation and is holding politicians hostage. They’ve spread this idea that all we really need is a “good guy with a gun” to prevent mass shootings.
Give me a break.
Are you really willing to believe that a moviegoer in Aurora could have stopped Holmes, the shooter, with a handgun? I’m sure it would have been easy to take one extremely accurate shot—except for the smoke, darkness, confusion and the shooter’s protective gear, of course.
If you’re still convinced that the answer to curbing gun violence is more guns, then consider this: Not one of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years has been stopped by armed citizens, contrary to the stories some conservative pundits want to spin.
What happens when average citizens do try to intervene? They end in tragedy, such as in Tyler, Texas, where Mark Wilson, a private citizen, was shot to death while trying to stop a shooter.
Or what about the fact that California –– the state with the strictest gun laws –– has seen a 56 percent drop in the gun death rate over the past 20 years, compared to 29.5 percent nationally? Moreover, according to a report by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, eight out of the 10 states with the weakest gun laws have the highest levels of gun violence in the country.
This isn’t just some emotional appeal to pull on your heartstrings. These are facts –– something that the pro-gun lobby’s argument is clearly missing. Not that the NRA has ever let pesky little facts get in their way before, but there is simply no clear evidence that an increase in guns means a decrease in the number of deaths due to gun violence.
But wait, you might think: What about the mental health issue? The NRA and its supporters love to fall back on that argument, calling for a larger discussion about mental health care, which is “the real issue at hand.”
Yes, let’s talk about it.
Let’s talk about how Republicans in Congress –– many of the same people who are funded by the NRA –– recently introduced legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the 41st time. Let’s talk about how the House GOP is threatening to literally shut down the government if the ACA is not defunded.
Why is the ACA relevant?
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the ACA would allow 2.6 million Americans with mental illness and/or substance abuse issues to be eligible to enroll for health care in the new insurance market which begins on Oct. 1.
This increase in eligibility is mainly due to the act’s provision that prohibits insurers from denying health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions, an issue that many people with mental illnesses have struggled with in the past. The ACA also requires that every health care plan sold through the exchange must cover mental health care under the “essential health benefits” provision.
So why are Republicans so adamant in their attempts to cripple the act? It’s exactly what we need to prevent gun violence, right?
It’s clear from this contradiction that pro-gun activists don’t really mean what they say about mental health care. They simply want to use that as a way to distract from the real issue: Weak gun laws mean more dangerous weapons in the hands of those who should not have them. Politicians are so fearful of the NRA that they are more content to hold candlelight vigils after every mass shooting than to have the courage to stand up to the pro-gun lobby. This is not what we, as a country, deserve from our elected officials.
Rather than retreating to attack on personal character (see “the village buffoon”) or inciting fear about specific religious groups (see “jihad denial syndrome”), it’s important that we have an open dialogue supported by facts that focuses on the safety of the American people. If we can pass sensible gun legislation that could save the lives of innocent civilians, don’t we have an obligation to do so?
Let’s hope that we have learned at least one thing from these mass shootings: Inaction is deadly.
Christine Dickason is a junior public policy leadership major from Collierville, Tenn.
