March 28, 2024

Doing Something

June 17, 2016

It’s likely we will do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Politicians will yammer, committees will be formed, legislation will be introduced and, in the end, we will do nothing.

We’re very good at the post-massacre activity: The spontaneous memorial to Orlando’s Pulse nightclub tragedy, featuring the requisite teddy bears, flowers and candles, grew within hours. The candlelight march/vigils and the non-denominational memorial services followed. A committee soon will be formed to decide on a fitting and permanent memorial to the victims so we will “never forget.”

There will be dot-connecting aplenty, as there always is, not to mention the pointing of fingers.

Congressional hearings will be held, giving politicians valuable air time but finding no solution of any consequence. Families of the victims will form some kind of organization dedicated to preventing it from happening again.

But happen again it surely will. Over and over.

This is the 15th time in his presidency that Barack Obama has stepped to the podium to decry a mass shooting. He only shows up for the big ones; shootings happen with such frequency that the majority don’t even make the evening news, much less attract the attention of the White House. (We say nothing at all about the 31 people, on average, murdered every day by gunfire.)

We all wonder why nothing can be done to stop the next one. Surely there must be something. What?

Hillary Clinton has suggested banning assault rifles. But such a ban would accomplish nothing unless it prohibits all semi-automatic long guns. It’s only cosmetics that make assault rifles look so fearsome. The same basic weapon — same ammunition, same muzzle velocity, same semi-automatic action, same magazines, same killing power — can also exist in a form that looks like an average hunting rifle, wood stock and all. Such a ban doesn’t even include all the semi-automatic handguns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) estimates there are between 270 million and 310 million guns already in circulation, a number that includes millions of so-called assault weapons. So even if we stopped the sale of all guns tomorrow, we won't have solved much.

And for every Clinton suggesting gun restrictions there will be those on the other side demanding more gun freedom. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rife Association’s Merchant of Violence, will insist that armed people inside the club could have stopped the madness. (He will conveniently ignore the fact that an armed, offduty police officer was there, engaged the madman in a gun battle, and was unable to prevent the mayhem.)

Then shouldn’t we at least prevent these terrorists from getting guns? How? This American-born murderer was interviewed more than once by the FBI, found to be guilty of nothing, and sent on his way. The FBI simply does not have the personnel to monitor every cranky individual. It can't arrest someone for being angry, stupid or radical, nor can it prevent that person from legally obtaining weapons.

Then why don’t we crack down on Muslims, put them all under surveillance? Because the vast majority of mass shooters aren’t Muslims at all; they’re young, white, middle-class American men. We don’t call them terrorists because they don't have a political agenda, but their victims are just as dead, surviving families just as shattered.

There are a couple of things we actually could do that would at least help a little.

First, we could shore up and expand our behavioral health system. Those working in the field do so under crushing caseloads and diminishing resources; the so-called safety net is more holes than net. We clearly have people who need help but politicians without the will to make it happen. An expansion of the system might divert some from a murderous choice.

It would also help to find a constitutional way for the behavioral health and law enforcement communities to coordinate useful information. We have to figure out a better way to keep at least legally purchased guns out of the hands of the unstable people who want them. Some of them, anyway.

Second, it’s time to get the hateful speech and terrorist recruitment off social media and the internet. This is not a free speech issue. The First Amendment says, “The government [writer’s emphasis] shall make no law … ” The private sector can and regularly does abridge all manner of speech.

The notion that the internet should run wild and free is nice but outdated. Sites and messages that assist in recruiting terrorism, and encourage people to kill the rest of us, should be removed and blocked. We’ll never block them all, but making someone work a little harder to find his hate fix would be worth it.

We have among us deranged people who need help but aren't getting it, who can be encouraged to kill with a few keystrokes, and who easily can buy guns.

If we’re going to do something, let’s start there.

Trending

Mysterious Michigan Reads

We can’t think of a better way to spend spring break than with a great book. Northern Express asked local bookseller... Read More >>

Heirloom Recipes With Heritage, History, and Nostalgia

Before we begin to stash our coats and put winter behind us, let us remember what years past have taught us…fake sp... Read More >>

A Floral Family Affair

In the quaint downtown of Elk Rapids sits Golden Hill Farms, a shop where the artistry of floristry meets the rustic charm... Read More >>

A Look at Originalism

O Tempora O Mores! Oh the times, oh the culture. This Latin phrase relates to both the 18th century and our current times.... Read More >>