It’s been a few terrible weeks in terms of gun violence in the US. As we remember the mass shooting at Uvalde Elementary and honor lost soldiers during Memorial Day weekend, it’s sobering to realize that in 2021 more children from 0-11 years age have died from gun violence (313), than policemen killed on duty excluding COVID deaths (179) and military personnel on the battlefield (18).
The availability of guns has made the US one of the countries with the highest gun death rates in the world. And some states, like Texas, continue to loosen gun restrictions, allowing people to openly carry a gun without a permit. An argument is made that by providing more weapons to law-abiding citizens, we can reduce gun violence. But as a classroom educator, I don’t believe arming teachers to defend kids from shooters is going to make students safer.
President Biden urged the nation to consider regulation that would do three things: 1) eliminate the sale of assault weapons or raise the age for selling arms to twenty-one; 2) strengthen background checks; and 3) expand “red flag” rules across the US. The House of Representatives passed legislation with some of these measures. The Senate is debating a slimmed down bi-partisan bill.
What are the three aspects of Biden’s proposal?
First, the US had a ban on assault weapons – semi-automatic firearms designed to fire rapidly – but the ban expired over 2 decades ago. Since then, these weapons have been increasingly used in mass shootings, since they can be bought starting at 18-year-olds legally in many states. The US has a Federal prohibition on hand gun sales to individuals below 21 years old, but rifles are allowed for sale from 18-years old (assault weapons are considered rifles).
Second, in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act required licensed gun dealers to run a background check when selling a weapon. Since that time, on-line sales and gun shows have led to un-licensed dealers peddling weapons without checks.
Finally, in some cases people who already have guns may need to be restricted access, “red flag” laws could help. These are laws where courts and policemen can identify dangerous individuals and remove their weapons.
While working in the pharmaceutical industry, an argument from a handful of executives was that restricting opioid distribution in order to reduce drug abuse would hurt law-abiding citizens suffering from pain. The drug was not the problem – it was the abuser.
The gun industry has a similar argument. It’s not the guns but the people using the guns that kill people. True, but restricting access to certain types of semi-automatic firearms makes it significantly harder to kill so many people at one time. For opioids, the medical community now recognizes it is not the abuser but the availability of the dangerous item.
The current version of the Senate bill would expand background checks and “red flags”; it would not ban assault weapons. More needs to be done to monitor availability, this is a first step and a glimmer of hope that Congress is not irreparable.
Although down from 1990, about 60% of Americans want stricter gun control. Moving in the direction of reducing the availability of triggers seems like rational policy. People expressing their perspective in the wake of these shootings is propelling change. Please write to your Senator or Congressperson. My letter to my representative is below.
===
Rep. Zeldin –
I do not support your perspective on the availability of guns. I think the US should 1) restrict sales of assault weapons and raise the age limit of gun purchases to 21; 2) strength background checks and, 3) continue to expand “red flag” laws nationally similar to what we have in Suffolk County.
Law-abiding citizens who have guns will not be impacted by these laws and although you proclaim that this is a slippery slope, your argument is not documented by facts. These laws save lives. In addition, they are more effective when encouraged by law enforcement and the courts as currently occurs in our district.
I do not support your perspective nor your candidacy in the upcoming elections.
WN
