After a mass shooting is an emotional time, even for those of us who didn't know anyone anywhere near the massacre. The folks who don't want anything done that might inhibit their ability to have as many guns of any kind they want have to say largely-meaningless things like "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families" and (of course) "Now is not the right time to discuss gun control." When they say the latter, they then have to dodge the question, "Well, when is the right time?" since they don't think any time is ever the right time.
Those of us who'd like to see something change have a problem, too. We have to come up with at least some idea of what to do and we're torn between big ideas involving gun confiscation and bans and little ideas like background checks. The trouble with the latter is that they won't do that much good and you can never really be sure how many mass murderers were discouraged by them. The trouble with the former is that they won't happen and even mentioning them causes a lot of folks to rush out and stock up on more guns.
But both sides do have one piece of common ground. We're all afraid of being shot. We who want to reduce the number of guns around have the same goal as those who feel they need more of them: Not being shot. Even most people who just love the idea of owning a dozen AR-15s do not want to be shot.
We hear that each year in this country, there are more than 100 gun deaths per million people…an awful number. But something like two-thirds of those are suicides. As my feeble, never-going-to-go-anywhere suggestion, I would like to toss out the idea that we need to separate those out and not lump the suicides in with the homicides.
It's not that the suicides by gun aren't tragic and awful and all that but there's a difference there. We who are afraid of being shot are not all that afraid of shooting ourselves. Most of us can say with 100% certainty that we are not going to shoot ourselves. And if someone who owns a gun is worried they might, they can seriously reduce the chance of that by getting rid of that gun. Even the most ardent N.R.A.-loving gun advocate will probably not deny you your right to not have a gun in your home. He might even buy yours off you.
I'm just wondering if in those cases — two-thirds of all gun deaths, remember — we don't focus too much on the gun and not enough on the person who might want to turn that gun on themselves. Maybe we need more counseling. Maybe we need to provide more alternatives to someone who is terminally depressed and/or in way too much trouble to get out of by themselves. I just feel like those are gun deaths we can reduce without going mano-a-mano with the "cold dead fingers" people.
It's not much but it's something…and that's usually better than nothing. For more on the third of all gun deaths which scare us, read what Dylan Matthews has to say. I don't have a scintilla of a clue as to how to deal with that but I think we need more pragmatism and the Matthews piece seems very pragmatic to me.
This has been "Today's Post About Yesterday's Mass Shooting." Stay tuned for the next installment of "Today's Post About Yesterday's Mass Shooting," coming way too soon to this blog!