Following the tragic mass shooting in Charleston, President Obama said, “Any death of this sort is a tragedy… There is something particularly heartbreaking about death happening in a place in which we seek solace and we seek peace.” No reasonable person can disagree. Sitting in prayer with a group of people and then shooting them is as unfathomable as opening fire in an elementary school.
The president continued, “[O]nce again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence…doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.”
{mosads}It has been reported that the killer, whose name is not worth repeating, obtained his Glock .45 handgun at a gun shop in Charleston. That means he passed a background check. If his name was not on the prohibited list, then no background check would have stopped the sale. The Sandy Hook shooter killed his mother to obtain her legally-purchased firearms.
The president is also correct that, although, other “advanced countries” have mass shootings, they are not as frequent as in the United States. Most other “advanced countries” do not have the number of firearms in circulation as we see in the United States, currently about 300 million. They also do not have the Second Amendment, which, like it or not, has been held by the Supreme Court to mean that we have an individual right to possess firearms for purposes including self defense.
When the president talked about doing something about it, he certainly was referring to stricter gun laws. Without doubt, he would think of these as “common sense laws.” They would include universal background checks, banning “military-style” firearms, requiring government permission to purchase a firearm, owner licensing, etc. Many of those restrictions are favored in public opinion polls, although opinion has been trending in the direction of gun rights. All of this assumes that firearms are the problem.
We often hear this narrative, but rarely is the same amount of attention spent on the stories of armed persons helping to stop a potential mass murder. The death of Carol Bowne in New Jersey on June 3, for example, has been almost uniformly ignored.
Fearful of a violent ex-boyfriend, Bowne obtained a restraining order against him, installed security cameras and an alarm system on her home, and applied for a permit to get a handgun for her protection. State law requires citizens to pass a background check, submit fingerprints, and pay a fee. Local police then conduct their own investigation before issuing or denying a permit. The process is supposed take 30 days, but often takes several months. Bowne had applied on April 21 but had not heard back from the police. On June 3, she was fatally stabbed by the ex-boyfriend as she exited her car in her driveway. The state permit, had it arrived, would only have allowed her possess the gun in her house, so it would not have allowed her to carry it in her driveway.
The story only earned mention by the local news and conservative outlets. Does her story not merit coverage because she was stabbed, not shot? Because she was only one person? Or because her story simply does not fit the prevailing narrative that guns are dangerous and are rarely, if ever, used in self-defense?
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 22 percent of likely voters in the United States would prefer to live in a neighborhood where no one was allowed to own a gun, while 68 percent would rather live in a neighborhood where you could have gun for personal protection.
How many times have we heard “if we can save only one life, then it is worth it?” Maybe we should reconsider “gun-free zones” which seem to be a magnet for deranged killers. Perhaps New Jersey and other states should examine their laws dealing with firearm possession.
But let’s be clear: guns are not always the solution, but guns are not always the problem either.
Wilson is professor of public affairs at Roanoke College in Virginia and author of “The Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument: Why the Gun Control Debate Is Over” and “Guns, Gun Control and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms.”