3,700.
The number seems random, doesn’t it? Like a kid is trying to guess how many jellybeans are in a jar at the local carnival.
3,700 is the number of confirmed gun-related deaths in America since the Newtown massacre just over four months ago.
The number is mounting every day. You can find it online by following Slate’s gun death-tracker, which keeps a detailed daily tally. With this kind information open to the American government and the public, why are these weapons still easily available?
I’m not asking for guns to be banned in America; there’s a reason quitting cold turkey generally isn’t successful, and we all know it would only create an illegal underground gun trade. But why is America so opposed to making guns a little harder to obtain for the people who are banned from buying guns already?
At this point, only licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks. Gun-show sales are still mostly unregulated. Of course, by law, anyone who “engage[s] in the business” of selling or buying guns is required to have a license and conduct background checks; however, what the government defines as engaging in business leaves a gray area.
I personally believe the biggest problem is the most unregulated territory of gun sales: the Internet. The problem with buying and selling guns on the internet is it allows transactions to be largely anonymous. While it is illegal to ship a gun across state lines without going through a licensed gun dealer, and therefore a background check, in-state gun shipments are generally unregulated. According to The New York Times, private parties that don’t require background checks post 94 percent of the ads on Armslist, a top gun-dealing website. Some ads even make clear that there will be no questions asked or paperwork required.
So why did only 54 of the 100 senators vote to expand background checks on gun buyers? The bill only needed 60 votes to pass. Even more, why didn’t the senate pass it when Senator John McCain confirmed that 80 percent of Americans wanted to see extensive background checks on gun buyers? The background check, which was one of the least extreme of the new gun legislation measures, failed along with the ban on assault weapons and the ban on magazines carrying over ten rounds of ammunition. (Because assault rifles and immense rounds of ammunition are necessary to hunt with, right?) Only two measures of the proposed gun legislation passed, both of which were supported by the gun lobby. The first attempts to improve mental health identification and treatment, while the second penalizes states that disclose information about gun owners outside of a criminal investigation.
Some say the National Rifle Association could be blamed for the Senate’s failure. According to The New York Times, the N.R.A. pursued the Senate with various forms of communication and spent $500,000 on April 17 in attack ads against the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Former Representative and gun-wound survivor, Gabrielle Giffords, wrote in a New York Times editorial that the senators who voted against the background checks “made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association”. She later continues, “They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing.”
I keep these assertions in quotes because I can find no better way to say it myself. These measures had one purpose and one purpose only: to protect American citizens. There are Democrats who voted against the bill because they are up for reelection in their conservative states. So why are these senators even in the government at all if not to support such important decisions? Other left wing Democrats were insulted by gun-right measures that were included to coax Republican support; but if both sides can’t compromise, no bill will ever be passed. This is not a debate about whether or not it is right to compromise. This is not even a debate about the Second Amendment. This is a debate about American safety.
However, it appears that even required background checks may not solve the entire problem. In 2011, the City of New York conducted an undercover investigation and found 77 out of 125 private parties selling guns online sold to someone who admitted they might not pass a background check. This is where the change needs to begin.
If the Senate can’t pass new gun legislation, the gun dealers need to take the step to start regulating themselves. I would have a hard time believing that gun dealers who are aware they enabled a murderer wouldn’t feel guilt. If private parties begin insisting on background checks, even though they are not required to do so, deaths might decrease. The American government might begin to take notice. Yes, the Senate may be a tough crowd, but Nevada Senator Harry Reid changed his vote at the last minute for a reason. The Senate can now bring the measure up again.
Giffords is counting on it. She ended her editorial assertively, writing, “Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.”
I suppose the least we can do is trust that she is right.
Caitlin Plummer, a senior at Meadowdale High School and co-editor of Meadowdale’s newspaper, The Maverick, enjoys writing about a broad range of topics that are on her mind. She was born in Lynnwood and lives there with her parents, her younger brother and her golden retriever, Cinnamon. Her future aspirations include earning a degree in journalism and writing for a major news source.
Very well thought out and written, and it gets right to the crux f the matter. Why indeed do these senators and others in either party even bother to be in the U. S. government. These days, it really feels as though our senators and other governing officials are cowering to lobbyists entirely, or lining their own pockets, perhaps, with the bribes from the lobbyists. What ever happened to the concept that we the people are the ones these elected people in the first place are supposed to be listened to?? We pay these people, but they choose not to listen to us? What happened to our government? Is it now completely based on nothing but greed?
Really Caitlin? Seriously? I have bad news for you – THERE’S ALREADY AN ILLEGAL UNDERGROUND GUN TRADE! Every dark and sinister Internet sale activity you list is ALREADY ILLEGAL. More bad news – criminals don’t follow the law. And how could you possilby know that gun show sales are still mostly unregulated? When was the last time YOU were at a gun show? Why aren’t you advocating for enforcing the laws we already have against criminal activity instead of advocating for more laws to criminalize non-criminals. And why aren’t you advocating for state compliance with NICS reporting requirements (see https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-fix-gun-checks-act-better-state-and-federal-compliance-smarter-enforcement)? Do you know that the Virginia Tech shooter (the perpetrator of the WORST mass shooting in US history) was able to acquire firearms from an FFL despite a disqualifying mental adjudication because the records of his adjudication were never transmitted to the NICS Index.
It’s also important to remember that the NRA is not just a policy lobby – it is the voice of MILLIONS of law abiding US citizens that have all the same rights as you do and pay membership fees for active representation in government process. As much as the NRA is demonized by the ignorant that same demonization is passed to that membership. How “fair” is that?
If you’re going to write for the general populace it’s time to stop getting your facts from Jon Stewart and omg! and do a little solid topic research. Otherwise you’ll end up just as irrelevant as the rest of them…
Facts: Gun ownership is up, violent crime is down, per the FBI. Chicago has totally outlawed guns yet they have one of the highest gun death rates in the country followed by DC which also outlaws guns. Criminals, gangsters and the mentally ill will always get guns w/o doing so legally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/s
“In 2010, nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns after providing false information about their criminal histories during the background check. Technically, it’s a felony to lie during this process. Yet only 44 would-be buyers were ever charged with a crime, according to the New York Times….” Please read the link.
Current laws are not being enforced. Those 80,000 Americans should have been prosecuted. Also, IMO, anyone committing a crime, any crime, with a gun should be sentenced to at least 10 years in prison, no exceptions! Until we start enforcing current laws with hard time sentencing no amount of background checks will help.
In closing, no amount of background checks, or national registration of firearms would have prevented Newtown, which broke my heart, or any other nut case attack on our fellow humans. There is madness in the world. See the current trail of abortionist Dr. Gosnell. How many children have died by abortion since Newtown?
One last thing from the constitution of the State of Washington: SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Your comment of referring to “cold turkey” prompts me to post this. Just incase you have not read the full text here it is: https://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx
Hopefully Washington State Public Education is still addressing at least an hour or two towards the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America! https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Ms. Plummer – a well written column, keep up the good work. I’m not sure why others didn’t see, but it was quite clear to me that you are advocating to enforce existing laws and rules. Michael does makes one good point though, and that is if we utilized a background check system that was more refined and universal, it might have worked better, and possibly Seung-Hui Cho might have been denied access if his mental status had been effectively communicated. As far as the NRA standing in as “the voice of millions” here are some numbers to crunch; The NRA has about 4.5 million “members” this year (I paid dues once in 2004, and I’m still a “member”) and there are about 110 million individual gun owners in the U.S., which means that NRA represents about 4% of gun owners. I believe it would be more mathematically correct to assert that the NRA represents a much higher percentage of American gun manufacturers – it’s likely much closer to 100% than 4%. Also, in the failed attempt to link a couple of unrelated statistics or “Facts” as Tom calls them, gun ownership may be up in terms of numbers of units being sold, however the percentage of people owning guns peaked in the early 1970’s at about 52%, and has waned to about 35% now. Population growth accounts for some of this, and also that the people who already own guns, are buying more. There are about 88 guns per 100 people, but only 35% of 315 million own guns, so each gun owner has about 2.5 guns (which is exactly what I have, 2 good ones and 1 broken one). To suggest crime is reducing because of increased unit sales of guns is a real stretch, anyone with any degree or scientific background knows how difficult causation is to prove, or dis-prove. Recently, there appears to be increasing consensus among most (I’ve heard that 80-90% of U.S. citizens are in favor of background checks for all) that enacting some new laws to restrict gun sales to mentally ill, felons etc., is what Americans want. In the wake of recent shooting catastrophes, politicians had an opportunity to take some very reasonable steps. Now, many of the politicians who were focused on toeing the line for the NRA, are now finding out that they should have been toeing the line for “We The People.”
Matt, I thought I made it very clear that enforcing existing laws and stiffer penalties for gun crimes was the answer, not more laws imposing more restrictions on law abiding citizens, and certainly not the NRA. When Chicago & DC ban guns totally yet come up on the high side of death by gun, there is a problem with gun laws. Please reread this comment from my original post.
Current laws are not being enforced. Those 80,000 Americans should have been prosecuted. Also, IMO, anyone committing a crime, any crime, with a gun should be sentenced to at least 10 years in prison, no exceptions! Until we start enforcing current laws with hard time sentencing no amount of background checks will help.
Gangsters, criminals and the mentally ill are the problem. The mentally ill accessing guns is especially disturbing to me especially in light of recent events yet has all but been ignored in this debate. The problem is not the NRA or any other law abiding constitutional gun owner in this great country. Until we the people figure out how to solve the real problems of gun violence no amount of new gun laws will make a difference.
Matthew,
Regardless of what Seung-Hui Cho “might possibly have been denied…”, he wasn’t, specifically because the current system is ineffective due to willful neglect and more restrictions and penalties on non-criminals will be just as ineffective. Nor is continuing to demonize the NRA as representatives of a lunatic fringe that you were apparently at one time part of. I believe the reason NRA membership is not higher is primarily because gun owners resent having to pay for a representative voice in government, because that’s why I’m not a current member. As long as proponents of gun control continue this debate from a position of emotionalistic melodrama and ignore the true root of the issue, which is the way we deal with mental health issues in this country, the NRA will be relevant regardless of who their membership is or who contributes to the cause.
The Chicago and DC bans were struck down by the supreme court in the 1st decision in American history to affirm a personal right to own a firearm for self-defense (DC v. Heller – 2008). There is no distinguishable trend in firearms ownership and violent crime, and if there was we wouldn’t know because no objective gun research has been funded for over a decade. The international data shows a clear correlation between lower ownership rates and lower death rates. Our country has a very long tradition of gun control, right alongside gun rights. In fact, it is right there in the constitution (A well-REGULATED militia being necessary…)
I agree that we should enforce the current law. The way you enforce it is by performing a background check. If you want speeding laws enforced, cops need radar guns; If you want drunk driving laws enforced, they need breathalyzers; If you want gun laws enforced you need background checks. Could we enforce immigration laws if we only checked papers at official crossings but any private landowner on the border could let anyone through? No, that would be stupid, just like having different rules based on who is selling a gun is stupid.
I have never supported gun control legislation in my life, but what happened in Newtown, after what has happened too many times in too many other places, changed me. It made me more open to some specific measures, not all. I enjoy shooting and I have never felt burdened by a background check, exactly the opposite, I feel comforted knowing it is that much more difficult for criminals and the insane to get a weapon. You can assert that criminals would get ahold of weapons even if it was illegal, but that ignores reality. It’s currently illegal to purchase fully automatic weapons, grenades, etc. without special licenses. How many mass shootings are committed with those? Don’t criminals want fully auto weapons? So, why don’t they get them on the black market as you suggest?
I have listened carefully to the details of the debate and I support universal background checks and a limit on rounds because I am convinced by the evidence and reasoned argumants that those things WILL ABSOLUTELY have an impact on reducing the instances and lethality of mass shootings. Limiting rounds provides more opportunities to return fire and end a tragedy sooner (Several shootings have been stopped when the shooter was reloading, That’s a fact). I don’t support a ban on semi-automatics or restrictions on concealed carry. I still support broad gun rights and I don’t find the proposals offensive in the least. A couple things I do find interesting though: 1) NRA supported bans on open carry enacted in the 60’s and 70’s prompted by the Black Panthers taking rifles into the CA state capitol. 2) For those who insist we keep guns to revolt – in 2011, the people of Tunisia, the country with the lowest level of firearms ownership in the world, successfully overthrew thier authoritarian regime, while in 2013 the 90% of Americans that support universal background checks were defeated by an armed Tyranny of the Minority.