Pages

Sunday, June 6, 2021

Awkward question about gun safety

The killing of nine innocent victims at the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail yard in San Jose, California on 26 May was horrific. The gunman, himself a VTA employee, possessed what police later discovered to be a veritable arsenal, including more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition. He also appears to have tried to divert emergency responders away from the light rail yard by setting his house on fire (via a delayed-ignition mechanism) at approximately the same time he was starting his rampage. Clearly, he planned very carefully for his murder spree.

The gunman committed suicide as police closed in so we will never hear a reason for the slaughter from his lips. However, statements from his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend suggest that he was volatile — possibly mentally ill, though he was never diagnosed. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reported that the gunman had been detained by Customs officials in 2016 after returning from the Philippines; per the San Francisco Chronicle, the officials "found a notebook expressing hatred for his workplace, along with books about terrorism".

The Santa Clara County district attorney says Homeland Security never contacted San Jose police to report the 2016 encounter.

“I am concerned about an individual who has books about terrorism and is so angry at their coworkers that they are writing it down, not typing it but taking pen-to-paper and writing down how angry they are. Now that’s not a crime to do those things but it is certainly something for a D.A., for a police chief, would be of interest."
The D.A. has a point. On the other hand, what exactly would local officials have been able to do?

The Second Amendment, as the modern-day SCOTUS has interpreted it, offers a virtually unfettered right for private citizens to own firearms. There are very limited circumstances under which someone may be permanently barred from gun ownership, or have his or her weapons' temporarily seized (under so-called "red flag" laws). However, the exceptions are extremely narrow.

And when it comes right down to it, what law would have allowed police either to seize this guy's weapons, or to prevent him from buying them, prior to his rampage?

That's the awkward question this incident raises. It's why gun-safety advocates would be well-advised not to use this tragedy to argue for strengthened gun-safety legislation.

Yes, this guy was volatile and angry. However, this country has no shortage of volatile, angry people, and most of them, even if they own guns, don't shoot other people. (At least, that's my impression; if you've done the research to prove me wrong, speak up.)

Unfortunately, the ones who do pop their cork kill more than enough of the rest of us. Shooting sprees that kill four or more people at once (the definition of "mass shooting" used by some incident trackers) grab the headlines but a lot more of us die one or two at a time, often at the hands of someone we know.

So, absent the ability to read minds or peer into the future, shootings large and small will plague us. Prudent laws (limiting magazine size, for instance) might reduce the damage but ultimately shootings are unavoidable so long as private gun ownership is treated as sacrosanct.

(By the way, don't start with that "if everybody were armed we'd all be safer" crap. The idea that "good guys with guns" can neutralize the threat of "bad guys" is simpleminded horseshit that would leave the country hip-deep in bodies.)

This lamentable situation has convinced me that the Second Amendment must go. Moreover, its repeal must be followed by the drying-up of the unfathomably large surplus of firearms already in private hands. Neither of these things is likely to happen in my lifetime but nevertheless, that's my hope.

(I'll offer one alternative to repeal of the Second Amendment: an ironclad rule that gun ownership be licensed at least as strictly as driving, with periodic psychological exams to determine emotional fitness to operate guns safely. I doubt any such examination is possible today or will be possible in my lifetime.)

No comments:

Post a Comment