Fort Hood Reminds Us: Our Gun Laws Are a National Disgrace

Our current lack of health insurance for all is a national disgrace. But so are our handgun laws -- or lack of them.

You'd think you might have heard a bit more about our heedless national pistolero mentality in the wall-to-wall TV coverage of the tragic shootings at Fort Hood this week. But no such luck. How many times have we seen this movie before? It's only the locations that change.

There was only scant mention in all the coverage that suspected mass murderer Nidal Hasan had bought his lethal cop-killer handgun at "Guns Galore" in nearby Killeen, Texas. How charming.

Why is it that comic Stephen Colbert seems to be the only one on national TV who regularly reminds us about this country's twisted love of handguns? (Colbert keeps his piece, "Sweetness," under his anchor desk, occasionally taking it out to smooch its barrel).

Something I've written in my newspaper columns about for years bears repeating here:

Any country with as many mentally ill people as the U.S. that allows virtually unlimited access to handguns is on a suicide mission.

Gun sickness is our most pressing national illness.

I live within sight of the Canadian border, and Americans who visit Canada are often surprised at how serious Canadian customs officials regard guns -- specifically, bringing them into relatively handgun-free Canada. Where are these people's priorities, they seem to be saying?

(Note: Canadian customs can -- and does -- turn people back at the border who have a DUI conviction. Again, different national priorities).

Canadians recognize handguns as a direct threat to civilized society, unlike here, where the NRA and the gun-toters evidently believe we're living in Tombstone, Ariz., circa 1885.

How many more mass shootings and troubled-loner gun sprees (what the New York Post calls "Slayfests") can we afford before we finally get serious about gun control? How much longer will network TV news continue to soft-peddle and play down this most basic issue?

I don't really care that much about what drove Hasan to apparently murder all those soldiers, which has been the prime focus of nonstop cable news. The fact is, he did. What I DO care about is how easy it was for him to get the means -- a lethal gun -- to do it.

Not to belabor the Canadian issue -- we Americans are, after all, the noisy, gun-toting downstairs neighbors -- but re-entering the U.S. after living in Canada for several years (which we did) was a maddening experience.

We lived a major metropolitan area, Montreal, for seven years. And even in the more disadvantaged parts of that city, you feel safe. You never feel you might get shot, either by a handgun-toting robber or a troubled loner.

Coming back into the United States you lose that peace of mind. It's like a slap in the face.

Don't believe me? Ask anyone else who's lived in a developed country in which handguns are restricted and can't be bought as easily as cigarettes.

We have millions of sick Americans who need health insurance. But there are even more of us who live in danger of being shot by an easy-to-obtain weapon. It's way past time for the media to pay attention to THIS life and death issue.

 

Follow Bill Mann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/newsmann

Comments

[Sleepy1988]

"Owning a gun is a constitutional right."
OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause, it can't stand without the sentence "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Supreme court ruled as much in Heller vs DC.

Everyone who isn't a convicted felon has a right to own a handgun, if you don't like it, move back to Canada, or better yet, the UK.

One more thing, there have been killing sprees with knives.

On June 8, 2008, a man killed seven and wounded ten in the Akihabara district of Tokyo.

Also in Japan on the same date in 2001, a man with a history of mental illness killed eight children and wounded fifteen students and teachers in the city of Osaka.

According to the logic of the liberals posting comments about this story, the Japanese aren't sane enough to own metal knives.

Your view, the same one that many of your readers share, says volumes about the way liberals think, they down upon others as a mob needing to be controlled and restrained.

[leeclayton]

Your comment reads as though it had been put through a blender.

[Sleepy1988]

And does that make my points any less relevant?

[djcrsn]

All your comments indicate that your logic circuits are seriously fried

[JuliaRain]

Mr. Mann has called out and addressed some of the most ridiculous comments in this post on a new article here:

Handgun Crowd Returns Fire Post Fort Hood -- No Surprise Here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/handgun-crowd-returns-fir_b_354049.html

[GritsJr]

Great blog, love it!

[Thirdpower]

Of course you do. It's devoid of facts.

[MajorTom125]

Yeah, great piece, if you like ad hominem-filled ranting.

There seems to be a double standard around here. It would be nice if WE were allowed to take the gloves off, but that will never happen.

Some people have no idea what the word 'liberal' means.

[mike102]

"Our current lack of health insurance for all is a national disgrace. But so are our handgun laws -- or lack of them."

We have a lack of handgun laws? What does that mean, it's not illegal to own a handgun?

Ever hear of NICS?

I live in NJ. There are enough gun laws here to choke a horse. This doesn't seem to have any effect in places like Camden (twice voted 'most dangerous city in the US), Trenton, Newark, and a half dozen other NJ cities, where you wouldn't be caught dead in broad daylight, let alone after dark.

[GritsJr]

Actually, of the 50 states, New Jersey has the 6th lowest gun death per capita rate in the nation (CDC data, 2006).

Jersey's laws are working quite well and saving many lives.

[Dimensio]

The total homicide rate of New Jersey is slightly less than the national average, but this is also true for many states that have not implemented unreasonable firearms restrictions, and in fact several states without such restrictions experience an overall lower homicide rate. As an example, the firearms homicide rate of New Hampshire, a state with relatively few firearms restrictions, is notably higher than the firearms homicide rate of New Jersey, but the total homicide rate within the state is significantly lower than the total homicide rate of New Jersey.

An analysis of homicides committed with the use of firearms is useful only if there exists interest in reducing the number of homicides committed with firearms without concern as to whether homicides are instead committed with other implements.

Do you believe it preferable for individuals to be murdered through the use of implements other than firearms?

[SnowflakesInHell]

Don't be fooled. "Gun Deaths" include suicides. If you just count violent crime, there are plenty of states with "lax" gun laws which have lower rates than New Jersey.

[mike102]

"Jersey's laws are working quite well and saving many lives."

Don't tell me, Grits. I live here.

Granted, there aren't very many shootings in places like Cherry Hill (most of the population lives in the burbs).

Check out the per capita murder rate in Camden or Newark, then get back to me.

You armchair experts get on my nerves.

[GritsJr]

The only states with a lower gun death rate than New Jersey are New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

[shp]

Couldn't respond on the other thread so here it is:

You just can't rap around the fact that the states I mentioned (AL, PA, KY) have large rural populations where law enforcement response time is lengthy and those populations need a way to protect themselves, as your own stats prove. Stop trying to compare NJ to the rest of the nation when it's like comparing an egg (NJ) to an elephant (AL) just based on the land mass and cop per square mile.

[Nonpartay]

I couldn't agree more. I refuse to own a gun, but I'm not unaware that it is possible I will be shot by some gang member just driving down the street. It really is quite unnerving. I wish there was a campaign to get people to give up their guns. We had one many years ago, but that has been long forgotten. We shouldn't be surprised that so many people are so negative in this society. The gun promoters have made everyone feel paranoid, which makes people want to get a gun, which makes even more people paranoid. It is a vicious circle. I don't know when it will end. How many more have to die senseless deaths like this before we finally get the message?

BTW, my own grandmother was shot to death long before I was born when my mom was 15. Her mother's boyfriend shot her and then shot himself. This was in the 30s, so this has been a huge problem in our society for a really long time. If he hadn't had a gun, I think all our lives could have been a lot different.

As far as I'm concerned, far too many Americans are just nuts and all these guns floating around are just obviously a HUGE problem! Is it worth the anxiety to enable anyone to own a gun? I don't think so!

[mike102]

"I refuse to own a gun, but I'm not unaware that it is possible I will be shot by some gang member just driving down the street. "

Exactly. One problem. The gangbangers down the street didn't buy their guns legally. They didn't go to a gun store, or go through a background check. They buy stolen guns. No checks, and they don't have to pay retail.

Gun laws don't have much effect on people who constantly break the law (aka criminals).

[Nonpartay]

Well, if one of them had broken into my house looking for guns to steal, they wouldn't have found one, so that would be one less gun in the hands of a criminal. There is an atmosphere in this country that creates a desire to have a gun. It's a macho thing, making the not so powerful feel powerful. There are many other cultures where this is not seen as desirable, and hardly anyone owns a gun. It's not necessary here, imho, unless you're out in the woods with no police around to protect you. That's not the case for the vast majority of people in this country these days. Fewer guns floating around would make for a more peaceful society, imho. At least if someone wanted to harm you, they'd have to be in your face about it, not down the block. That would take guts that someone with a gun doesn't even need.

[CanadianBeef]

Now that gun makers have soaked America in guns, they have it made in the shade. Having made America so dangerous, they can sell to new people who will buy guns to protect themselves from the guns already in circulation. Man, this product sells itself now! Fantastic.

[abbienormal]

Capitalism combined with weak governance requires a modicum of intelligence, grace, and common sense from its citizens. As you can see, the American citizenry has fallen way short on these requirements.

[rflctammt]

Well stated.
I rest my case.

[JTHC75]

Er, handguns are available in Canada too, as well as regular long guns. The difference is that Canada doesn't have much of a "shoot people with my gun" kind of culture. Same as Switzerland, where every adult male keeps a military assault rifle at home. Despite the prevalence of guns, the Swiss don't bust out their full-auto rifles when they have personal issues.

The fact is, this guy had a religious/­ideologica­l/psycholo­gical beef with people and likely would have done serious damage with or without a gun. He could just as easily have built a bomb and killed the same number of people.

The whole "cop-killer" thing makes me laugh. Anyone familiar with firearms will tell you that the 5.7mm is significantly less lethal than the more common 9mm or other larger caliber handgun loads. Its a bit of a gimmicky gun designed to penetrate body armor (with very specific ammunition) in a small and lightweight package. But aside from that feature, it's little different than a .22 magnum, which is really a round to hunt rodents. Any gun is lethal enough if aimed in the right spot or if you hit something with enough bullets. In all likelihood, the large death toll probably resulted from (1) a large, concentrated number of unarmed targets, (2) his carrying lots of ammunition, and (3) the probability that many servicemembers tried to charge him instead of running away as civilians do.

[CanadianBeef]

While reasonable­-sounding, your post repeats two common myths used by pro-gun folks.
First, I agree that the Fort Hood could have done "a lot of damage" with or without a gun. But do you really think he could have killed or severely injured 43 (!!) people with a knife, before someone could stop him?
Second, it is untrue that handguns are as common or as easy to get in my country as in yours. There are no franchises of Guns Galore in my country. I wouldn't even know where to buy such a weapon. That is pure fantasy.

[GritsJr]

It's total nonsense. There are no dramatic differences in culture. Citizens of other industrialized democracies watch the same movies we do, listen to the same music, etc., etc.

The difference is the U.S. has more guns than any nation on earth and the weakest gun laws, BY FAR, of any industrialized democracy.

The result, astronomically high gun death rates, is predictable and will not change till the NRA is run out of Washington.

[Dimensio]

Do you believe that deaths by causes other than misuse of firearms are acceptable?

[RedXIV]

Do you really think the movies that people watch are what defines culture?

We do have far more guns than any other industrialized Democracy, but that's a direct result of having far more PEOPLE than any other industrialized Democracy. Switzerland has more guns per capita, and they're guns of a type that are illegal for Americans to own.

Our gun death rates are also in no way "astronomical". They are, however, deceptive. Conflating murders, suicides, and even self-defense shootings into a single statistic renders that statistic meaningless.

[johnthesavage]

Funny, that's what King George said just before the shot heard 'round the world.

[HumanExperience]

The vast majority of gun owners are not homicidal maniacs. I own a handgun myself, and it has saved my life in an area where police can take a half hour to an hour to respond. I am not going to be a weak unarmed victim. It's already illegal for the bad guys to have guns when they've done something wrong. It's already illegal for them to use the guns in a crime. They have no problem acquiring them on the black market and they never will. The shooter in this case could have gotten a gun any number of ways if he needed to, or he could have driven his car into a crowd of people. Stricter laws against decent gun owners only hurt good people like me, and the bad guys have no problem killing you with a number 2 pencil, a homemade pipe bomb, their car, a flare gun, a knife, a tire iron, You're not going to uninvent the handgun and put that genie back in the bottle. Worry about the next weapons coming along-- electronically fired ammunitions, and energy weapons. Worry about giving people a decent life, a job that pays a living wage, health care for everyone, and building a culture that respects life and that doesn't place most of the wealth in the hands of a very few people who are never satisfied. That's where the disgrace is.

[madbonger618]

Notice how this is the first mass shootings of this size that wasn't followed by the NRA talking about how guns don't kill people.

[CoconutLime]

Ummm... Last time I checked a gun can't get up and go kill someone. It takes a human that is mentally unstable to do so.

[CanadianBeef]

Predictable argument. A gun is always dangerous, no matter who owns it. If you don't understand that, you should not own one.

[GritsJr]

Then again, when's the last time a mentally unstable guy killed 7 people with his bare hands in 10 minutes?

[hardrain77]

You're right, but you got it a**backwards. If soldiers, already trained to use firearms and kill people with them across the world would've been allowed to carry and use arms on a military base and not have to rely on a civilian cop five minutes away to get the job done, three words: Lower body count.

Nice try with the typical gun control mongering.

[CanadianBeef]

That's like arguing that if all air passengers packed weapons, there would be fewer hijackings.
"soldiers are already trained to use firearms to kill people."
Yes, and that's what makes a deranged soldier do dangerous. The DC sniper, who was executed tonight, was a veteran of the First Gulf War. Most of the worst mass murderers in US history have been war veterans or active soldiers. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

[RedXIV]

Thanks for revealing that you hate soldiers.

[CanadianBeef]

THat should read, "so dangerous."

[GritsJr]

Gun Nuts' Solution to Everything: Arm everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Yeah, that's worked great for America up to this point.

[sheaintsayin]

Way more guns per capita, and way less health care per capita than any other country: I do not know where we're headed, but it looks like we're in a hand basket...

[CanadianBeef]

With more guns around, you also NEED more health care -- trauma care, that is.

[CNYObamaFan]

Thank you! I was thinking this exact same thing. And notice now that the attack on Fort Hood happened, it's inspiring all the other loons out there to go on a shooting spree. Those attacks haven't been getting as much attention, partly because there were fewer victims, partly because it wasn't on a military base, and partly because the shooters aren't muslim.

[masanf]

Yes, you are so right. Because a man in the military owning a weapon is such an indictment of American society and its gun laws. The only thing that could be more damning is a police officer owning a gun.

[DontselltheUS]

Why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon?

[a6intruder]

Because it can be fired more rapidly than a muzzle-loading musket!

[Dimensio]

Need is not relevant.

[RedXIV]

Because a single-shot muzzleloader is a much less reliable thing to defend yourself with.

[seawolf77]

Gun laws, like health insurance is an oxymoron. The only real health insurance is thru an employer and that's how the powers that be want to keep it.

[a6intruder]

I suspect that you'd feel much differently if you were the employer!