Was the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting the straw that broke the camel’s back?
In Congress, it may finally stir GOP senators to end their blockade of even modest gun legislation.
Meanwhile, the murder of 19 elementary students by an angry youth with an AR-15 appears to be causing a discernible shift in Texas voter sentiment.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows the governor’s race has tightened dramatically. Although GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who has loosened gun controls, is still likely to win re-election, his lead against Democrat Beto O’Rourke has been cut from 15 points (52% – 37%) to just 5 points (48% – 43%).
The same poll shows a majority of Texans now support stricter gun laws. The pollster says Texans are taking “a hard look” at mass killings and signaling “it’s time to put more teeth into gun laws,” although there’s “a near even split” on whether to outlaw assault weapons. (See story here.)
O’Rourke, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, supported mandatory buy-backs of such weapons and said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” and suggested “law enforcement” consequences for those who refused to comply.
This made him an object of derision by Republicans, and you’d think it would make him politically radioactive in gun-happy Texas. Against that backdrop, regardless of whether he loses to Abbott in November, the shift in voter support from Abbott to him shown by this poll is nothing less than stunning, and reveals the deep angst that even Texans now feel about a proliferation of guns that seems out of control.
The gun violence problem is complicated, and there’s no simple solution, but the fact America is the only country with a mass shooting problem is strong evidence that it’s solvable. Stronger background checks, strict prohibition of strawman gun purchases, red flag laws, and legal consequences for those who knowingly or negligently put guns in the hands of criminals or obviously dangerous persons would help.
As a Vietnam veteran who was “married” to an M-16 for 13 months, and a former Army Reserve weapons instructor, I don’t see the sense of civilians possessing these weapons. My thinking is, if you enjoy shooting them, then join the military. When I read of people saying they want to have such weapons to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, my gut reaction is they’re the last people who should have such weapons.
I have no problems at all with an assault weapon ban, and if the government pays compensation, it’s fair to gun owners. It would be expensive; if 30 million of these weapons are in private hands, and the government refunds an average purchase cost of say $1,200 at full value, the cost to taxpayers would be $36 billion, or about 1/20th of America’s annual defense budget. It wouldn’t be a total loss to taxpayers; some of these guns could be repurposed for military or law enforcement use.
Republicans argue a ban would only take guns away from law abiding citizens, and criminals would still have them. To a certain extent, they have a point; but we already have laws that enhance penalties for using guns in crimes, and prohibiting felons from having guns. I’d like to see tougher enforcement of those laws, in the former of tougher sentences and tougher sentencing.
I’m not suggesting there’s much deterrent value in punishment. The death penalty never stopped murder. It’s questionable whether criminals think about the possible penalties when they commit crimes. But deterrence isn’t the objective, keeping violent sociopaths off the streets is. If they’re locked up, they can’t shoot people. That’s why I’d like to see our society adopt a stance that people who commit gun crimes won’t be returned to the streets.
That doesn’t solve the problem of school shootings, or mass shootings like the one in Buffalo. There, deterrence doesn’t work at all; mass shooters clearly aren’t afraid of death, as few survive the incident, and those who do are guaranteed the death penalty or life in prison. That hasn’t stopped any of them.
But there were almost always warning signs ahead of time — social media posts, threats, unusual behavior — and that’s the first line of defense against such incidents. What’s needed is more legal authority to intervene before something happens. Individual rights aren’t absolute; society has a right to defend itself, and the first and highest duty of any government is to protect its citizens. This is where strong red-flag laws come into play. If someone talks about shooting people, that should be enough to prevent them from purchasing guns, confiscate any guns in their possession, and/or take them into protective custody. Responsible gun owners don’t act that way, and have nothing to fear from such laws.
It’s time for Republicans to end their blockage of common-sense gun legislation. We’re all in this together. We should work together on solutions. If they won’t, then voters should take things into their own hands.