Solving the unsolvable

Gun-control debate produces multiple imperfect solutions

Eric Boose / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista

There have been more mass shootings than days in 2019. As of Sept. 10, the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive identified 293 mass shootings — shootings in which at least four people, not including the shooter, were shot — in the United States this year. Today, Sept. 12, is the 255th day in 2019. Horrifyingly, this has happened before. In 2016, the United States experienced 382 mass shootings. In 2017, there were 346. In 2018, 340. In August, the global human rights group Amnesty International issued a travel warning urging extreme caution when visiting the United States due to “rampant gun violence, which has become so prevalent in the United States that it amounts to a human rights crisis.”

At this point, denying the existence of a gun violence problem in the United States is blatant deception, both toward oneself and others. Gun violence is so pervasive that the debate surrounding how to end mass shootings alone can seem ever-present. As with most debates over creating effective policies to solve a problem, there is little doubt that everyone shares the same goal when addressing gun violence — to keep people alive and safe. Where we differ is not in the underlying goal, but in our beliefs about how best to achieve that goal. 

The most common of these approaches fall into three general groups, two of which aim to emulate other countries’ models of gun control, one side proponing Switzerland’s balance of high gun ownership and few mass shootings while the other advocates for strong restrictions like those in Australia and New Zealand. The third group insists that guns are not the cause of mass shootings.

The group hoping to emulate Switzerland suggests that the country’s high rate of gun ownership is the reason for its overwhelming lack of mass shootings. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the U.S., points to Switzerland as an indication that large numbers of privately-owned firearms effectively deter mass shootings. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is undoubtedly a member of this group. After a mass shooting in the Texas cities of Odessa and Midland left seven dead and 22 injured, Abbott signed multiple bills into law which reduced restrictions on gun owners. The new laws increase the number of places Texans can openly carry registered firearms, provide for more armed marshals in schools, and allow gun owners to leave their weapon in their car in school parking lots. The basic thinking of solutions like these has long been an NRA rallying cry — the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

While it is easy to look at Switzerland and conclude that ending mass shootings in the United States is as easy as increasing gun ownership, it is also not completely accurate. While Switzerland has a high rate of private gun ownership, that rate is far below that of the United States, and is declining. Business Insider estimates that in 2007, 46 percent of Swiss citizens owned a firearm, compared to 89 percent of Americans. Now, only around 33 percent of Swiss citizens are gun owners. Clearly, Switzerland’s lack of gun violence is not because they own staggeringly more guns than Americans. Furthermore, it is not easy to buy a gun in Switzerland. Nearly every type of firearm requires a permit to own, and the permitting process is incredibly strict. People convicted of a crime or with a drug or alcohol addiction are not allowed to own a gun in Switzerland, nor can people who express a “violent or dangerous attitude.” Those who wish to own a gun for “defense purposes” must prove that they can safely load, unload, and fire a weapon, and it is illegal to carry a gun in public, save for transporting an unloaded weapon between home and a firing range. 

All of this is without mentioning that Texas, a state with some of the loosest gun laws in the United States, has experienced four of this year’s 20 deadliest mass shootings — the most of any state. In one of the states most likely to see a good guy with a gun stop a mass shooting, it has yet to happen. As it turns out, the Switzerland that the NRA wants to emulate is far from the Switzerland of reality, which has gone 18 years without a mass shooting. Furthermore, Texas’ attempts to ensure a good guy with a gun will defend its citizens have so far failed.

While the NRA and other pro-gun advocates point to Switzerland as a model, gun control advocates point at Australia and, more recently, New Zealand as the countries to emulate. Both countries responded to mass shootings with sweeping and restrictive gun control legislation. In 1996, less than two weeks after a mass shooting killed 35 people, Australia banned private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Following a mass shooting in Christchurch earlier this year, New Zealand took 10 days to ban the private ownership of assault-style weapons, as well as attachments which can make it easier to fire multiple rounds in quick succession. Australia also requires a 28-day waiting period, a thorough background check, and a “justifiable reason” for anyone purchasing a firearm. Crucially, Australia does not consider self protection a justifiable reason for gun ownership. Abbott’s fellow Texan, presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, supports strong gun control like that in Australia. Last week, O’Rourke made his ambition for an assault weapons ban clear.

“I want to be really clear that that’s exactly what we are going to do,” O’Rourke said. “Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities, to be used against us in our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, our Walmarts, our public places.”

The basic position of O’Rourke and those who agree with him is that no citizen has a justifiable reason to privately own an assault weapon. 

While the Australian model has proved largely successful, it is not perfect. In June, the nation was rocked by a shooting which killed four people, the first in nearly 23 years. The shooter used a shotgun, a weapon authorities believe was stolen back in 1997 as the new gun laws began to take hold. Stolen weapons, and especially weapons not turned over to authorities would certainly be a weakness in any ban instituted in the United States. Furthermore, gun violence takes more forms than just mass shootings. From 2013 to 2017, a large majority of gun homicides were committed in the United States using handguns, not the types of weapons Australia banned in 1996. Perhaps the best example of gun violence other than mass shootings is the overwhelming gun violence in Chicago. In the past year, The Chicago Tribune reports at least 282 people have been shot and killed in the city. 

One final, cultural complication standing in the way of a ban resembling those in Australia and New Zealand is that neither of those nations has the right to bear arms. There is no Australian or Kiwi equivalent of the Second Amendment. While the relevance of the Second Amendment is debatable — it was, after all, written when the commonly available firearms were muskets — its impact on American culture is not. While the deadly capabilities of firearms have evolved, Americans’ literal interpretation of the Second Amendment has not, making gun ownership so intertwined with American culture that it could be mistaken as a requirement for citizenship. For what it is worth, Americans’ firm hold on their right to bear arms has loosened in recent years, with increasingly more Americans supporting some increase in gun control, from universal background checks to full-scale bans. 

However, there is still a group of Americans so attached to their firearms that they blame anything but guns for the existence of mass shootings in the U.S.. Following seemingly every mass shooting, some scapegoat is offered to take the blame away from the availability of assault weapons, whether it be the shooter’s mental health or the glorification of violence in movies and video games. 

While mental health and the glorification of violence are both issues in this country, they are also issues in Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand – countries which have effectively eliminated mass shootings. The success of those nations would suggest that limiting access to firearms reduces the prevalence of mass shootings. This makes sense, considering that there is no more effective way for a civilian to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time than an assault rifle. The Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada — the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history — was committed using an assault rifle. The shooting which killed 49 people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida was committed using an assault rifle. The shootings in El Paso, Texas, Parkland, Florida, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut were committed using assault rifles. There should be no doubt that assault rifles, and easy access to them, are the leading cause of mass shootings in this country. 

Ultimately, the debate on how to end mass shootings and gun violence as a whole could rage for years to come. Hopefully it will not. Hopefully we can find a solution that works. However, creating such a solution looks to be a frustratingly complex problem. As much as we can look to Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and other nations for examples, the United States is unique. There is no perfect model for the United States. That is to say, there is no country with a similarly romantic cultural relationship with guns that has also solved the problem of mass shootings.

What matters is that we stop waiting around for the perfect solution. Such a solution likely does not exist, and continuing inaction will only lead to more deaths. 

The common thread between Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand is the rigidity in their laws. Universal background checks, longer waiting periods, and an assault weapons ban have worked for other nations, and they ought to be tried in the U.S. as well.