Shellys commentary: With MSU mass shooting, gun debate is still armed and dangerous
A few weeks ago, we wrote a column about living a life of civility. Every society must continually engage in a “tug ofwar” between civility and incivility – good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, community vs. isolation, kindness vs. meanness,sacrifice vs. selfishness, and gun responsibility vs. gun madness.
To simply say the word “guns” provokes a response.. However, it’s not just about guns. Many of our problems in this country are related to the large number of guns we possess. A CNN Politics report on January 24, 2023, stated that there are “…about 393 million privately owned firearms in the US.” That is approximately 120 guns for every 100 Americans! What does that even mean?
We have a complex relationship with guns. It is hard to isolate the problem, because so many variables are involved. We cannot separate the lethality of guns from their use in war, because it is tied to our national security. We cannot disconnect the gun manufacturing industry from its advertising, lobbying, political financing, and the ways in which it appeals to children by legitimizing guns in video games, television, and movies. Some argue we need more guns for our personal safety, while others argue that with so many carrying guns, we are actually less safe. The subject of guns is both a political and policy argument, often dividing us along party lines. The argument is made that gun ownership is a Second Amendment right and tied to individual rights and freedoms; however, a counter-argument can be made that individual rights and freedoms are never absolute, when a societies’ well-being is compromised. It would be negligent not to mention the long-standing gun culture in this country in which children are taught early how to use a gun and how to use it safely, and where adults use guns for recreational purposes.
The existence of guns in developed, democratic societies almost always present a moral dilemma. The United States is considered “a global outlier.” Countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Great Britain, have introduced laws to reduce gun-related deaths and have achieved significant changes.” (CNN Report) They made their changes in a matter of months, not years, following mass shootings.
This column surfaced as a result of the February 13th mass shooting at Michigan State University. “A mass shooting is when at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter.” (Gun Violence Archive) Do you know that since that particular mass shooting, there have been 15 more as of February 19th? Do you know there have been 82 mass shootings in the US the first 50 days of this year? Do you know that since January 1, 2023, Texas has had 9 mass shootings? And do you know that there are now young people experiencing their second mass shooting at school? The 1966 University of Texas “clock tower mass shooting” was the first to be covered in real time on television. Most mass shootings, as well as most incidences of gun violence, are never covered on national television and remain largely unknown to the public.
In June, 2022, President Biden signed into law the first major, bi-partisan gun safety legislation in decades. Even though we know so much more about gun violence, we are slow to act. For example, we know that those committing mass shootings share some commonalities: early childhood trauma and exposure to violence, an identifiable grievance or crisis point, validated beliefs and inspiration from past shootings, and the means to carry out an attack. (The Violence Project, 1966-2019) What should we do with do with this information? We should come to terms with it, make policy decisions, relegate funding, and never give up. Perhaps, it would help if our legislators’ children looked them in the eye and asked, “What are YOU doing to stop this senseless gun violence?” For at least 57 years, we have been playing that game of “tug of war,” where one side gains a few inches, only to be pulled back by the other side.
Thus far, we have never resolved our relationship with guns, but it has become increasingly clear that we must. The only alternative is to sink deeper into the muck of incivility. We do not have to rid ourselves of all guns, but we do have to find a way to responsibly regulate our societal relationship with them. Our democracy is already beginning to come apart at the seams, so our work is cut out for us. We cannot avoid the question. Which will it be – civility or incivility as our way of life?
Walter Shelly retired after 40 years as a professor of political science at West Texas A&M University. Linda Shelly retired after 33 years of teaching sociology at West Texas A&M University and Amarillo College.
This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Shellys commentary: Gun debate is still armed and dangerous
