The right question on gun safety

Robert Beard

In an interview with experts on gun safety, a news show host recently posed the question “What law could have prevented the event at Las Vegas?” I have often heard the same question, stated over and over in pretty much the same fashion by representatives of the NRA and its supporters in Congress.

If one homicide is a horrific event, how could 58 homicides be “an event”? Perhaps I think a human life more valuable than the NRA and its supporters. I’m not even convinced the number “58” would cover the recent horrific events in Las Vegas.

Those injured probably would consider their injuries to have resulted from horrific events. That would bring the number to 557 horrific events. Still, this would not count the horrific emotional events of holding a sister, brother, parent, spouse or close friend, unable to help them, as they die in your arms.

We have only anecdotal evidence of the emotional impact on the people who escaped these events with their lives, relatives, and friends. That will vary from person to person. I suspect all of them will remember that evening in Vegas the rest of their lives as horrific. That would bring the count of “events” upwards of 22,000, not counting the first responders.

So, the question the news show host should have asked was, “What law(s) could have reduced the number of horrific events in Las Vegas?” We have many well-known answers to this question, most of which have been tried in societies more advanced than ours — those with universal health care, universal free or affordable education through the doctorate level, paid family leave, and so forth.

In 1996 Australia experienced the worst mass murder in its history in Port Arthur, Tasmania. That massacre that left 35 people dead. Shortly thereafter, the Australian government passed the National Firearms Agreement ban- ning some semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements.

The Australian government also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law. This resulted in 650,000 banned guns and 60,000 legal guns being turned in to be melted down. That accounted for 50 percent of the guns in the country; in other words, all the unnecessary and superfluous guns. In 2002, Australia further tightened gun safety laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

From 1995 to 2015 there has been a 60 percent decline in gun deaths in Australia, from 516 in 1995 to 211 in 2015. There have been only three mass shootings since 1996, all smaller than the Port Arthur “events”. The population of Australia this year is 24.5 million.

The Australians didn’t ask, “How can we prevent all mass murders?” They asked themselves, “How can we reduce the number of actual horrific events involving guns?” The answer to that question made Australia an even better place to live. We must assume that those whose lives were saved by the new Australian laws, even though they do not know who they are, are happy to be alive today.

How we frame the narrative, particularly the questions we ask ourselves, often shapes the outcome of our attempts at resolving the problems we face.

https://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/columns/my-turn-the-right-question-on-gun-safety/article_7a5bd0bd-0947-5697-aa44-3711f4567048.html