Why can’t Congress stop school shootings?
Because gun laws can't stop gun violence
On Thursday (1/4/2024) we were treated to another horrible tragedy, a school shooting, this time in Iowa. A 17-year-old student, who apparently had been bullied since elementary school, finally had enough when his sister started getting bullied as well. To rectify the situation, he arrived at school prior to the beginning of classes with a pump shotgun and a handgun. In total, this student killed one and injured five more.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way - prepare for more calls to outlaw “assault rifles” despite the fact that an assault rifle was not used in this incident. Because…”assault rifles.” In the meantime, cue the calls for legislators to “do something.”
That’s always what it boils down to - do something, government must do something. And as heartbreaking an event as this was, by Friday, politicians will be using it as political pablum to call for more gun control, to further violate the rights our founding fathers sought to protect when they penned the Second Amendment, because they must “do something.”
Exactly what can or will government do? Enact more gun laws? Some news outlets think so. For instance, an article in the New York Times intimates that Iowa’s firearm statutes are not sufficient, stating that “As of July 2021, Iowa does not require a permit to purchase a handgun or carry a firearm in public, though it mandates a background check for anyone buying a handgun without a permit.”
What the NYT fails to mention is that, according to Iowa gun law, a 17-year old can not legally purchase a handgun; yet, the 17-year-old perpetrator had a handgun. Also according to Iowa law, a 17-year-old may not legally purchase or be in possession of a long gun (rifle) or shotgun; yet, the 17-year-old perpetrator had a shotgun. What additional law would have prevented this student from obtaining these firearms?
Iowa law doesn’t allow a 17-year-old to carry a firearm in public, and while Iowa law permits having a firearm in a locked car in a school parking lot, Iowa law also prohibits possessing a firearm inside a school. The perpetrator carried firearms in public and brought them into a school. Why was the law unable to stop the gunman?
The perpetrator was also armed with an improvised explosive device (albeit a rudimentary one). I wonder if anyone can guess what Iowa law says about IEDs?
It would appear that Iowa’s firearm “safe storage” laws pertain mainly to minors under the age of fourteen, but Iowa Code § 724.2(1,2) prohibits providing a rifle, shotgun, pistol, or ammunition for any of these to a minor. Why did this statute not prevent the perpetrator from obtaining a shotgun and a handgun?
As is so often the case, people want to blame the weapons used in the crime, rather than the criminal who used them. Thus, the weapons must be taken from everyone. This is the logic even behind gun-free zones. Yet where do most “mass shootings” take place? I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Why? Because laws don’t stop law-breakers. That’s really kind of the definition of law-breaker (otherwise known as a “criminal”).
Remember, the weapons didn’t decide they had enough of this minor being bullied, get up on their own, head over to the school, and begin discharging themselves at whomever might fall into their sights. No, the weapons were carried, by a person who was legally prohibited from possessing those weapons and legally prohibited from carrying them in public, into a school where guns were legally prohibited (a “gun-free zone”), where he intentionally aimed the weapons at people in an attempt to murder them (pretty sure murder and attempted murder are also legally prohibited, though those laws seem also to have been impotent in averting this tragedy).
Laws do not and cannot prevent crime - they define it and prescribe punishment for those who commit it.
At the end of the spree, as happens quite often with these episodes, the gunman turned one of his firearms on himself and took his own life. Which begs the question: in what kind of mental state is someone who is willing to take the lives of others and then himself?
We do have a problem in the United States, but it is not firearms. We have a problem with the way children are being raised, unable to cope with daily stresses, bullying, or emotions in general. It’s not as if kids in the past did not suffer these same stresses, bullying, and emotions; but somehow, in the past, most were able to survive and carry on, they were able to adapt and endure. No longer is this the case.
And the problem isn’t just among minors - look at “adults” who are screaming at the sky because someone said something offensive, or because a particular politician got elected. We now have (at least) two generations of Americans a large number of whom are unable to handle everyday life and many who place little-to-no value on human life. Is it any wonder so many turn to violence?
Instead of looking at what is common about the firearms used in these incidents perhaps we would do well to consider what is common to the perpetrators. With such commonalities documented, maybe we could stop these tragedies before they ever start.
In the meantime, what government should not do is take away people’s ability to defend themselves in these situations. Though the police responded fairly quickly in this instance, this is far too often not the case; and the quickest response will always be from someone who is already on the scene, not someone for whom potential victims have to wait.
Just reading the title of this article I started laughing. The idea that "Congress" can stop these tragedies is absurd. Government can not *fix* human nature. As a society, we might want to look at other cultures and see if we can't pick up some of the best parts of their culture and integrate them into our culture.
Having Congress legislate to stop these problems is like trying to legislate against insanity or behaving well. Behaving properly is something you learn, not something you legislate.
Evil is impossible to legislate out of existence. There will ALWAYS be evil people doing evil deeds. Look at UK knife attacks. They’re actually making new knife laws, as I write this. Then there will be bludgeoning attacks, car attacks, truck attacks. You get the picture. The only way to drastically reduce school shootings is to harden the target. Perfect example: Nashville shooter, who’s name I refuse to mention, actually documented one of the reasons that it chose that particular school was the fact that security was weak or non existent and that another target had armed security, therefore moved to a softer target. This will drastically reduce school shootings. Armed security, hard target. They’re cowards who want the least resistance. Any shooter who survives a school shooting should have death penalty, full stop. Deterrence will reduce school shootings too. Coupled together, with actually enforcing the laws on the books that various states and law enforcement agencies fail to uphold, like numerous threats that go with zero accountability, as in the case with uvalde. That kid was a walking time bomb, they all knew it and did NOTHING!!! And one other thing about uvalde. Where did a kid of very modest means get 2 of the most tricked out Daniel Defense AR’s on the market today??? That question has never been answered. Modest means, $10K in guns, nothing to see here… Last thing. Psychotropic drugs are a common denominator in these shootings. A long discussion needs to be had about treating mental health in this country. Just drugging up the kids is not the answer. And another increasingly common denominator is gender dysphoria. This society normalizing sick, unnatural behavior is another large factor contributing to these shootings. Ok, there’s more, but if I continue, it’s going to be longer than Chad’s article! Later.