Tuesday, September 1, 2015

This is the best paragraph I've ever read on gun control and mass shootings


Maybe something will change; maybe this time we will manage to act. But it's difficult to be anything but pessimistic, and when I think about why that is, my mind goes back again to Virginia Tech and 2007, when the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik wrote what is, to me, the single most powerful paragraph I have read on the subject.
The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why. As the police cleared the bodies from the Virginia Tech engineering building, the cell phones rang, in the eccentric varieties of ring tones, as parents kept trying to see if their children were OK. To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing is heartrending; to imagine the feelings of the parents who were calling — dread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning grief — is unbearable. But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happened — specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people — and why it happens over and over again in America. At a press conference, Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine, said, "People who want to ... make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. ... At this point, what it's about is comforting family members ... and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere."
Many things have been written and will continue to be written on America's gun ownership rate (the highest in the world), its gun violence (the worst in the developed world), and the political and social forces that keep this from changing.

What Gopnik captured was not just the horrific costs of gun violence or the frustrating politics of gun control, but the special sort of anguish that we inflict on ourselves in the United States by forbidding any meaningful conversation around the tragedies that unfold over and over again.

There is an unwritten American rule that the aftermath of a mass shooting is the wrong time to talk about gun control. Even Obama's comments on the subject in June, while urgent and even angry, carefully avoided mentioning gun control directly. As Gopnik wrote, this logic would be recognized as absurd if applied to anything else: "the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts."

Gopnik ended his piece with a call to ban handguns — a political nonstarter in 2007 and, in 2015, something that would be unimaginable to even discuss. That fact itself, that his concluding line has become more politically unthinkable rather than less, seems to drive home his point: that mass shootings will continue in America, and that Americans will refuse to seriously debate whether our culture of gun ownership is worth the costs. 

"There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun," he wrote. "At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why."


  1. Well, you certainly cant fault the author for tap dancing around what he believes. And you cant fault Vox, since they are quite up front on their very neat charts that they leave out countries that would interfere with the clean symmetry of their message.
    The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of clean symmetry when you're dealing with people. Banning handguns has been tried and not only did it fail to reduce crime, such levels of restrictions seemed to result in areas of very high violent crime rates. Then of course, there was the issue of such laws being unconstitutional.
    Lets leave off with some opposing wisdom,

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil,
    and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
    ---Jeff Cooper

    1. America has never banned handguns.

    2. The clean symmetry is there to see. You choose to be blind.

    3. Anon, Chicago and DC both tried banning handguns. Not only did it seem to have the opposite effect on violent crime, it was found to unconstitutional.

    4. Did I say a city? Thought not.

    5. "Did I say a city?"

      No Anon, but since it didn't work in the cities that banned handguns, there is no reason to believe it would work on a larger scale, not counting the fact that laws supporting gun rights isn't even going in the direction of a total ban.
      Even the gun control lobby has had to rethink its goals in its early years of total bans of handguns. And of course, that was all pre-Heller.

    6. Just another example of your dishonesty, thanks.

    7. A try is not a ban SS, except in your delusional mind. Please prove either of the cities you mention achieved a total ban on handguns, as you ridiculously claimed.

  2. Gopnik ended his piece with a call to ban handguns — a political nonstarter in 2007 and, in 2015, something that would be unimaginable to even discuss. That fact itself, that his concluding line has become more politically unthinkable rather than less . . .