It seemed almost inevitable in the wake of the VT shootings that the topic of gun control would emerge again. Some have said that a tragedy of this sort should not be an excuse for debating politics and policies, some of which have only a tangential relationship to the situation at hand. And yet such a debate HAS emerged, and on a topic that many had considered "settled". So let's put aside that murderous spree killings on campuses are quite rare and THUS sensational and newsworthy, but not a great danger to most people statistically. What is the state of "gun control" and a gun control movement in this country?
I have often thought that our public policies are shaped (especially in the specifics) as reactions to specific trends or events even more than as adhering to broad and timeless principles. When crime or the perception of crime increases, people are more willing to give up certain civil liberties, or to impose more draconian punishments. I have often thought that the actual or reported decrease in crime over the past decade or so has had some influence on both the growing opposition to the death penalty and do the dwindling public sentiment for gun control. If there is perceived to be less of a problem, there is less of a need to restrict rights or impose harsher punishment to ameliorate the problem.
Yet, I have often wondered what happened to all of those gun control advocates who have been strangely silent? Surely they didn't all change their minds about the merits of gun control? If the commentary in certain circles in the aftermath of the shooting is any indication, they have NOT changed their minds. They have been ridiculed into silence by the fact that gun control has been a political liability (or at least viewed as such) for the past several years. And of course, when the primary victims of gun violence are young black males, it's as if there is no problem.
Because our willingness to restrict guns seems to be based largely on our tolerance or lack of tolerance for a certain level of gun violence rather than some philosophical principle that guns are "bad for society", it puts gun control advocates (rather like those opposing the Iraq war) in the distinctly uncomfortable position of being most able to advance their cause when things are going wrong.
And yet, it's quite clear that our reluctance to regulate guns is out of step with our (sometimes reluctant) drive to increase regulations just about everything else that might be harmful. We regulate car usage, flying, pharmaceuticals, smoking, food (at least I hope we do) etc. Is there some natural law (like gravity) exempting guns? Obviously not--it's really just part of the national psyche. And funny thing about national psyches--they can be changed. My opinion is that current gun regulations are too lax and not systematically thought out or applied. Perhaps we can "get away" with this when crime rates fall and the main victims are black and poor, but it's not the ideal situation. Outlawing guns altogether would be about as useful as outlawing alcohol and cigarettes, but people have accepted numerous restrictions on alcohol and tobacco for the "public good" (and I guess it's no coincidence that the ATF covers what it covers), so it's not as if there is no precedent. But like many cowed gun control supporters, I wrung my hands and basically gave up. Perhaps that is not the right response and should not be the right response, regardless of what happened at Virginia Tech earlier this week.