In the days after the Parkland shooting, Trump has come out with a shockingly lukewarm response to nationwide calls for gun control: ban bump-stocks, but maybe, if congress can get around to it.
It’s a baffling response for a number of reasons. For one, why didn’t he come out with this proposal after the Las Vegas massacre, when bump stocks were actually used and directly related to the shooter’s ability to fire at over 500 people? He waited several shootings later to come out with this proposal, which to me suggests that it’s his very half-assed attempt at throwing a bone to liberals over the gun control debate (and also that, as usual, he’s a step out of time and just a little confused about the conversation).
And for another reason, why is he talking about bump stocks at all instead of assault rifles, which are the topic really on the table at the center of all these discussions? The reality is semi-automatic rifles have been used in almost every mass shooting in recent history, a clear pattern that cannot be ignored any longer. Even conversations about raising the age limit are not enough - we need to be talking about a total ban.
But instead of targeting the weapon itself, Trump is trying to distract us by bringing up an accessory that’s only tangentially related, that is only sometimes used in mass shootings, that will not prevent people from getting their hands on the murder weapon that took down hundreds of innocent people at public events in the past few years.
Banning bump stocks just isn’t enough. In fact, it’s not even super clear why they aren’t already banned, given that their only purpose is to convert a semi-automatic into a fully automatic weapon and machine guns are legally banned. A ban on bump stocks should already be in place, and Trump should instead be looking forward to new solutions that get these dangerous weapons out of the hands of the public.
On one level, he does appear to be responding to the nationwide protests and the movement of high school students demanding more protection. He’s expressed openness towards considering stronger background checks and greater restrictions on who’s allowed to own a gun, but it’s doubtful he’ll let them go very far.
After all, when we’re talking about things like getting guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, we’ll also have to talk about the fact that domestic violence is far more common in police families than in the regular population, which would suggest we might have to disarm police officers, and that’s not very Blue Lives Matter friendly, is it?
And when we’re talking about people committing murder with weapons, are we talking about inner-city gang violence, or are we talking about the scores of people shot dead by police every year, tried and hanged by officers before they ever stepped foot before a judge?
When we talk about gun reform, we want real change. When high schoolers march on Washington and walk on on April 20, the anniversary of the Columbine Massacre, they’re not going to settle for a ban on bump stocks and tightening a few background check restrictions. It’s time for real change. Trump isn’t dodging out of this problem with an easy solution.