Almost daily, after a new mass shooting occurs, we encounter the usual outpouring of grief, characterized by the insipid and overused statements of “hopes and prayers.” Then, as usual, multiple “solutions” are offered that include arguments such as it’s the “bad actors” doing the killing, and the guns were only indirectly involved in these evil deeds. Or we should give more guns to the “good guys,” because they can overcome those of the “bad guys.” Or we need better mental care in our society to treat those capable of such heinous acts, which would allow us to prevent them before that occur. Or we need to provide adequate police protection of our churches and schools. Sadly, all these “solutions” noted above are usually offered to avoid the critical central issue of effective firearm regulation.
Let’s look closer at these countering arguments: What is the potential role played by mental illness? In order to clarify this issue further, we can apply objective/numerical analysis. In reality, most people who are violent are not mentally ill, and most people who are mentally ill are not violent. Thus, although those who are mentally ill may be perpetrators in some instances, the vast majority of mentally impaired people are not responsible for such deadly acts. Numerical analyses have shown that, at best, mental treatment would solve only at best a tiny fraction of the problem, estimated at approximately 3-5% overall. Complicating the issue further, in order to prevent such violent acts, we should be able to detain potential gunmen before they act. But the legal system in this country generally prevents such involuntary detention in the absence of actual crimes committed or strong evidence of such intent. Even most psychiatrists freely admit that they cannot accurately predict in advance which individuals are capable of such violent acts. Thus, directing attention toward mental disease to control such actions is not a viable option.
Would armed protection of schools, churches and other civilian sites be effective in reducing firearm deaths? Unfortunately, we have an insufficient number of armed police (or even military forces) to protect the vast number of such “soft” targets for that strategy to be effective. Moreover, could our local authorities overcome an evil adversary that is more heavily armed than they, as exemplified by the Uvalde school shooting? We’ve seen that unhappy scenario play out! So, protection in this manner, while well intended, provides no real solution to this dilemma.
With regard to firearms alone, does evidence indicate that their control might be effective? Among many worldwide examples, the experience in Australia can shed special light on this subject: On April 28, 1996, a public mass shooting resulted in the deaths of 35 people in Tasmania, Australia. Unlike mass shootings in the United States, this event immediately mobilized their national, state and territorial governments. Within 12 days, all component territories had approved a National Firearms Agreement, which was subsequently implemented in all local components through legislation. This agreement banned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, implemented a buy back of the banned weapons, created a licensing and permitting system for the purchase and possession of all firearms, denied licenses to any individual who had committed a violent crime in the past five years, and instituted a 28-day waiting period before the receipt of a new firearm. After that time, firearm homicide and suicide rates in Australia declined sharply, even though most Australian states already had in place relatively strong firearm laws that were much stronger than those in the overwhelming majority of US states. We also note that there is no credible evidence that mental illness is greater in the U.S. than in Australia.
Many cite our second constitutional amendment as a justification for the widespread presence and use of firearms. But this amendment originated over 200 years ago before modern weapons were even contemplated. Thus, there is little doubt that, if our founders were aware of such modern weaponry, they would have approved the application of common-sense restrictions, similar to those of Australia and most other western nations.
In the United States today, law enforcement officials in 40 states have little control over who has access to firearms. Little discretion exists over whether concealed weapons are allowed, and permits are seldom required to obtain a firearm. In 36 states, it is not even necessary to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a private seller. Florida provides no exception to this pattern, allowing permit-free concealed carry for adults 21 and older who are legally eligible to possess a firearm; no permit or training is required for concealed carry if one meets these criteria. There are no permits, licenses, or registration for purchasing or open-carrying long guns, though one must be 21 to buy a handgun. Firearms are prohibited in restricted locations like schools, courthouses, and bars, and, if desired, private property owners can ban guns on their premises.
The real lesson from the international experience with firearm regulation is that if there is little or no control over who has access to deadly weapons, a serious firearm epidemic is almost certain to occur. Although we in the U.S. encounter examples of isolated attacks with knives or automobiles, the real culprit responsible for mass casualties in this nation is the gun, and that is where we must direct our main attention. In order to be truly effective and to avoid illicit transfer of weapons between the states, uniform laws must be federally regulated, meaning applied evenly to all states.