Body Counts, Bullets And A Simple Gun Control Semi-Solution
As of September 16, the U.S. casualty toll from mass shootings in 2024 – defined as involving four or more victims – was sitting at 553 killed and 1,835 injured.
Those totals, compiled by Wikipedia, don’t count the numbers of family members, friends, lovers, co-workers, classmates or witnesses whose lives were shattered – psychically, emotionally, financially, logistically or indefinably – by the trauma delivered from the barrel of a gun.
So, let’s talk gun control, again, shall we?
And let’s be honest. Because, so far, we haven’t really tried any solutions that actually work.
Like banning assault weapons.
It’s gun control heresy, I know, to question the wisdom of banning assault weapons – by which we generally mean AR-style rifles, firing high velocity bullets that can pass through bodies, walls, car doors and some ballistic vests.
Armor-piercing bullets, by the way, are illegal for use in handguns nationwide, but numerous rifle rounds required for effective hunting will pierce ballistic vests. And many of those same hunting rifles can fire semi-automatically and accommodate magazines with up to 10 rounds, just like the once-banned assault rifles.
Assault weapons were banned for ten years by Congress in 1994, but when the ban expired in 2004, there weren’t enough votes to renew it. So what impact did the ban have on mass shooting incidents? Depends on whose analysis you accept. A Rand Corporation review of studies on assault weapons bans reached a variety of conclusions. One study concluded there was “limited evidence that assault weapon bans reduce school shooting injuries.” A parallel study determined there were uncertain associations between state assault weapon bans and mass shooting incidents and fatalities. Yet another study found that the bans significantly reduced mass shooting deaths but had uncertain effects on numbers of injuries. And one 2018 study concluded that assault weapon bans resulted in significantly fewer casualties (deaths and nonfatal injuries) from school shootings.
There are anomalies all over the tragic map of gun violence. The Columbine High School massacre of 1999, which killed 13 and injured 24, happened five years into the assault weapons ban. The Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 and injured 23 in 2007, after the assault ban expired, used two handguns.
Assault weapons are popular because they are relatively lightweight, can be folded into a short length, have a light recoil and, mainly, because our gun culture has relentlessly romanticized them. In the popular mind, the AR-15 is the firearm equivalent of a bright red, hemi-engined, fat-tired pick-up truck. A form of self-identity. Plus, they provide gun merchants with a fat profit margin.
So where is this leading?
First, there is no simple solution to gun violence, short of an outright ban. And if you think that’s possible, there’s a bridge between Marin and San Francisco I’d like to sell you.
And yet, more than 70 percent of us say we want some sort of effective gun control. For which, speaking of fat-tired trucks, there is already a very good model.
Every driver in this country has to be a minimum age and have a license in order to drive a vehicle on public roads. And you can’t get a license without demonstrating the ability to drive and knowledge of vehicle laws. On top of that, every vehicle must have an annual registration certificate, and not every vehicle ever made can be licensed. There are practical, mechanical, environmental and safety requirements.
Why should gun ownership be any different? The NRA fringe will howl that such regulation will make it possible for the gun-hating government to come take their guns away. But not their cars and trucks?
This is not a new and novel suggestion; it’s been out there for years. It will not stop gun violence. Given. Neither will banning assault weapons. But it’s a common-sense first step, and it’s certainly worth a try.
