Former President Obama issued a statement after the Boulder, Colorado murders. Both the timing and the content of such statements are predictable. Mass shooting incidents are typically followed by calls by politicians – usually, though not always, by Democratic politicians – for stricter gun control laws, often coupled with a broad-based condemnation of some group or type of people assumed to be responsible for the shootings or of some “ism”s, social or political views, considered to be beyond the pale.
Obama’s statement is true to this formula:
“It will take time to root out the disaffection, racism and misogyny that fuels so many of these senseless acts of violence.”
Can you even imagine a society without “disaffection”? Or one without racism? Do you know of such a society? Or one in which there is no prejudice against women? Or against men? Do we have to reach perfection as human beings before we stop gunning each other down?
Obama suggests that :
“in a normal life, we should be able to buy groceries without fear…We should be able to live our lives without wondering if the next trip outside our home could be our last.”
That sounds good.
Obama, a former U.S. senator from Illinois, used to live in Chicago. Here are the latest stats from the windy city about people shooting each other:
You don’t need mass shooting events, like Boulder and Atlanta, in order to injure or kill a lot of people. That can be done Chicago-style, shooting one or two people at a time.
One more comment on Obama’s statement:
“We can overcome opposition by cowardly politicians…”
Which cowardly politicians are those? Republicans afraid of the gun lobby? What about Democrats afraid of teachers’ unions and labor unions? Statesmen don’t accuse those who disagree with them of being cowards. They recognize that decent, honest people often disagree about matters of policy.
Those who support increased gun control legislation might at least recognize that in a world where far too many people worry about violence in their own neighborhoods and communities, some own guns to protect themselves and their family. According to the Pew Research Center, “Most gun owners [67%] cite protection as a major reason for owning a gun.”
We can probably all agree on keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and keeping bazookas out of the hands of all civilians. Beyond some such extreme limits, we need to carefully consider who, among law-abiding citizens, will be negatively impacted by specific gun-control proposals. What I’m quite certain about is that the gun debate is not between good people on one side and bad people on the other. Nor is the political debate being conducted between the cowardly on one side of the political divide and the brave on the other side.