A DRUNKEN DRIVER KILLED 13-YEAR-OLD CARI LIGHTNER ON MAY 3, 1980. In response, her grief-stricken mother co-founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and as a result of that group’s many years of work America’s tolerance for drunken drivers — and the number of people they injure and kill each year — have plummeted.
Remarkably, MADD reduced drunken driving accidents without reducing the legal availability or consumption of alcohol in America. In fact, today’s supermarkets offer a greater selection of wine and beer than ever before; large alcohol retailers like BevMo are replacing smaller liquor stores; and Americans drink more of their alcohol in bars and restaurants than they did 30 years ago. Yet our roads and our children are safer today than when Cari Lightner was killed.
Instead of campaigning against the many evils caused by alcohol, MADD focused on the most pernicious, commonly feared threat: drunken drivers. However, MADD’s victory in this one area rippled out to other areas of alcohol abuse, so that our culture today encourages greater moderation in all forms of private and public drinking.
There may be lessons here for preventing random mass shootings.
Many Americans enjoy owning and shooting firearms, a growing enthusiasm reflected in the fact that one of every three households owns firearms. A growing number of families are joining the shooting sports, and more than 8 million Americans hold concealed-carry permits.
Television reflects this new cultural reality. The Outdoor Channel devotes nearly all its airtime to competitive shooting and hunting programs; the History Channel offers “Top Shot”; the National Geographic Channel offers “Family Guns”; and one of the most popular new television shows, “Duck Dynasty,” follows the exploits of a Louisiana family of duck hunters.
Americans are increasingly choosing semi-automatic firearms, including civilianized versions of military rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47. These firearms are more enjoyable to shoot, they qualify for more advanced shooting competitions, and they are better for self-defense than traditional repeating rifles and revolvers. As more and more Americans embrace the recreational use of firearms — women are the fastest-growing segment of gun buyers — firearm training and gun safety programs are proliferating across the country.
Despite the lethality of these weapons and the millions of bullets fired each year on gun ranges and in competitions, the shooting sports world has few accidents or injuries. Tragically, however, about 62 Americans over the past 30 years have used firearms to kill four or more people in a single mass killing (not related to a separate criminal act). The most recent horror was visited on an elementary school in Connecticut in a massacre that stunned the world.
Yet, in most of those 62 massacres — including those in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater, the classrooms of Virginia Tech, and Gabrielle Giffords’s rally in Tucson, Ariz. — the killers were not gang members, criminals or disgruntled employees. They were mentally ill people who gained access to firearms, most of them legally.
There is a great deal of gun violence in America, but the violence we fear most is random mass killings by strangers. And historically, those killers are nearly always mentally ill persons.
Had we kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, those 20 children and six faculty members in Newtown would be alive today, as would those 33 students at Virginia Tech, the 12 moviegoers in Aurora and the six supporters at Gabby Giffords’s rally. Both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, as do mental health experts, the FBI, law enforcement, civil rights attorneys, schools, liberals, conservatives, clergy, mental health advocates and, of course, parents. We are united in this cause.
Nevertheless, now is not the time to try to solve all of America’s gun ills. This fragile, universal alliance will shatter quickly if gun enthusiasts are asked to make compromises they believe are unnecessary for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Following in the steps of MADD, the best minds of our generation can certainly figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill without unnecessarily changing gun laws on the general population. And in accomplishing that, they may plant the seeds of cooperation that eventually resolve the more contentious areas of gun control and gun violence.
Let’s start with what’s possible now.
John Cosmides has lived in Benicia for 22 years.
Sharing is caring!
Very well thought out, common sense, non-emotional, non-fear mongering commentary. Thank you!
I agree JLB.
Well said John.
Commentaries like this sound nice, but they are a smokescreen. You say “let’s start with what’s possible now.” Only someone who’s completely thoughtless would think that mental health screening is possible now. Who’s going to pay for screening? The same people who advocate ‘guns for everyone and double for me’ are against universal healthcare. Who should be screened (I can already hear the crying about racial profiling if we screen young white and Asian men only)? Are gun owners going to put up with government interference like mental health screening any more than they do for gun regulation? Who’s doing the screening? Doctors? Gun sellers? Do we even have good screens for mass murder? Did you even look for the answer to that question before simple-mindedly parroting what you’ve heard from other gun advocates (the answer is no – and likely to stay that way since money for research has also been cut dramatically)? Remember, Mr. Lanza did have some mental health screening – someone diagnosed him with Aspergers. If it’s so easy to see that he’d become a mass murderer, don’t you think it would have been seen? Plus, he used his mother’s guns. How would screening him have mattered? Maybe you’re thinking that his mother would have locked up her guns more carefully, but do you really have confidence in that? There are about 600 accidental gun deaths a year in the US. That’s a pretty good amount of carelessness with very dangerous objects, especially when you consider that most of the time, carelessness doesn’t have consequences. Are you willing to bet your children’s lives? You certainly seem willing to bet the lives of other peoples’ children.
I would like to believe that we all want to get to real solutions, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t. As a society, we love our guns more than we love our children and each other. If we loved our children, we’d be willing to fight to keep them educated, safe, with adequate healthcare and food as hard as we fight to keep our right to have any kind of gun anywhere. In a way, I prefer nutso positions like the NRA’s “let’s get more guns in schools” to your seemingly reasonable position. At least they’re clear about their goal of selling more guns, and they don’t pretend to be looking for real solutions.
Please share your solution Gdo.
Well, we could start with things we know are associated with fewer gun deaths, like very strict controls, a la Great Britain (or most of Europe). Lots of British people have guns for hunting or target shooting, but practically no one gets killed with guns, because they keep them locked up at the gun club when they’re not in use. This might not be quite as practical for us, since so much of our hunting happens outside of club contexts and we’re so spread out, but Australia is like us. Australia had a problem like with gun proliferation like ours (never as bad, though), until they had a massacre. Then, because they care about their children and each other, they banned certain types of guns, and implemented a gun buy-back program for the banned guns in 1996. So far, so good – pretty strong evidence that gun homicides and suicides declined quite a lot without a rise in other homicides and suicides,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
I believe in going with solutions that we have evidence for, as opposed to politically motivated pipe dreams.
First off Gdo, the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it’s about citizens protecting themselves, especially from government tyranny.
As for Britain and Australia’s gun bans, violent crime has increased due to citizens unable to protect themselves. Knife attacks, murder robberies have risen in England since their ban.
Every State in our Union that has allowed ‘shall issue’ concealed carry permits has shown a substantial decrease in robbery, burglary, and home invasion. Ever wonder why?
Don’t limit your knowledge to the Washington Post for your so called facts.
Hello John, we’ve discussed the gun issue before, quite amicably, but there is simply no getting around the fact that the mental health issue is being used as a smoke screen to take attention away from the fact that we are a nation drowning in guns. 100,000 Americans end up shot every year, 30,000 die. One in three families own guns, most of them have more than one, hence 300 million guns in circulation. This is simply too many. Mom and Pop and Billy and Sis on the Prairie with the flintlock over the doorway for protection is not today’s scenario.To get to my point, here are some changes I would suggest: there shouldn’t be assault weapons for sale at all and those that are out there should be recalled. Military weapons with large magazine capacities can only be justified if your neighbor is as gun-crazy as you are. The ability to sell guns at gun shows without background checks must stop. Virginia just repealed a law restricting gun buying to only one gun per month. Isn’t this crazy? Some private owners are really gun sellers, but are not regulated as such. I am of the opinion that having a gun makes you feel less safe in society not more safe. It’s like living in a gated community: residents fear the world outside the gates. Countries that have strong controls on guns have less gun violence. I served in the Army in Vietnam and am not a stranger to military weapons. I know what an M-16 round can do to human flesh. While I respect your well intended opinion, civilized society is no place for military weapons. Responsible gun owners who resist any attempt to inject sanity into this discussion will only reinforce negative opinions about consulting them to solve the problem.The facts aren’t in on the Newtown horror, but unless his mother was insane to have 6 guns in the house, then how would identifying the shooter as mentally ill have prevented his having access to those weapons?
My friend, there is less daylight between our views than you may realize. However, since the mere hint of new restrictions sends gun and ammunition sales into record territories, I stand by my thesis that our best hope for life saving and cultural change begins by bringing both sides to the table with the question, “HOW DO WE KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE MENTALLY ILL?” That question would certainly include parents’ duties to keep guns away from their mentally ill children.
Think yourselves lucky that you have a means to protect yourselves and your loved ones.
Here in Australia our firearms were taken away by a gun hating Fool Prime Minister for no reason but to play with the Heart Strings of the people and his hatred for guns.We can’t own any semi auto rifles or shotguns unless you have a valid reason to own one.In Australia we don’t have a 2nd Amendment or the right to protect ourselves ( Self Defence ) with a firearm.Real Crime Stats are not reported so people won’t rise up,Home invasions,Drive by shootings,Robbery, Innocent people being shot ect ect…Has risen since the 1996 Ban on firearms.Governments will ban firearms to make them selves feel good but Crims will always have access to firearms.
Candace Lightner, co-founder of MADD, was interviewed on CNN and submitted an article yesterday:
http://us.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/lightner-madd-effect/index.html?iref=obinsite