Further Gun Control Measures Will Not Prevent School Shootings
"While the left’s proposed gun control measures will not stop mass shootings, particularly school shootings, there are meaningful steps we as a society can take to prevent these atrocities"
Opinion
After a tragic elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Democrats are taking advantage of the tragedy by pushing their radical gun control agenda. The left has proposed many gun control measures that would not have prevented this shooting or other school shootings. Nonetheless, per our usual arrangement, the left hopes to capitalize on this tragedy to achieve its political goals. The Democrats solution to any problem is always the same; whatever policy they already favored.
Some on the left have called for an AR-15 ban. Other leftists have gone so far as to call for an “assault weapons” ban. By “assault weapons” ban, the left means a semi-automatic rifle ban. Neither of these proposed policies would be effective. Handguns are used at an exponentially higher rate in mass shootings and homicides compared to all types of rifles combined. From 1982 to 2022, handguns were used in 55.7% of mass shootings, compared to rifles which were used in only 29.5% of mass shootings. Of course, the number of shootings that involved AR-15s is substantially smaller than 29.5%, as that is a subset of the larger rifle category.
When examining homicides broadly, the number of victims killed by any rifle type, including AR-15s, is negligible. In 2019, the FBI obtained expanded homicide data on 13,927 homicides. Only 2.6% of homicides occurred due to rifle usage. In comparison, 4.3% of homicide victims were killed by a perpetrator’s hands, fists, or feet. Handguns were used in 45.7% of homicides, making them the most frequently used weapon.
The rifles and handguns available to civilians are semi-automatic weapons requiring the shooter to pull the trigger every time to fire a bullet. The data show that handguns are used exponentially more in mass shootings and homicides than all rifles combined. Yet, the proposed solution by the left is to ban the AR-15 or even all rifles outright. Aside from the pure absurdity of banning all AR-15s, or semi-automatic rifles, the proposed bans are entirely unattainable in a nation with over 400 million firearms. Furthermore, these bans would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment.
Another proposal that the left has presented as a “common-sense gun control” measure is mandatory background checks on private firearm sales. Background checks already occur on the overwhelming majority of firearms sales, including gun purchases from a federally licensed firearms dealer or online gun purchases. Only a tiny subset of firearm sales, namely private firearm sales, do not require a background check. Yet, private firearm sales are restricted in other ways. For example, federal law states that private firearm sales can only occur between a buyer and seller who reside in the same state.
This proposal by the left presents many practical and legal concerns. Mandatory background checks on private firearm sales would include sales between relatives. In all likelihood, this proposal would require background checks when gifting a firearm to a family member or even lending a gun to another person for temporary use. Both the gifting and the lending of a firearm could be deemed a transaction under this law. A law requiring background checks on private firearm sales would also provide the government with a registry of all firearm owners. This is an overt violation of the Second Amendment.
While the current background check requirements should remain in place, background checks are not the solution to school shootings. Like many other mass shooters, the Uvalde shooter purchased firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The shooter passed a background check because he did not have a criminal record.
Regarding the other proposed gun control measures, in addition to the constitutional concerns, every measure is predicated on the idea that mass shooters would abide by the law. That is a ridiculous contention. The Uvalde shooter, for example, broke a whole host of laws in carrying out his attack, such as possessing a firearm in a gun-free zone and, of course, murdering twenty-one individuals. Mass shooters are willing to carry out some of the most heinous acts mankind has ever seen. The idea that they would abide by gun control laws is asinine. Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the left. Democrats are taking advantage of an opportunity to push their gun control agenda. The left then accuses anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions of implicitly condoning mass shootings.
One way Democrats and the media have emotionally manipulated the public is by lying about the rate of school shootings in the United States. Leftists do this to manipulate the public into supporting their gun control and gun confiscation measures. We have heard from the left and the media that school shootings occur in the United States at a disproportionate rate compared to other nations. In reality, school shootings in the United States are statistically rare.
Since 1998, there have been “nine attacks similar to the Robb Elementary School shooting” in Uvalde. Leftists often present the raw number of shootings as evidence that school shootings are a uniquely American problem. They fail to consider the size and population density of the United States. According to John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, “once you adjust for population, there are many other countries, from Germany to Russia to Finland, that have comparable rates of school shootings.” Every single school shooting is a horrific act of evil. However, it is imperative that in gun policy discussions, voters do not allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated by the left and the media into believing school shootings are more prevalent than the data show.
While the left’s proposed gun control measures will not stop mass shootings, particularly school shootings, there are meaningful steps we as a society can take to prevent these atrocities from occurring. First, already enacted red flag laws must be utilized. Currently, nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws. Red flag laws allow family members, law enforcement, or other community members to petition the court to block a potentially dangerous individual from obtaining a firearm. The Buffalo shooter, for example, displayed extensive behavior which should have prohibited him from obtaining a gun, including harming animals and previously threatening a school shooting. The shooter’s family and law enforcement knew about this past behavior. Yet, they did not utilize the red flag law. Ultimately, this allowed the Buffalo shooter to purchase firearms and carry out the shooting.
Second, we must enact legislation that allows for moderate to long-term involuntary institutionalization of individuals who pose a substantial threat to the public based on their mental illnesses. This includes individuals with a history of harming animals or other students, threatening school shootings, or displaying other psychopathic or sociopathic behaviors. In practice, this process would allow for temporarily committing these individuals involuntarily, pending a psychological evaluation. Based on the psychological assessment, the individual would either be released or held in the facility until medical professionals determine that the individual is no longer a danger to society. The goal would be for committed individuals to be rehabilitated and released eventually. However, individuals with severe mental illness and a pervasive desire to kill others who cannot be rehabilitated would have to remain in the facility permanently.
I do not take this policy recommendation lightly because it will restrict the individual rights of some citizens. Nonetheless, mentally ill individuals with the will to kill others are a danger to society. The best solution is to institutionalize these individuals and attempt to treat their mental illnesses. In enacting this sort of legislation, there would need to be a review board that regularly reviews these cases to ensure the 4th Amendment rights of innocent individuals are not being unjustly infringed. In addition to the review board, those who believe they are wrongly committed to a mental health facility would be able to seek relief from the court system.
Nearly all mass shooters have a history of disturbing behavior, even if they do not have a criminal record. For this reason, a law permitting long-term institutionalization of dangerous, mentally ill individuals would be exponentially more effective than background checks on private firearm sales.
In Uvalde, the shooter displayed a plethora of red flags prior to the shooting. Video emerged of the shooter “grinning as he [held] up a bag of blood-soaked dead cats.” The shooter reportedly threatened to kidnap, rape, and kill girls he spoke to online who were not interested in his sexual advances. Furthermore, the shooter threatened to carry out school shootings on the social media platform Yubo. Finally, before the attack, the Uvalde shooter informed a girl online that he planned to kill his grandmother and attack an elementary school. Even before attacking Robb Elementary School, the Uvalde shooter was undisputably a danger to society. Even though the shooter had not been convicted of a crime, his actions and threats signified that he needed institutionalization. Enacting an involuntary institutionalization process in law would be a meaningful step toward preventing mentally ill individuals from committing heinous crimes, including school shootings.
Finally, the most essential action society can take to stop school shootings is to fortify schools. Doing this will protect students from any potential intruders. Every school must have one central entry point where everyone must enter, instead of multiple entry points, which are significantly more challenging to monitor. Armed guards must secure the entrance and patrol the school to protect students. Additionally, anyone entering a school needs to pass through airport-like body scanners, and all of their belongings must pass through an x-ray machine. These procedures are commonplace when entering sporting events, airport terminals, and government-owned buildings. Schools need to employ these same measures to protect students.
Other necessary security measures that schools must implement are:
bulletproof glass,
windows that humans cannot enter through, particularly on the first floor,
identification card checks at the school entrance – where individuals must present either a government-issued identification card or a school-issued identification card, and
a fortified wall or fence surrounding the school to keep potential attackers off school property.
Finally, schools must strictly enforce policies prohibiting propping doors open or allowing people in through side-exit doors. Anyone who leaves the building, for whatever reason, must re-enter through the main entrance and go through security. Implementing and enforcing these measures will ensure that students are fully protected, and that would-be school shooters do not have the opportunity to bring firearms or other weapons into schools to carry out violent attacks.
The left’s most common objection to these school security measures is that they would be too costly. There is no doubt that these measures would be expensive. In general, being concerned with government spending is a legitimate concern. Our government’s tax and spend approach is entirely reckless and has spurred our current inflationary cycle. However, one of the only times we should be willing to bear any necessary cost is to implement effective security measures to prevent school shootings. In fiscal year 2021, the United States spent $6.8 trillion. There are plenty of areas where we could reallocate federal spending to assist states in funding and implementing these security measures in schools.
The left’s argument against expanding school security measures based on financial concerns is extraordinarily weak. It is astonishing to watch the same Democrats, who support federal spending ad infinitum, argue that federal spending to increase school security measures is too costly. In reality, the Democrats are not opposed to the financial costs of these security measures. They are raising specious opposition to increased school security measures to continue pushing their radical gun control agenda.
Garrett Gillespie graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Central Florida with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.
The Gillespie Report is a weekly news and conservative commentary column written by Garrett Gillespie. Subscribe to receive the newest edition each week for free.
Excellent analysis of homicides and gun usage. The article delivers practical solutions for preventing these atrocities. Likewise, I believe in institutionalizing certain individuals and attempting to treat their mental illnesses.