Editor’s note: this commentary is by Paul Manganiello MD, who is emeritus professor of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a member of GunsenseVT, and Susan and Michael Thomas, co-pastors at Our Savior Lutheran Church in Hanover, New Hampshire.
[W]e are writing as a physician focusing on the public health of our body politic and as pastors concerned about the spiritual well-being of our nation’s people. Now that some time has passed since this recent, most deadly massacre in Orlando, what do we know about the circumstance surrounding this tragic event? What lessons can be learned and what responses taken?
Here’s what we do know.
• This was a crime directed at the LGBT community. Such targeting of a particular group qualifies as a hate crime.
• While there is much yet to learn, the shooter’s actions appear also to qualify as terrorism, defined as the use of violence and intimidation for political aims.
• The killer pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), but had also in the past voiced support for al-Qaeda and was interrogated by the FBI as a suspected terrorist on two separate occasions.
• He had a history of being physically abusive to his ex-wife. His current wife may have aided and abetted the attack, either knowingly or unknowingly.
• He was an American citizen born in New York.
• He worked for a security firm, with access to firearms.
• He used a “military” style rifle.
One thing is clear: this was a complicated crime. Our usual simplistic responses tumble before it.
“If only we would do a better job with those who have mental illnesses”;
“Laws wouldn’t have prevented this from happening”;
“Background checks would have prevented this from happening”;
It makes no sense for licensed firearm dealers to be obligated to perform background checks, while online sales and gun shows have different rules.
“More people should be armed, gun free zones are the cause for these events”;
“We can never take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights”;
“We have a constitutional right to take immediate possession of a firearm”;
“I want a semi-automatic firearm because they are fun the use”;
“I want a weapon to defend myself against our tyrannical government.”
How can we uphold the legitimate right of an American citizen to possess a firearm, while also assuring the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all citizens, including those who do not want to live in fear of guns? Developing a safe gun culture does not exclude assuring the individual’s constitutional right to possess a gun.
We know that the reduction in motor vehicle deaths is the result of sensible governmental legislation that both mandated and encouraged voluntary improvements in automobile safety features.
We know that we will never eliminate or prevent all firearm deaths or injuries, even with common sense regulation. However, the much lower statistics regarding gun deaths and injuries in other developed democratic countries show us that many American victims, some of whom were our friends and family members, could have been spared grave injury and death from gun violence. On a per capita basis, Americans are exceptionally at risk of dying by gun violence compared to citizens of other developed democracies.
Exceptionally at risk. Why should that be?
Recently Andrew Grossman from the Cato Institute related that banning individuals on a no-fly list from purchasing a firearm is a “slippery slope,” as it denies due process regarding an individual’s constitutional liberties. This should not be an impediment to passing sensible legislation. The other nine of the first 10 amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) to the Constitution all have restrictions. Why should we believe the Founding Fathers expected the Second Amendment to be absolute? In 2015, eight national medical professional organizations and the American Bar Association advocated for specific measures that would reduce the public health consequences of firearms while not conflicting with the Second Amendment.
Because mass killers do often suffer from some form of mental illness, gun rights advocates are quick to use mental illness as the scapegoat when gun violence occurs. In fact, individuals with mental illness are more likely to be victims of criminal violence rather than perpetrators of it. Less than 5 percent of violent crimes (assault, murder, rape and robbery) are committed by an individual with mental illness. One cannot predict who will commit a crime as a result of “mental illness.”
A more reliable predictor is being a young, white, single male having a history of violent behavior. Even if mental health care delivery improved significantly, some mentally ill individuals will still be able to obtain guns. This is undeniable. But our goal has to be to reduce the opportunity for that to happen. Loopholes in existing laws need to be tightened; both federal and state laws need to be aligned. It is too easy for dangerous individuals to purchase guns in states with lax laws and transport them into states with stricter laws. It makes no sense for licensed firearm dealers to be obligated to perform background checks, while online sales and gun shows have different rules. It is time for comprehensive universal background checks, and those checks should include domestic abusers. Gun sales should be handled in a similar manner as what is required of hunters in Vermont — certification of completing a gun safety course; a license; a limit to the size of the magazine; no use of machine guns or automatic firearms.
The military-style weapons used by mass killers have no place in a civil society. They are not designed either for personal safety or sport. They are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time and to inflict the most damage on those who survive. Possessing them because they are fun to use doesn’t count as a reason they should be available. An alternative could be locking them up safely after use at the gun range, the only place they should ever be found. Today, possessing them as a counterbalance to the government is delusional and pure folly. Witness the 2016 Bundy standoff. As a democratic society, it is we who are responsible for who governs us. This is what “We the People …” means.
Just as we have banned machine guns from civil society, we need to re-instate the ban on military style firearms. And we must require our gun manufacturers to be more responsible. Traffic deaths would not have been reduced if we had waited for voluntary action on the part of automobile manufacturers. That significant reduction has been due to the implementation of the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.
Along with efforts to reduce the number and types of guns available to most anyone, shouldn’t similar responsible action be taken with gun manufacturers to guard the safety of our citizens? Manufacturing guns with smaller magazines that require more time to exchange while shooting, as well as mandating the phasing in of smart gun technology, would at least slow the devastation a mass murderer holding one of these guns could wreak upon innocent people.
It is time — and past time — to act. As a study published in the American Journal of Medicine in February of this year concluded, our guns are killing us rather than protecting us.
