Editor’s note: Walt Amses is a writer and former educator who lives in Calais.
With the grim predictability of death, taxes and National Rifle Association excuses, yet another school shooting devastates a community, leaving the nation appalled and again wondering if there is any hope of stanching the bloodshed. The saturation of firearms in America — upwards of 300 million — coupled with pulling the trigger inexorably becoming just another viable problem-solving option, the horrifying possibility is that the answer is no, not really.
The grim reality clarified by the shooting in Texas is that even if our cowardly Congress detached itself from the psychotic leadership of the NRA — Seriously, Oliver North? — to pass comprehensive gun control legislation, it is highly unlikely the shotgun and .38 caliber revolver used in this latest massacre would have been affected. Even if gun sales were 100 percent banned, effective immediately, there would remain ample firearms to prolong the mayhem for the duration of all our lives.
While the NRA may be responsible for the proliferation of weapons, they are quick to point out that it’s not the gun that’s the problem — it’s the shooter. We’ve heard the mantra hundreds of times by now, predictably after a mass shooting: “Guns don’t kill people, People kill people.” But even if, for the sake of argument, the NRA is correct in their assertion, they’re still not off the hook. Their years of irresponsible, paranoid rhetoric has unequivocally contributed to the deadly gun culture pervasive across the American landscape.
In fact, several gun lobby kingpins including North — convicted of arms smuggling in the Iran-Contra affair — got it partly right, agreeing that we’re dealing with a “culture of violence,” albeit without owning up to the role they played in its creation. Shilling for the NRA while citing “cultural” issues with a straight face becomes just another outrage, considering the lengths to which the organization has gone to sell the idea that guns are for shooting people rather than wild game or targets. Blithely pointing to gun ownership as a logical method of keeping your family safe, they ignore the fact that this same gun is more likely to kill or wound those you’re trying to protect.
The latest stretch to protect guns rather than kids was as idiotic as it gets with Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick leading the way, blaming everything from violent video games, to abortion, to schools with too many doors and not enough religion, while parents planned funerals and memorial services for lost children. North, the disgraced ex-Marine officer and incoming NRA president, quickly signed on as well (forgetting his own role in developing the violent video game “Call of Duty,” even making animated appearances to lend “authenticity”) … adding that he thought “Ritalin” might also be a factor. That each and every one of these alabis is a transparent load of crap, is apparently irrelevant when gun money is buying your lunch.
But in the sound and fury surrounding each new mass shooting, as each side takes their well-rehearsed positions, it is becoming more challenging to make sense of the horror, much less find a solution that is universally satisfying — respecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms yet protecting citizens from being murdered as they go about their daily lives.
Vermont would seem an inexplicable exception, flying in the face of conventional wisdom: Long considered one of the safest states, yet with a thriving gun culture traditionally unencumbered by regulation, the tranquil Green Mountains were the best of both worlds. That illusion came crashing to earth in February with the arrest of an 18-year-old former Fair Haven High School student who allegedly planned to cause “mass casualties” at the Rutland County school, articulating his plot in a journal called “Diary of an Active Shooter.”
Coming on the heels of the Florida school shooting that took 17 lives, the possibility of a repetition here in Vermont shook the state out of complacency with Gov. Phil Scott admitting he was “jolted” by the details of the case, later saying in an address from Montpelier that subsequent “conversations (about guns) will be passionate and solutions are not easy.” Making good on that prediction last month, Scott signed Vermont’s first-ever gun restrictions while blaze orange clad gun-rights activists howled in protest, vowing to “Remember in November.”
The governor’s courageous decision to sign legislation in the face of pushback from his own constituents was a refreshing glimmer of hope that party affiliation might not necessarily dictate decision-making. And however loud the protests, however willing a portion of Vermont gun owners are to carry water for the NRA, we should remember this: They do not represent the majority of Vermonters, they don’t even speak for the majority of gun owners.
Gov. Scott sent a clear message to Washington and the rest of the country: that a political risk pales in comparison to the risk inherent in doing nothing. Congress would do well to follow his lead.
