Clinging to gun control

I can’t help getting cynical about the current political spasm of gun control. The horrific massacre of schoolchildren by a mentally unbalanced shooter unquestionably was a tragedy and demands action. So what’s the instinctive response? Make it harder for sane, law-abiding people to own guns.

President Obama’s anti-gun rhetoric is a bonanza for the firearms business and has significantly increased the number of weapons in circulation. The dramatic increase in gun sales may be his most successful economic stimulus to date. (What is it about the guy that makes people want to run out and buy a gun whenever he opens his mouth?)

Banning assault weapons sounds reasonable and I’m all for improving background checks. The problem is that restricting gun ownership has never deterred mass shootings, even in tightly regulated places like Norway. We’re kidding ourselves if we think this will prevent the next bloodbath. No gun control law will keep the homicidally deranged (or your average gangbanger) from getting firearms.

If we’re serious about preventing tragedy, it’s more productive to identify and treat a relatively small number of sick puppies than to limit the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Mental health treatment was an afterthought in the President’s proposal. The state of Colorado is taking more substantive action with a proposal to expand mental health treatment and include commitment records in firearms background checks.

Treating the mentally ill saves their lives, too. Here in Albuquerque, we’ve seen a surge in shootings by police officers. Most of the victims had mental health problems and were shot when they displayed weapons and posed an apparent threat to the cops.

Unfortunately, overhauling mental health treatment is a complicated issue. It’s easier for politicians to demonize the National Rifle Association than pick a fight with the American Civil Liberties Union over the rights of the mentally ill.

The gun control argument also highlights our country’s cultural divide (and widens it, thanks to President Obama’s unerring instinct for wedge issues).

I grew up in gun control country: I knew very few gun owners, and support for gun control was the default position of most people I encountered. My hometown of Oak Park, Ill., was one of the first communities to enact a handgun ban in 1984 and even gratuitously declared itself a nuclear-weapon-free zone. I wrote a letter to the local paper: I’m okay with the handgun ban, but if we can’t have nuclear weapons how can we protect our families?

Now I live in gun country. New Mexico has no gun registration except for concealed-carry permits. Hunting is popular here, and it’s not unusual to hear about a homeowner or shopkeeper shooting a would-be robber. The state votes Democratic but its Congressional delegation gets favorable ratings from the NRA. Recently 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs held a news conference in Santa Fe to declare their opposition to the President’s assault weapons ban.

I suspect that New Mexico, and a lot of other states, are foreign to some of the media folks and academics who believe we should act more like Europeans and dismiss those who “cling to guns or religion.”

Personally, I am agnostic on guns. I’m grateful I never had to use the pistol I carried in Vietnam. I had lots of fun practice-shooting a Thompson submachine gun but have no desire to own one. Eventually I may get a handgun at home – my neighborhood has occasional burglaries – but am in no hurry. Most of my neighbors are armed and that makes me feel safer.