They have scheduled a news conference for Tomorrow, Friday the 21st and have announced that:
"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Wouldn't that be nice, but while that remains to be seen, I'm given to wonder if the changes proposed by others will be meaningful as well, or as is often the case, haphazard, oblivious to facts and doomed to be ineffective at best. What I'm hearing and reading rather confirms my worries. My incompletely documented opinion is that most bans aren't effective because they weren't designed to be. Ineffective by design and ineffective because they're unenforceable, many make things worse. Looking at the Volstead act and our "war on drugs" I see massive increases in crime and harmless people having their lives ruined. If a ban is what we hang our hopes on, a ban without further characteristics, we'll be as successful as Reagan's "just say no" billboards or Ford's "WIN" buttons were. If we refuse to recognize that no weapons at all should be inside an elementary school, we'll get bogged down with descriptions and characteristics that most of us are painfully incompetent to handle. If we let the discussion revolve about ballistics and rates of fire, around plastic gunstocks over wood, gas or recoil operated actions and magazine capacity, we're going to pass more nonsense and walk away dumb and happy until some other crazy bastard pulls another trigger, or God help us, lights a fuse or opens a canister of ricin.
Damaging the influence of the powerful, fear mongering NRA, at long last, will not be all that we need if we truly want to protect our schools ( or theaters and shopping malls for that matter) unless we shed some of the self-righteousness we sometimes share with them and take an honest look at our own "meaningful contributions." Do we share that "more of the same stuff that didn't work" and that "we didn't think of it so it's no good" attitude? Do we steadfastly repeat party lines and refuse to consider inconvenient and contradictory facts as the economic extremists at the Tea Party do? Do we draft laws that address other forms of mayhem we haven't thought of yet or do we, as Generals are accused of doing, fight the previous war?
Times have changed. When my parents were in elementary school one could buy a Thompson submachine gun, the infamous Chicago typewriter, at the local hardware store, but there wasn't much demand except from the gangs and the company would have failed if the Army didn't buy some. As far as I know, nobody was shooting up schools with real, honest-to-Thompson assault weapons. Now they're illegal, but demand for things that look like them is soaring. I can ask why we are different now, but I can't answer the question. I just have to accept that we are.
Congressional gun rights supporters are suddenly willing to talk gun control. So will it be substantive gun control or will congress pull off another fast one giving us some paper that they call gun control but is designed to do nothing? Will we fall for the usual sophistry and sleight of hand or another toothless ban? Face it; for 50 years we've enthusiastically and fatuously blown it. Let's not blow it again.
So maybe it's the time and the season. It's surely not the time to do nothing or reprise our failures. I hope we can do it right. I hope to hell we can avoid the extremist and not always useful language we're hearing from so many sources. I hope we can address the question of why current policies have fostered or allowed a real reduction in aggravated crimes yet haven't had sufficient effect on "Amok" crimes; suicide-by-cop crimes where the perpetrator isn't concerned with remaining alive or was seeking to die in the process. This isn't time for shouting and screaming, wailing and mourning or for listening to hysterics. It may be time to listen to people who are used to dealing with suicide bombers and terrorists -- who are weapons experts, security experts and perhaps even psychologists -- and tune out the scared and angry amateurs like you and me.