I’m always dismayed at people’s first reaction to the events involving school shootings. The gun lobby, immediately go on the defensive and say, “this has nothing to do with guns”, and the anti-gun lobby straight away state that the only solution is to ban or restrict gun ownership etc. Firstly, and I’m aware I’m taking a patronizing, moral high ground approach etc, no event of this nature should have anyone rushing to their keyboard to make a Facebook post or twitter tweet to try and make their case or argument. Sometimes the best and most dignified response is to say nothing – especially till all the facts are clear.

In the last few days I have read much about how similar events don’t take place in the UK because we have a ban on handguns and automatic weapons – the only gun ownership allowed is for farmers and those in similar occupations to own a shotgun (a pretty devastating weapon in its own right). An interesting UK statistic, is that Farmers have the highest suicide rate, next to dentists when the stats are viewed from an industry perspective; with the most common method of “attempted suicide” involving a shotgun placed into the mouth – an ironic result being that such a shot rarely kills the person but instead ends up performing a partial lobotomy on them, which often ends up curing the depression which caused the attempted suicide in the first place.

In my mind there is no doubt that giving people an available means to fulfill their innermost desires/dreams is a step in empowering them to act upon them.  In 1987 and 1996 two events occurred in the UK, which lead to the weapons ban that is often referred to and cited as the model for gun control in countries where similar “mass killings” still exist e.g. the US. These two events, which lead up to the ban, are slightly different but give some ideas as to why firearm bans and gun control can seem appealing and can certainly lead to significant reductions in certain types of crime/violence.

In 1987 a 27 year old gunman, Michael Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun went on a rampage in the town of Humgerford killing 16 people, including his mother. In 1988 a law went into place restricting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and restricted the use of certain shotguns. In 1996 43 year Old Thomas Hamilton entered Dunblane Primary School armed with four handguns (not banned in the 1988 law) and shot dead 16 children and an adult. After this, all firearms with a few exceptions (UK farmers etc) were banned.

These acts and laws, from what can be ascertained stopped “Mass” Shooting sprees, in the UK i.e. we have not had such an event since 1996 (17 years) that involved mass/multiple killings. This is despite the fact that firearms are relatively easily obtainable in the UK e.g. I could walk into many pubs in Scotland or England and emerge, for a price, with a suitable weapon. There are however two restrictions that are on me: 1. I have to be tapped in to the community that has access to these weapons, which are normally reactivated weapons in plentiful supply i.e. I have to be a criminal) and 2. I have to have access to ammunition – something that has become in short supply since the weapons ban.  

These things are two obstacles that an enraged and emotionally disturbed individual(s) has to overcome – and the UK Criminal Fraternity are usually pretty good at spotting these individuals in the first place and won’t supply them etc. In essence these two things have become the UK’s legal restrictions on gun carry; plus, there really was no gun culture in the UK in the first place and this s perhaps the most important point – when the weapons ban took place it affected a very small minority of the UK population; something that could not be said if a similar ban were to take place in the US. It is also important to note that the UK citizens never had a “right to carry” their firearms concealed or unconcealed in public. I say this because many Americans believe that the now high rates of violence involving edged weapons (blades, knives etc) in the UK is a direct result of our firearms ban – simply not the case.

The fact that the UK has extremely tough knife laws and yet continues to see the levels of violence involving edged weapons that it does, shows that legislation alone doesn’t prevent or stop violence. The US culture is one where firearms play a defining role (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant), and legislation will do little to change or alter this. The fact that a “disturbed” individual can acquire a large cache of firearms is difficult to legislate against, because such a person is actually hard to distinguish from the responsible citizen who has a wide array of firearms that they use in a safe manner for recreational purposes. Enforcing a weapons ban in the US would penalize these individuals, who make up a large percentage of the US population (something that wasn’t the case in the UK).

One step that could have a positive effect in identifying individuals who may be looking to own and possess firearms that they would use to take life, was if the fire-arms community took a level of responsibility in policing itself. If owners of firearms were required to be “active” members of a local gun club, and pass a vetting procedure to become a member then a level of profiling could be added. In July of this year there was a shooting in a cinema in Colorado by James Eagan Holmes, who had earlier been refused membership/had his application turned down of a gun club he tried to join. I’m not saying that such a requirement would have stopped or prevented the shooting however the identification of a potentially dangerous individual only became apparent after the event. If you own a firearm you should be at a range practicing with it regularly – and I would argue, tested on your proficiency (something required in Israel) – the last thing that would have been wanted was a non-proficient carrier trying to respond to Eagan in a crowded movie theater.

The anti-gun lobby in the US have to accept that blanket bans on weapons or types of weapons will be unsuccessful – the prohibition era should have demonstrated that you can’t change cultures by legislation – and the gun lobby needs to stop making the repetitive argument that it’s people not guns that are to blame; I agree but let’s start to make an effort to look at and identify these individuals and take a level of responsibility for “policing” them.

The UK never had its gun laws right before the ban, and the ban itself was extreme and excessive. It is also a lesson in how individuals can get around such legislation (i.e. Hamilton in 1996 used Handguns, which weren’t banned in the 1988 law). In light of recent events the US would do well to avoid such drastic responses by the anti-gun lobby however those in favor of ownership should start to make pro-active recommendations for how such events could be possibly prevented in the future, rather than make the same tired responses and arguments that have failed to satisfy their critics – the UK hasn’t had a mass shooting since the weapon ban took place and this is a hard argument to counter. If the UK had better laws and requirements around gun ownership in the first place, there may never have been the call for such a ban in the first place. It’s time for the gun lobby to stop responding to mass shootings from a defensive position and make a case for what it can do to police its own community (of which these criminals are part of, whether people like this or not), more efficiently and effectively.

I don’t believe banning ownership of firearms is necessary however I do believe that responsibilities need to be taken and realities accepted. It is impossible not to feel for those parents who lost sons and daughters in the Connecticut School Shooting and not agree that the killers access to the weapons used played a part – if any parent (and I include myself in this) lost their child in this manner I would argue that firearms restrictions and legislation would be a natural first thought. However at the same time it was the mental state of the Killer that drove him to commit this atrocity and had he been forced to be part of a community (a gun club) that could have identified him as a threat then this or another atrocity he may have committed, using explosives etc, could possibly have been prevented.

If it is time to accept that one of the consequences of having a “gun culture” requires armed guards in Schools and Theatres i.e. certain public places this should be accepted and the gun lobby should get behind it. If we have cars that can drive above the speed limit and acknowledge that we have to have police and state troopers to restrict this misuse, then it may be time to acknowledge that we need people/individuals who are trained and able to do this where firearms are concerned.

A large proportion of Israel’s GDP goes on defense. I remember Dennis Hanover making the point that if all of that resource could have been put into construction and education etc what an incredible country Israel would be – more so than it is now. However the reality of Israel’s situation e.g. neighbors who want it pushed into the sea/destroyed, Iran supplying medium range rockets to its aggressors and conducting its own long range missile program against it etc, means that that is where that money has to be spent. If it is time, because of its situation with firearms, for resources in the US to be put into security at the public level (schools, malls, cinemas etc) then that should be accepted and the cost borne. There really is no price that can be put on safety.