I cannot let this latest incident slide by. A colleague posted this article yesterday about a 6-year-old boy who shot a teacher during an altercation inside of a Virginia school. At the time I am typing this the teacher was listed in critical condition. The way this incident is reported is bizarre for a guy whose K-12 years were 1956 to 1969. It has nothing to do with banning guns – but it has everything to do with gun extremism to the point that people get casual about guns. They either forget that children and young adults do not have the necessary judgment to responsibly handle guns or the adults themselves do not exercise adequate judgment and either allow their children to have access to guns or do not secure them at home. Using firearms to settle trivial or inappropriate disputes is a clear example of a lapse in judgement.
Let me paint the picture about what it was like in the 1950s and 1960s before we were deluged with gun demagogues. Many families in the remote
area where I was raised hunted for food or sport. The hunting included deer, rabbits,
ducks, geese, pheasants, and partridge. I don’t have any statistics but if I had to speculate
– the hunting families were in the minority.
Most families that did not hunt and had no firearms on the premises. The
only exception might be World War II veterans with souvenir weapons – mostly not
maintained and unloaded. If you had friends
from hunting families and there was a chance that you might go hunting or
target shooting with them – you had to take an NRA (National Rifle Association)
Hunter’s Safety course. Most people took that course when they were in middle
school. It was taught by a middle-aged
guy I knew from church. He presented the
course in a very calm matter-of-fact manner and clearly outlined all of the
dangers of firearms. I recall anecdotes
about people being accidentally shot at home and injuries from the wrong
ammunition being used in the wrong gun. Rule number 1 was "never point a gun at anybody - even if you think it is not loaded." We
all fired air rifles and .22 caliber rifles at indoor ranges in his basement
and at a larger range in the basement of a retail store downtown. All guns had to be pointed downrange at all times away from the shooters. Nobody fired a handgun, because you had to be
21 years of age to do that and we were all 12 or 13.
There were no political or marketing movements focused on
firearms at the time. We had to be NRA
members to take the course. As long as you were an NRA member you got a monthly
copy of their publication the American Rifleman. The centerfold for that magazine was a
long list of “sporterized” military rifles that could be purchased at a low
price. I recall many days pouring over that list and thinking about what kind
of rifle I would buy when I was old enough.
I never did buy that rifle.
The other incentives to stay engaged with the gun community
was getting ratings based on your marksmanship. If you could demonstrate
certain scores on targets you would qualify for small military style medals
saying that you were an Expert or Distinguished Marksman. Like most skills, it took a little practice (but not that much) to become proficient in shooting. Contrary
to some stories that you read today about hunters and school – nobody ever
brought a gun to school. There were no Second Amendment discussions and
no suggestion that the training had to do with militias. The result was that
there was a small group of middle school kids who had taken a safety course
focused on handling firearms while hunting.
That did not mean there were no firearm related deaths in my
small community. During those early school years there were 2 suicides and a
hunting accident, all involving kids who I knew. Firearms are never completely safe even with
limited access and training.
Back to the article – let me examine two direct quotes
starting with:
“Experts said a school shooting involving a
6-year-old is extremely rare, although not unheard of, while Virginia law
limits the ways in which a child that age can be punished for such a crime.”
Extremely rare but not unheard of is quite an
introduction. Within the space of 2 generations,
we have gone from unheard of to rare but not unheard of. Without being an
expert on Virginia law my speculation is that any legal decision about culpability and punishment is based on the capacity of a
child to formulate a plan and rationally decide to shoot someone. The irony here is that you can watch true crime
television and see the same problem in all of the 20+ year old men who impulsively
commit gun homicide. There are no reasons for these homicides. They all seem to occur during trivial arguments where somebody gets angry and starts shooting. The problem, is depending on the judgement of children and
immature adults and the solution is not providing them access to firearms.
“Today our students got a lesson in gun
violence,” said George Parker III, Newport News schools superintendent, “and
what guns can do to disrupt, not only an educational environment, but also a
family, a community.”
Unfortunately – the students did not need this “lesson”.
From the description they were all traumatized and school shootings are so
common in the US, that they are continuously exposed to it. I would not be
shocked to learn that many of the students and parents involved had been
worrying about an event like this for a long time. The people who ignore this “lesson
in gun violence” are all adults. Many of
them are in positions where they could make a difference but consistently fail
to do so – or even make decisions that increase the likelihood of future
incidents. In the case of politicians, you share responsibility by voting for
gun extremists.
As a country are we so oblivious to gun extremism and gun violence
that we continue to allow a political party and a politicized gun organization
to compromise the safety of school children and teachers? My appeal today is to
the grandparents out there – people of my generation. If you remember what the
gun atmosphere was like when you were a kid – compare it to what is going on
right now. Were there kids in your first
grade class getting into altercations with teachers? Was there gunfire in primary school? Do you recall routinely hearing about primary
and high school students being shot and killed? Were there military style high capacity firearms widely available? Were there armed militias wearing body armor standing outside of your state capitol? Did the musicians you listen to endorse a lifestyle that involved gun violence to settle minor disputes? Were there people suggesting that you needed to carry a gun around with
you at all times for protection? Could you pick up a gun and carry it around
with no training and/or no permit? If you are a person of my generation - the answer to these questions is no.
That is the country we have become. And it is all due to one political party, their politicized allies in the community, and their judges in the Supreme Court drastically changing gun access and attitudes about firearms in the community. Nobody is safe with these people in power.
Be
a single issue voter and vote the gun extremists out.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Supplementary 1: Update on the incident that initiated this post. Reports in the press today (1/9/2023) say the teacher was intentionally shot with a 9 mm handgun that the 6 year old took from his mother. There are conflicting reports that the teacher was trying to disarm the student when the shooting occurred. She was shot though the hand and into the chest. She assured the safety of the rest of the students before seeking help for herself. The status of the handgun while all of that happened is unclear. She was reported as being in stable condition in a hospital. The school is closed to give "students and families time to heal."
Supplementary 2:
Based on an initial response to this post let me be clear about the way to reign in gun fanaticism in the US. To my knowledge no responsible person has ever suggested "grabbing guns" or "coming for your guns". There are too many firearms in the United States for that or for gun "buy backs" to ever be practical. The gun grab argument was basically invented to create gun extremism. Nobody was worried about it in the 1970s.
We are stuck with widespread gun availability and we need to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to do the most damage. Unfortunately that means a majority of people who would not fail either background checks or red flag laws. They are also probably more susceptible to the impulsive use of firearms not just for gun homicides but also gun suicides. A good starting point would be:
1. Universal background check - no state to state loopholes or private sale loopholes.
2. Red flag laws - already incorporated broadly in the FBI NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. That would include people adjudicated by a court as being at high risk of harming themselves or others if they had firearms. Red flag laws should depend only on a direct or indirect threat to harm with a firearm. Since there is a very serious bomb hoax statute - an actual threat to an individual or a facility should be taken at least as seriously. The standard should ne a threat to use a firearm and not having to provide the likelihood or using the firearm or potential dangerousness of the person making the threat.
3. People with substance abuse disorders or mental illnesses at high risk for violence to self or others. That should include a permanent ban on firearm acquisition where determined by a court.
4. People with a history of actual violence to self or others.
5. Additional factors per the NICS system.
6. Serious discussion is needed about the permit less system that is now in place in many states. A practical law would be to prohibit assault weapon sales, high capacity magazine sales, and increase the age for handgun purchases to 25+. But now that there has been a lifting of the moratorium on gun violence research the research on gun violence in this age group and what kind of firearm is being used will make these conclusions obvious.
7. Stop encouraging legal gun violence. Stand your ground laws, permit less carry, and widespread access make guns available for dispute resolutions that do not require lethal violence.
8: Waiting periods for gun purchases. I have had too many people tell me that a waiting period saved them when they had transient thoughts of self harm.
Supplementary 3: The easy access to firearms by everybody who want them is based on many false premises. Here are a few:
1. Do you really want everybody on the street to carry a firearm? Or do you only want a few special people to be carrying these firearms? The assumptions here are obvious. Only the good guys or maybe the masculine guys should be carrying guns. How do we determine who those people are? Is it sex or gender based? Or maybe it should depend on race? Is there a box you can tick to just get a gun. Maybe this is why the gun extremists eliminated all of the boxes. Thinking through that problem is just too hard.
2. Maybe the gun extremists really mean that everyone should carry a gun. In that scenario it is fairly predictable that more and more minor disputes and arguments will be settled by gun violence. We have seen that happen in many national cases already and it obviously happens on true crime TV. Even the Sheriffs in western towns in the 19th century saw this as a problem and had people coming into towns check their guns. (see Tombstone statute from 1851)
3. There is an assumption that gun owners, especially concealed carry owners are supermen (or superwomen) who never make a fatal mistake with a gun, never get in an argument where they might threaten somebody with a gun, know where their gun is at all times, and never accidentally shoot themselves. We know from the data that none of that is true and we can see recordings of real time incidents on television that illustrate this fact including the news report that lead to this post.
References:
1: Finley B, Barakat M. Police: 6-year-old shoots teacher in
Virginia classroom. Associated
Press. Fri, January 6, 2023 at 2:20 PM
CST Link
2: American Progress. Fact Sheet: Weakening Requirements to Carry a Concealed Firearm Increases Violent Crime. October 4, 2022. Link
Graphics Credit:
Photo of the Polychrome Mountains that I shot in Alaska.
Many of my friends/people known to me and their parents/grandparents did indeed carry guns around for personal protection in the time past you are speaking to. They didnt have to advocate fro the right to do it - it was accepted as a right. As long as antigun keep attempting to grab them, the rhetoric to keep them will only get louder, rightly so. My daughter in law's sister defended herself and her children from a would-be armed carjacker (who would have stolen the car with her children in the back in carseats). That man is dead and my daughter in law went through 3 years of legal challenges etc...
ReplyDeleteTell me again we dont need gund for personal protection. As a grandparent, quit telling men to not be manly. Quit putting young boys in public school, expecting them to sit still and listen to some underqualified gov worker talk about who knows what. Put them into a trade and allow them to learn a skill/read/math with hands on work.
And most importantly, quit advocating for gov benefits that incentivize fatherless homes in our communities. Communities without fathers are the ones with gun violence. Lets not pretend this is a gun issue - this is a destruction of the masculine boy issue, and is occurring in every western country.
Good example of the rhetoric surrounding gun extremism. Firearms have nothing to do with masculinity. Advocating for common sense gun laws that existed prior to the 1970s has nothing to do with attempting to "grab" anyone's guns. Obviously guns existed then and the hunters were satisfied they had adequate access. There is nothing in my post that suggests "incentivizing fatherless homes".
Delete