Dear Sir,
I have refrained from writing to you on this matter before now, as it seemed only decent to wait a few days, unlike those who immediately leapt to politicize this horror in Connecticut. But having heard the increasing calls for gun control, and statements from prominent politicians that this represents “a tipping point,” I am impelled to write to you and express my vehement opposition to a renewal of the so-called “assault weapons ban,” or any other similar legislation. Why anyone imagines such legislation will be effective is a mystery I have yet to solve. As William Ralph Inge said, “It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while wolves remain of a different opinion.” Gun control laws, which will only be observed by the law abiding, amount to sheep passing a resolution in favor of vegetarianism. Yet criminals, who are prepared to break other laws, against murder, robbery, rape, and other offenses – laws which carry far greater penalties for breaking them than any gun control ordinance – are to be expected to balk at laws carrying or using guns because they have been outlawed? This makes no kind of sense.
Every year in this country, guns are used by law abiding people to defend themselves; even the lowest estimates put such uses in the hundreds of thousands per year. In 1994, the Department of Justice commissioned a survey which put the number at one and half million. Now, anti-gun zealots would put the ability of decent, law-abiding people at risk because of a single incident, horrific though it was, that cost a score of lives. I don’t say this to be callous or to make light of the lives lost at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. But these events are rather like plane crashes: both spectacular, headline-grabbing events, but both are rare, and the loss of life from other causes actually far outstrips them. Many people are afraid of flying, and news of an airliner crashing will feed that fear. Yet the fact remains that if you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles, you are far more likely to arrive safely if you get on an airliner than if you climb into the family car to do it. However, if the family sedan is hit by a drunk driver, no one outside your family and friends will probably ever hear of it. If the airliner crashes, on the other hand, the whole nation will. So, such spectacular events as plane crashes make the news, and feed people’s fears of flying. Yet all the while, vastly greater numbers of lives are lost in automobile accidents.
It is much the same with firearms. One spectacular, news-making tragedy like Sandy Hook feeds people’s fears of guns, and stokes the demand for gun control. But none of those laws will be obeyed by criminals or madmen, and may cost far more lives than they save when law-abiding people, who will comply with the new laws, are thereby disarmed. None of the proposals I am hearing would have stopped Adam Lanza.
But I realize that you and your colleagues in Congress are under tremendous pressure to do something. But I implore you to resist the knee-jerk calls for action that will not have the slightest positive impact, and instead focus your efforts on achieving something that will help. The real problem that needs to be addressed is with the deranged individuals who commit these crimes. Two things need to be done in this area. The first is to overcome the resistance that the medical community still has to reporting people who have been found to be a risk to the appropriate agencies, so that these people will show up as ineligible should they attempt to purchase a firearm. Many medical professionals still resist such reporting on grounds of privacy or confidentiality. But this is the one measure that touches on gun control that might be of benefit, and it doesn’t touch the rights of law-abiding citizens, who had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, and shouldn’t have to pay for it. The other thing that should be done is to undertake a reexamination of the criteria by which people with mental health issues are involuntarily committed. One thread that runs through all these mass shootings, is that the shooters were all found to have displayed numerous warning signs beforehand. It is not only unjust, but nonsensical and ineffectual to enact laws that will only target law-abiding individuals who, I say again, had nothing to do with this latest incident or any other, when steps can be taken to target individuals who do represent a real risk to those around them. I urge you, sir, to show the strength of character and the moral courage to resist the knee-jerk reactions of those who have put far too much emotion and not nearly enough rational consideration into their cries, and to instead direct your efforts, and lead those of your colleagues, in directions that may be productive. If Congress can pass laws that will mandate reporting of those with mental health issues that are judged a high risk, so that their names will show up along with those of convicted felons, and other ineligible individuals, when background checks are run, you will have a solid achievement to point to when asked what steps have been taken to prevent another such tragedy as the one at Sandy Hook, and such a measure as this will not infringe the 2nd amendment rights of ordinary Americans, and will have the support of the NRA and other gun rights organizations. It’s a better idea, it’s politically feasible, and it’s more just. This is an opportunity to enact laws that may actually work, instead of being kabuki theater, held up to the public as a partial solution, but which actually accomplishes nothing toward that end. I hope you will not let this opportunity pass you by.