Gun-control debaters ignore problem of mental illness
By Roy Ockert Jr.
Oct. 6, 2015
Our political leaders tell us by their inaction that they can or will do nothing about the relentless series of massacres, especially on school campuses, in this country.
No matter how horrific the latest tragedy, or how young, how many and how innocent the victims, our elected representatives sit on their hands. Oh, they may express the same horror, shock and sadness the rest of us feel, and they again call for action. But in the end they can agree on nothing so nothing is done.
No matter how you look at it, the United States of America has a problem. The FBI reported 8,124 homicides by gun in 2014 — an average of 156 a week, 22 a day.
The shooting last week at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., was the 45th school shooting this year in the United States — more than one a week.
Mass Shooting Tracker, a project that uses a broader definition of “mass shooting” than the FBI, says that 294 known mass shootings have occurred this year. While the FBI’s definition requires three or more people to be killed, that wouldn’t cover, for example, the Lafayette, La., theater shooting, which resulted in two people being shot to death and nine others wounded. Mass Shooting Tracker classifies a mass shooting as one that results in at least four people being shot.
By any definition, the United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed nation in the world. And yet we have no idea what to do about it.
We aren’t about to repeal the Second Amendment because we already have 88 guns per 100 people and the gun manufacturing industry has the power to suppress even simple legislation that would pass in a popular vote of the people.
Polls indicate that most Americans favor universal background checks for purchasing guns, but in 2013 Republicans in the Senate stopped a bipartisan bill to expand background checks for gun shows and Internet sales. Then Democrats killed a bill that would have provided funding for gun-crime prosecutions, school safety and mental health.
Thus, our leaders did nothing.
After Umpqua the cry went up again for gun control legislation, but I’ve seen no proposal that would have stopped this massacre. That has been true in most cases.
[The Charleston, S.C., church massacre is one possible exception. The killer was able to obtain his murder weapons because of a loophole in the law that allowed him to buy them even though the FBI background check hadn’t been completed. A bureaucratic error missed his felony arrest, and the law says if the check isn’t completed within three days, the sale can go ahead.]
The Umpqua killer had six guns with him when he attacked, and seven more were found at his home, according to news reports. All were acquired legally, authorities said. Oregon has a rigid background checks law that went into effect last December, and there is no reason to believe the killer wouldn’t have passed it.
Gun rights advocates argue that the way to combat this problem is for more people to carry guns. But Oregon is an open-carry state for all adults, and concealed-carry permit-holders have broad freedom to carry handguns.
Contrary to some reports, Umpqua was not a gun-free zone.
Here is the college’s policy: “Possession, use or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols and paint guns), ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals or any other objects as weapons on campus property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.”
But The Oregonian reported that there is a big exception: Anyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus. That’s because a 1989 law prohibits any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.
Oregon state police told the newspaper that about one in 16 Oregon adults has such a license.
In fact, John Parker, a 36-year-old military veteran, told reporters that he was on campus when the shooting took place, and he had his gun and his license with him. He was a few buildings away and decided against running to the scene, in part because he was concerned that law enforcement officers would think he was the shooter.
Now if the initial shooting had taken place in his classroom, Parker might have been able to defend himself and his fellow students. But a gunfight in a small classroom full of people is hardly safe.
Students in our schools and on college campuses might be safer with more people carrying guns, but the protection should come from uniformed, trained personnel. That’s expensive, but so is the long line of mass murders.
Our leaders could surely find some common ground on another typical problem involved in most mass shooting: mental illness. We continue to ignore this problem because families don’t want to face it. The Umpqua shooter’s father is calling for more gun control, but he offers no reason why he and the shooter’s mother failed to notice and take action to deal with an obviously disturbed son.
Even if they had, they probably would have found little or no help from a society that ignores mental illness until too late.
Roy Ockert is editor emeritus of The Jonesboro Sun. He may be reached by e-mail at royo@suddenlink.net.