Right.
So the solution is to do nothing.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Perhaps we could just start here, knowing that it will probably prevent just a very, very small number of unnecessary gun deaths?
What do you say?
Great questions!
Yes, you are misunderstanding.
No, we should not start with those three proposals, for the reasons I outlined earlier, plus the fact that you'd be depriving an enormous number of people of their right to self-defense.
I have seen gun rights vs gun control discussions this precise pattern a lot of times. It's something like this:
Anti-gun person: Here's a proposal (or a series of proposals) for reducing gun deaths.
Pro-gun person: Here's why your proposals won't work, will have nasty side effects, or are impractical.
Anti-gun person: Then you don't care about fixing the problem.
Do I have proposals? Well, sort of. This problem is a really difficult one, because it is driven in large part by culture, and culture is difficult if not impossible to change by enacting laws. I view the problem more as a
gang problem in the case of murders, and as a
mental health problem in the case of suicide. To some extent, I see gangs as a problem of economics and marketing. In areas with lots of gang activity, teens are often faced with two options: either work hard in school, get a job, work for a living, or join a gang, sell drugs, and make easy money. The gang side has some pretty effective marketing--a lot of peers are doing it, their success is immediately visible, there's a real brotherhood of sorts. Staying in school and getting a job are not glamorous, require lots of work, and don't come with a built-in social life. Some of these kids come from families and homes where working a legitimate job to earn a living is either A) not enough (low wages, single mom can only work part time, etc), or B) not a priority or possible. I realize I'm painting in very broad strokes here, and I don't wish to imply that such is the case for the majority, or even a large percentage of the people involved. But it's a far more visible choice than, say, out in middle-class suburbs.
In some areas, the marketing problem, the culture problem, and public policy create a vicious circle. For example, in some Chicago neighborhoods, the gangs are so brazen and powerful that
candidates for city council will meet with them to try and get their support. This has historically extended as far as ignoring gang activity or tipping them off to police activity. Lack of enforcement leads to more gang activity, which further depresses the area, making gang involvement appear as the only choice, etc. Corruption in Chicago is rather widespread, even though it doesn't get much press.
So, from the perspective of economics, the goal is to make gang activity less attractive by removing incentives or adding penalties, and make legitimate work more attractive. At this point, you'll have to forgive me if I slip a little into brainstorming mode, and not all of this might make sense let alone be a good idea. First of all, we need to recognize reality: under the status quo, a lot of these kids aren't going to graduate high school, let alone go to college. So teaching them skills and habits that will help them earn a living should be a priority. As much as our country's culture prizes higher math and science and language skills, those things aren't going to benefit all students. Vocational classes? Bring 'em back. Give kids the opportunity (or perhaps even assignment?) to work around the school and get paid for it. Crack down on any and all gang activity in school. Crack down on the drug trade to reduce the incentive to get involved.
On the mental health side, that's an even more difficult one. I can understand the motivation behind various "red flag" laws that are currently
en vogue, but such programs are vulnerable to mistakes abuse by both politicians and private citizens. They also provide a strong disincentive for people to seek help, i.e. call suicide hotline -> police show up and confiscate your guns. This one isn't hypothetical, either. New York's "SAFE" Act has led to plenty of stories of people being deprived of their rights because, for example, they briefly had a prescription for an anti-anxiety medication.
There's a third type of gun death that gets a lot of press, and is used far more often as a reason to pass stricter gun laws, despite its statistically small contribution: mass shootings. The thing is, you're not going to stop this type of thing by, say, stricter background checks. The Vegas shooting was performed by a guy who would have passed any background check you can imagine. Sandy Hook? The guy murdered his mom and stole her guns. The Parkland shooter should have been diagnosed as mentally ill and barred from owning a gun. I could go on and on and on.
How would I approach such situations? Well, first of all, by not giving them press. Don't name the guy who did it. Name the brave people who fought back. Second, abandon the entire idea of "gun free zones." The whole concept is so incredibly brain-dead that it boggles the mind. As I stated this earlier in the thread, the people who pay attention to such rules aren't the people you're worried about, and the people you're worried about won't obey such rules. In fact, a very high percentage of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. The people who commit such crimes are often mentally ill, but not necessarily
stupid. They're not going to try to shoot up a police station or a gun store. They choose soft targets, i.e. where they can inflict maximum casualties with minimum chance for resistance. The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, CO drove by three other movie theaters to the
one that was "gun free."
Instead, I believe we should allow teachers and school staff to be armed, and be trained in how to respond to an attack. Such programs are already officially in place in various states without incident, and I've heard that in states that don't allow it, some teachers do it anyway. Is there a risk of an accident? Absolutely. Does it outweigh the risk of a school shooting? Well, we're comparing two
very tiny risks, but my instinct says "yes," because if armed teachers were leading to injuries or deaths in schools, we would see it plastered across the news.