Wednesday, June 08, 2022

Five Modest Proposals

The word from the bipartisan group on Capitol Hill discussing the latest spree of mass shootings in America is dispiriting. It seems clear that whatever they propose, if they can agree on anything, it will be extremely modest and will do little to curb the violence. Sadly, it has become clear that we have lost the ability to think big about our most pressing societal problems. To restore the ideal of innovation in public policy, here are five new substantive proposals that could tackle the alarming frequency of mass shootings in our country while simultaneously avoid treading on the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Together they can provide the framework for a safer nation.

1.  Close all schools.  

Over the past four years, there have been 119 shootings in schools, which killed 88 and wounded 229. It’s time to take this seriously. Rather than engage in silly notions of allowing only one means of entrance and egress or barricading schools to prevent them from becoming targets, it’s time for Republicans and Democrats to come together and level with the American people. There’s really only one sure way to end school shootings for good -- and that’s to permanently shut all schools. Gunmen won’t be able to shoot up schools anymore if there are no schools anymore. This proposal comes with built-in slogan: “Ban schools not guns. Because ignorance really is bliss.” Once the pols have successfully shuttered the schools – and thus protected our most vulnerable, the children -- they can move on to shutting down on other venues that have become routine targets of crazed mass murderers: markets, malls, movie theaters, military bases, colleges, clubs, churches, concerts.   

2.  Stop men from owning guns.

A recent analysis of the hundreds of mass shootings in the US since 1966 showed that 95.7% of them were perpetrated by men. It seems the 30-year-old pop-psychology book had it right: Men really are from Mars, the planet named after the Roman God of War. Thus, if we’re truly serious about putting an end to mass shootings, we should stop selling weaponry to men.
 

3.  Ban men entirely.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, which, in the coming session, will be made of up of five men and four women, would likely find the above proposal unconstitutional. So here’s another way of tackling the gendered problem of violence: outlaw the male of the species entirely (here, Congress or local legislatures might consider a carve out to allow for the maintenance, in a safe and secure environment, of some halfway decent specimens – provided we can find any -- for breeding purposes). A society without men roaming around in public would, without a doubt, be a much less violent place, and, thus, this regulation could be justified as a crucial public health measure designed to save the 167 million women in our country from the mayhem and violence inflicted by the 162 million men who also live here.

4.  Ban bullets.
People can be as well-armed as they want, but they won’t be able to shoot up a mall or church service if they can’t get ammo. The constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008, guarantees an affirmative right to “keep and bear arms” but in their wisdom, the founders did not specify the right to “load” those weapons or to keep and bear ammunition. A bunch of states banned carrying loaded weapons in public in the era the constitution was written, so it's possible (though perhaps not likely) that this kind of regulation could satisfy the so-called originalists who currently dominate the Court.

5.  A speed limit for guns

A bullet from an AR-15 travels at approximately 2,200 miles per hour. That’s almost triple the speed of sound, 50% faster than most other rifles and three times the speed at which the average handgun fires a projectile. The extra velocity is unnecessary for self-defense – a topic that was of incredible interest to a number of the Justices at the recent oral argument regarding the law that prevents most people from carrying weapons in New York State, a case that is due for a Supreme Court decision this term – and therefore it would make sound public health policy to create a speed limit for guns. Fortunately, there is already a highly-regarded bureaucracy to work on this. For legal purposes, we should not consider guns weapons or, as specified in the constitution, “arms.” Rather, they are simply the means by which bullets are transported from one place to another. So it is entirely reasonable and appropriate that they should be regulated by the National Transportation Safety Board.

I urge the bipartisan group currently searching for a way forward to examine these proposals in good faith. If they do so honestly, they will find that they can craft a realistic plan to end mass shootings for good without stepping on the political tripwire of gun control.

No comments: