Day 392: How Many Children Are Too Many to Sacrifice Before Congress Acts?
If Congress knew that 1,000,000 American children would be gunned down within a year unless they took legislative action, a bill would be drawn up within days.
The same is true if the number was 100,000 or 10,000.
But apparently Congress is okay with 1,300 deaths, because that’s how many children are killed in the U.S. by firearms annually.
Wednesday, a gunman added to that tally. At least 17 people, including many students, were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The surreal scene played out live on social media, as students posted harrowing photos and videos while locked down in their classrooms.
“Douglas” or “Parkland” join the somber place-name shorthand used to label mass shootings: Columbine, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Roseburg, Virginia Tech, Pulse, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Charleston.
The list goes on. And on. And on and on and on.
There are shootings at movie theaters, nightclubs, concert venues, churches, conference centers, private homes and city streets. Still, there’s something about school shootings, where the targets are kids who have yet to live their lives, that especially shocks the conscience.
The U.S. sees mass shootings — roughly one per day — at rates not seen anywhere else in the world.
And, yet, Republican leaders in Congress sit on their hands and offer nothing but thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It’s Donald Trump’s go-to as well.
More than four months after the Las Vegas shooting, where the shooter employed bump stocks to inflict greater carnage and both sides of the aisle expressed dismay about the devices, they remain legal, despite the fact that they create a de facto automatic weapon. Neither Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have put any legislation on the floor of either chamber that would ban the devices.
In 2001, a man tried to blow up a shoe bomb on an airplane and 16 years later most travelers in the U.S. are still taking off their shoes to get through airport security. Meanwhile, after someone succeeded in shooting over 500 Americans in just 10 minutes with a device whose only purpose is to fire more rounds per second, nothing has been done.
In addition to the Ryans and the McConnells, there are the Marco Rubios (R-FL) of the world. In the last two years, the junior senator from Florida has seen his constituency endure two of the deadliest mass shootings in American history and still seems surprised when gun violence occurs.
Despite his prayers, the awful days keep coming, as he simultaneously (and as quietly as possible) accepts millions of dollars from the National Rifle Association.
Rubio is quick to run to the cameras after tragedies and express prayers and dismay. His typical defense to his inaction: gun laws won’t work because criminals don’t follow laws.
Bullshit.
Replace “guns” with “drugs” and Rubio would surely argue that drug laws are necessary, even though they don’t act as a deterrent to many. On top of that, there are gun laws on the books, including an automatic weapons ban, that have proven successful in keeping certain weapons off the street.
Under Rubio’s reasoning, there’s no reason to ban bazookas or grenades or even tanks because if criminals want them badly enough, a silly thing like a state or federal statute isn’t going to stop them.
The NRA has invested tens of millions of dollars into political races, essentially buying a large enough swath of Republicans, including Rubio, in both chambers of Congress to stop any bill that goes near gun reform. See, for example, bump stocks.
Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) — likely challenging Bill Nelson (D-FL) for his Senate seat later this year — has echoed Rubio, claiming that the Second Amendment and gun laws aren’t the problem. (Trump, Rubio and Scott have all given direct addresses to the NRA.)
When the Second Amendment was drafted, the threat of military invasion was real, and the need for commoners to be able to stave off an attack was critical to the nation’s security. Weapons of the day could fire a round or two per minute and were not particularly reliable, especially from any sort of real distance. Today’s weapons can fire multiple rounds per second, with far more accuracy and from greater distance.
Would Rubio trade $1 million in his campaign fund from the NRA to save one Floridian’s life from senseless gun violence? Is he willing to risk potentially losing his job in five years — if the NRA backs another candidate for senator — to do what’s right for his constituency? (Based on his history, the obvious answer is no.)
If the shooters who perpetrated attacks at Pulse nightclub or Douglas High had magazine capacities of just 10 rounds less, maybe one more life could have been saved. If it had been just a little harder to procure semi-automatic, military-style weapons, maybe one more son or daughter would be alive.
Rubio and his colleagues didn’t pull any triggers Wednesday, but they have made it easier for someone else to do so.
It’s time to wave goodbye to the narrative that “recognizing the signs” or “treating mental illness” are the keys to stopping this level of violence. (Last year, Trump revoked a Barack Obama-era rule that made it harder for mentally ill individuals to get their hands on weapons.)
It’s not foolproof. It’s not easy. It’s not happening. And the ramifications are devastating.
Discussing reform in the aftermath of yet another shooting isn’t politicizing a tragedy, it’s seeking to minimize or prevent the next one.
392 days in, 1070 to go
Follow us on Twitter at @TrumpTimer
