An Unfair Gunfight

It has been five weeks since the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.  Perhaps surprisingly, the ensuing national dialog about gun responsibility following that slaughter of 26 innocent people is still actively continuing.  The far Left has reacted predictably by calling for a ban on virtually everything guns – a both inappropriate and ultimately unsuccessful position.  The far Right anticipates a federal seizure of public arms and is seemingly ready to shoot the next federal law enforcement officer that comes their way – an equally inappropriate and ultimately unsuccessful position.  Meanwhile, the vast middle class has collectively said “enough” to this indiscriminate violence, and wants at least something done about it.  But as usual, the substance of “something” can have many meanings, so we await a consensus on definitions, and are then dependent on some ONE(s) to actually do that something.

Most responsible people are coming to the same three overall conclusions on this topic.  Our gun violence centers around: 1) the weapons involved; 2) the people involved; and 3) the cultural atmosphere that disseminates and glorifies violence.  So the search for solutions involves looking into all three aspects to find the pieces needed for an overall reduction in the violence.  Good and new creative ideas are coming forth, as well as some very bad ones.  But as that search for substance continues by many, the purpose of this blog entry is not to debate specific proposals (although that might be appropriate for a future blog).  Rather, this blog is about looking ahead and saying, whatever ideas and proposals are arrived at, what is the chance of anything actually changing?  Sadly, I confess I believe the answer is “No.”  Why?  For several reasons.  And all of those reasons spell m-o-n-e-y.

The Constitutional arguments are not the problem.  The Supreme Court has clearly pronounced that the First Amendment protects free speech (and hence media/entertainment violent content), but that freedom has limits and is subject to some practical restrictions.  They have said that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms, but that right also has limits and is subject to restrictions.  So the Constitutional questions will be around where the limits can be set.  The action issue for Americans is simpler than complex legalities: it is, simply, who has the most money to demand the greatest influence on the outcomes of our discussion?  That answer is a) gun manufacturers and b) the leadership of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – as distinguished from the NRA rank and file.

Virtually all meaningful and substantive responses to gun violence will require action by Congress.  States can choose to be more or less active on this issue, but state laws are virtually meaningless with today’s cross-border gun trafficking and mobile buyers.  In today’s dysfunctional and ineffective Congress, there is simply too little interest in the national will or the national best interest.  It is all about personal political power and status.  Personal power starts with being elected and getting reelected.  And elections – as we have so recently seen – are all about raising money.  Lots of money.  And one gold mine for election money comes from appealing to gun corporations and their surrogate, the NRA.

Create enough fear of an adversarial federal government and gun sales will skyrocket.  Organizational groups stoking that fear and vowing to fight that threatening government will similarly watch donations and memberships rise.  Plus, in this economy, corporations can choose to play the “jobs card.”  The Colt gun corporation situated outside Hartford, Connecticut has already threatened to move its operation out of state if new regulations are passed, and Connecticut lawmakers have stalled consideration of such new regulations.  Similarly, the Remington corporation in upstate New York has threatened to move elsewhere if New York threatens their manufacture of the assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook and other shootings.  In this rural Republican county, job losses carry weight.  So once again we see that “hell hath no fury like a corporation whose profits are jeopardized.”

In addition to these overt corporate threats are the more subtle (and hidden) support gun manufacturers give to the NRA leadership team.  The NRA claims to have signed up 200,000 new members over this past month, but fail to mention the 70% fee discount offered to stimulate enrollments.  Nor do they mention the various polls that show a majority of their general membership favor reasonable new gun controls.  (They have spouses and sons and daughters, too.)  NRA leaders versus rank-and-file members should not be seen as all of one mind on these issues.

Nevertheless, the dollars speak.  Exact numbers are hard to come by.  But for 2012, the NRA and its PAC affiliates had approximately $200M in revenue, a $300M budget, spent $2+M for lobbying, and spent roughly $18M to influence political decisions and elections.  By contrast, the leading gun control organization – the Brady Campaign – had a paltry budget of $4M, and spent $60,000 on lobbying and $50,000 on political initiatives.  This is not a David and Goliath battle.  This is a baby David versus a whole army of Goliaths.  So when a Democratic or Republican Congressperson – who often may care less about the 2^nd Amendment versus getting reelected – goes looking for campaign money, who do we think they will be listening to?

Until the financial rug is finally pulled out from under this dead weight of the NRA that has stifled considerations of any reasonable steps for reducing gun violence, then all the planning discussions will be for naught.  Vice President Joe Biden talked to all kinds of people with all kinds of opinions about gun violence.  But he never talked to the fundraisers of America about how to even the political odds for doing “something.”  The shame of our time is not our self-inflicted violence from killings.  Our shame is that we have reduced it to a financial argument over clout, a financial argument that will wait in line behind Congressional impasses over a debt ceiling, sequestration cuts, federal budgets, and a list of other issues.

The truth is that guns will always be a part of America’s heritage and cultural life.  And that can be perfectly OK.  Does any reasonable person really believe that banning weapons designed specifically to kill lots of people quickly is going to prevent my friend Larry from shooting a deer so that his family can eat venison all winter long?  Regrettably, some people will on occasion be killed by an angry or sick person or a criminal; our reality is that we have no absolute protection of safety over our lives.  Yet in today’s environment, there are far more controls, protections and tracking systems for buying and operating an automobile than in buying and owning a lethal weapon – yet in spite of such controls people are still able to successfully own and drive their cars.

This fight is only minimally about the Second Amendment; it is really yet another fight about the horrors of our political campaign financing.  Until gun safety forces raise enough cash to create a level (or better) playing field, the stark reality is that there will be no reduction in our gun violence.  No change in our environment of private one-person armies.  And where that non-action may continue to take us is ever more scary to contemplate.