gun violence | PROBABLE CAUSE

The mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard yesterday is the fifth mass shooting in the United States this year, and the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades.

The FBI doesn’t specifically define mass shooting. However, it identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.

Using the above definition, there have been 6 mass shootings over the past nine months and at least 62 mass shootings in 30 states since 1982. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 of them took place in 2012.

What industrialized nation in the world would put up with this epidemic of violence without doing something besides wringing our hands? The answer, of course, is only one, the USA.

Mass shootings have occurred in Germany, Norway, Finland, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom over the last two decades, but not at nearly the rate as the United States.

So what is the difference?

According to the latest Small Arms Survey conducted in 2007 by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, there are far more guns in private hands in the USA than in any other country. On average, the survey reported 88.8 guns per 100 people in the USA, compared with 54.8 per 100 residents in Yemen and 45.7 per 100 in Switzerland.

Peter Squires of the University of Brighton in the United Kingdom, who has studied mass shootings in Europe and the United States, found that European countries tend to have more tight-knit societies where a strong social bond supports people through crises.

I don’t know if our country can ever replicate the social bonding that occurs in European countries, but it’s way past time for the politicians of this country to quit pandering to the gun lobby and to do SOMETHING to stem the tide of violence.

As politicians from both sides of the aisle mourn the loss of lives in the latest mass shooting, we hear little about the need for a policy change. Neither President Obama nor candidate Mitt Romney dared to mention the words “gun control” as they expressed sorrow for the victims––such is their fear of upsetting the NRA, the most powerful lobby in Washington.

It’s a familiar scenario. After every incident, politicians wring their hands and offer condolences to the victims and their families. Then, after the funerals, life returns to “normal” as we wait for the next mass shooting. Let’s face it; no matter how many die due to gun violence, the citizens of this country have apparently accepted these rampages and the deaths of hundreds of innocent people as the price we have to pay for having the loosest gun laws in the industrialized world.

The shooter, James Holmes, easily acquired a military-style semi-automatic assault rifle, a shotgun, and two Glocks at local gun stores within two months. He was able to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the Internet. Yes, you heard that right, 6,000 rounds. He also bought an urban assault vest, two magazine holders, and a knife from an online supplier of tactical gear for police and military personnel. The owner was reported as saying that his company processes thousands of orders each day, and there was nothing unusual in the one that Holmes placed.

Gallup polls over the last two decades show the percentage of Americans who favor making gun control laws “more strict” fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 44 percent in 2010. Revenue to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has declined while the NRA’s donations have increased.

According to a recent Reuter’s poll, while only 32 percent of households owned a gun in 2010, the majority of Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves, and two of every three respondents had a favorable view of the NRA.

Congress hasn’t approved any major new gun laws since 1994, and a ban on certain semiautomatic rifles expired in 2004. Some states have loosened gun laws to allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons or adopted “Stand Your Ground” self-defense laws.

So while the NRA and its supporters may have won the debate, the country as a whole has lost. And no matter how many condolences and excuses are offered to the victims and their families, the NRA has blood on its hands, as does anyone who votes for politicians who support the organization and this country’s lax gun policies.