An idea that has so far escaped our state’s politicians in the long and weary immigration debate has surfaced relatively early in the gun-violence debate: comprehensive reform.
Well, not completely comprehensive, but it is a laudable start.
As the Tribune’s Michelle Reese reported last week, state Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, joining with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and the president of the National Association of Resource Officers, Kevin Quinn, announced a plan to add more school resources officers to Arizona schools while increasing the ranks of school guidance counselors and stronger emphasis on determining mental illness.
The proposal is estimated to cost more than $30 million, which could be drawn from sources other than the state general fund and would need voter approval, Reese reported.
Here’s the not entirely comprehensive part: While touching on several areas, it doesn’t cover everything. Nothing is there about further regulating guns or ammunition, which overwhelming majorities of Americans believe is part of the solution.
The Pew Center for the People and the Press last Monday released results of a national poll (evtnow.com/504) showing 85 percent of Americans support background checks for purchasers of guns at gun shows or from private sellers. This view is expressed by similar majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats. The Pew Center survey found 80 percent back legislation that would keep the mentally ill from buying guns, once again with the solid support among members of both major parties and independents.
Regarding a ban on assault-style weapons, Americans are more evenly divided, with only 55 percent in favor, according to the poll results. The Jan. 9-13 poll of 1,502 U.S. adults and has a plus-or-minus 2.9 percent margin of error.
As their proposal lacks any solutions about guns themselves, it looks like Crandall, Babeu and Quinn are letting Congress take on these matters, which leaves them not having to take on the gun lobby here in Arizona.
If we have learned anything from the immigration issue, it is that only through several solutions aimed at several contributing causes is anything going to work. Political posturing about picking which one to do first before any of the others — Democrats want relaxed restrictions while Republicans want border security, while neither side actually defines either — has kept the matter unresolved for several years. That lack of resolution has had profound effects on the economy and on the lives of millions of people, citizens and non-citizens.
At least, Crandall and company’s proposal involves some aspects of the gun-violence issue. But it is important to point out that at best they — as well as restrictions on getting guns themselves — can only minimize, not eliminate, the possibility of violent deaths of children and adults. Still, minimizing such tragedy even without eliminating it remains a worthy goal.
Yet it is something to keep in mind as solutions are considered. Just as banning certain kinds of weapons won’t cure the nation from the scourge of such violence — both Kennedy brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed by people using legally available guns, for example — neither will increasing the number of cops on campus.
Certainly a cop at the right place at the right time could be in a position to minimize death and injury. But armed only with a service revolver, even the most earnest, heroic officer is hardly a match for a madman having much more firepower.
Again, these are not arguments against more cops or several other ideas. The more prongs of the attack on gun violence, the better. But they have limits. I don’t know too many people calling for police officers on campus with assault-style weapons of their own slung over their shoulders, for example.
Since the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., Americans are tired of rhetoric and want real action, not watered-down feel-good action that lawmakers so often end up giving them.
The absolutist arguments are wearing thin. An absolute ban on certain weapons might not eliminate every high-powered assault, but should we give up on installing traffic lights because there will always be people who disregard them and endanger lives? The same could be said about anyone who favors eliminating background checks entirely as a Second Amendment argument.
Crandall, Babeu and Quinn are to be commended for unveiling a great start for discussion of this vital issue. It approaches the issue from several fronts, which is what the public is demanding. It will come down to how comprehensive is comprehensive, however, and as the gun debate continues we should remember it is this consideration that has kept the nation from doing anything about immigration.
Read Tribune contributing columnist Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
downtownresident posted at 9:55 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
That's quite the pair you've got there.
An unethical politician who chairs committees that give money to his side job of double dipping state funds and a gay sheriff who used his position to threaten a former lover.
That's a great example for our children!!!
Let's see, 300 charter schools in AZ and Rich can only find money for 300 SRO's.
This can't pass the smell test.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:31 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Just how is this supposed to prevent the mentally ill from getting weapons?
It is illegal for any mental health personnel to report an individual UNLESS they are positive he is an IMMEDIATE threat to harm himself or others.
There is no data base of people who have sought, or been referred to, mental health practitioners.
Unless a person applying for a gun permit was required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to purchase a weapon, there is no way to begin to try to keep them away from weapons.
And that would do NOTHING to keep them from breaking in and stealing a weapon or buying one on the street.
All this hand wringing over guns is nothing but barking at the moon.
Deddzone posted at 3:13 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Remember when drunk driving was killing people and very little was done about it? Recall how long it took to rein in the tobacco industry?
The gun lobby is NOW facing the same thing and none of this will happen over night. Give it time and their will be stricter laws on guns.
samkat posted at 5:47 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Willie: Do you also propose having anyone applying for a driver's license to have mental evaluation also? After all, every driver has the potential to become a killer.
downtownresident posted at 9:03 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
samkat ,
Logic must not be your strong suit.[sad]
Bluepoet posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
I like the mention of having more Guidance counselors on campus. That could potentially be a major help, in red-flagging students with anger/mental issues, depending upon what qualifications these counselors would be requred to have.
I'm in favor of limited access points to schools, as well as Security that assures people are there for a reason, and are escorted, if visiting.
It still doesn't address legal issues, like who gets to put the label of "mentally ill" on someone, for the purpose of limiting or eliminating selling weapons to them. On the face of it, I would think that would fall to someone with a psychology degree, and who would not be constrained by a doctor's confidentiality umbrella.
That's where the real problems lie, in this whole thing, precisely because it's where the real "solutions" lie, too.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:41 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
Bluepoet: even if it were possible to have a data base of people who had mental problems, that wouldn't stop them from stealing weapons or buying them on the street from people who don't care what the gun is used for -- as long as it isn't used to shoot them.
That being said, there should be a database of people with mental problems available to law enforcement and gun dealers. It wouldn't stop all sales to mentally ill people, but it would stop some, possibly most.
Nothing is perfect and to not do something simply because it didn't solve the problem 100% is foolish. Better to do something even if it only solves half the problem. That would be 50% fewer shootings by the mentally ill.
DonMey posted at 12:22 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
There's actually a Democrat on AZCentral who I argued this topic with; she claims that mentally ill are deserving of the exact same rights as everyone else, no exceptions. In fact, she argued that "young males" were more dangerous than the mentally ill, and they should have their gun rights revoked long before anyone who is deemed "mentally ill".
Interestingly, she also claimed the Obama's desire to override HIPPA laws for more comprehensive background check was a non-issue, as healthcare professionals are already required to report on the dangers of their patients. I didn't bother to ask if she felt Holmes' doctor was therefore responsible, since she witnessed threats and did nothing...in fact, she ignored them entirely until a colleague was threatened. Seeing herself in those shoes, she stopped treating him and reported him to the police...who then also did nothing.
Bluepoet posted at 9:27 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Az,
Of course, none of these measures will be 1000%. I don't think any rational mind could even expect that. I do have a big agreement with Mr. Scarp that the debate is thin, and often wanders off into the weeds of obscurity--which makes even stop gaps difficult to establish.
As for the rights of the mentally ill- yes, they have all the rights, right up to the point of being committed, by a competent professional. And, they should be evaluated by more than a few other professionals, to see that their rights are not unduly infringed upon. We certainly don't want to see wholesale lobotomies returning. On the other hand, we need to get dangerous people off the streets, and those who are a danger because of mental illness should not be left to fend for themselves, or be put in profit prisons, or opt out to "suicide by cop"...
Bluepoet posted at 9:27 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Oops, meant 100%, not 1000%! [beam]
Richard Mueller posted at 6:17 pm on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.
Rich Crandall never did anything that wasn't in his own self interest.
Mark, what you can't quite get your arms around is the simple fact that guns don't kill anyone - the individual who possess the gun does the killing - the gun is simply the tool.
How do you account for the dramatic increase in school attacks in China? Just 2 days prior to the tragedy in CT 20 young school children were killed at their school in China - by a madman wielding two long knives.
Address mental illness, not even being mentioned. Assault looking weapons aren't your enemy - compared to the annual death toll in Chicago how many semi-automatic rife deaths annually are there Mark?
You haven't done you homework on violent crime in the UK or Australia where they collected all the citizens guns... or closer to Arizona, Mexico where they have very strict gun control laws.
Stop the knee jerk reactions and lets start to focus on the real problem with violence in America, look at the video games our kids play and the movies we let our children watch.
If our unborn don't deserve life, what message does that send to our youth? We live in a Culture of Death and all you can do is yap about inanimate objects killing people??