▲ Family of the victims of Sandy Hook. Provided by blog.newscom.com.

News of campus shooting incidents in the United States (U.S.) is not even shocking these days. In 2012 and 2013 alone, there have been 15 reported school shooting incidents in the U.S. Among these incidents, the one that happened in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 had desperate casualties, and a surprising social aftermath. The huge debate going on in the U.S. makes us think about what the actual cause of these incidents is. Is it the existence of guns or the shooter?

The tragic incident took place in Sandy Hook Elementary, Newtown, Connecticut. During the attack, 20 first grade students aged six or seven were shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber XM15-E2S rifle. Then six adults were killed, including four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist counselor. Then the shooter Adam Lanza shot himself with a handgun when the local police arrived. According to the medical examiner, all of the victims were shot between 3 to 11 times.

▲ Protester interrupting NRA press conference. Provided by i2.crtcdn1.net.

In fact, this incident is not the first massacre on campus in the U.S. On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung-hui killed 32 faculty members and students, and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia. The attention to this incident was even higher and more global, but the federal policies related to gun control had not been changed under the administration of George W. Bush, the U.S. President at that time.

The Stances of the Causes

One week after the incident in Connecticut, the chief of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Wayne LaPierre, broke the organization’s silence. “But since when did the gun automatically become a bad word?” Then LaPierre goes on, “A gun in the hands of a secret service agent protecting our president isn’t a bad word.” This statement clearly defines the stance of the NRA that the problem causing these tragedies is not the guns, but the shooters.

However, several facts are not supporting LaPierre. Although the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, had Asperger’s syndrome, it “is actually not highly correlated with violence, and is not even diagnosed as a form of mental illness,” says Connie Chung(Post-Doctorate research, Harvard University). “Asperger’s is a high-functioning form of developmental disorder which is not a type of mental illness.”

▲ Obama skeet shooting. Provided by unionleader.com

There are possibilities that Lanza had other mental illnesses that were not diagnosed, or he had a reaction to his difficulties related to his symptoms. Those symptoms could be poor social skills, excessive and repetitive behaviors and limited interests. These symptoms could be seen as a risk factor, but the Asperger’s itself is not related with violence. Not to mention the fact that, according to the American Psychiatric Association, only about four to five percent of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness.

Also, contrary to LaPierre’s claim, the existence of guns is a huge factor in gun violence. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the statistics on guns and homicide and discovered that there is substantial evidence which indicates more guns means more shootings and murders.

According to a Harvard/Children's Hospital study, by reviewing each state’s gun ownership rates and gun deaths per 100,000 people, scientists concluded that the more gun laws a state has, the lower the rate of gun-related deaths is. The states in the top 25 percent of gun legislation strength had a 42 percent reduction in gun deaths compared with the states in the bottom 25 percent. The number is composed of a 40 percent drop in homicides and a 37 percent drop in suicides. In terms of a different index, the states with the strongest laws had 6.64 fewer deaths per 100,000 residents than the states with the weakest laws.

▲ NRA Chief Daivd Keene. Provided by thenetworkportrait.com.

Another surprising fact is that when gun violence dropped, other types of violence did not rise. This suggests that when firearms are not available, their attempt at killing themselves or others by other means drastically drops. For suicide, if the first attempt involves guns, there is an 85 percent likelihood that it would be lethal, while when other means are involved the likelihood drops to two percent.

Then, does this mean that gun control is the only factor that needs to be addressed? Absolutely not. The actual cause of mass shootings cannot be answered with one word; it is a multi-factor problem with a series of causes in order to solve the problem. While it is noted that most of the mentally ill people do not commit violence with proper treatment, some of them in severe conditions could be a heightened risk factor for violence. In other words, similar to the claim of LaPierre, more profound health care and diagnostics for mental illness are necessary since, in most cases of mass murders involving firearms, most of the shooters acquired their weapons legally.

The Powerless Government

Gun politics has long been considered as one of the most controversial is­sues in American politics. For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms has been characterized by a stalemate between an individual right to bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution against the responsibility of government to prevent crime.

For the past decades, there have been executed policies that favor both freedom of firearms and restriction of them. The most recent change in the U.S. legislation that restricted citizen ownership was the Assault Weapons Ban that started in 1994. It outlaws the sale of semiautomatic guns with certain features. In 2004, however, the ban expired under the Bush administration.

▲ The US Congress building. Provided by museumchick.com.

With close observation, it is not difficult to realize that during the past few decades the U.S. government has shown little efficiency in taking substantial steps, though the vast majority of U.S. citizens proposed that the government do so, not to mention the fact that it also failed to control shooting incidents and massacres.

The main reason is the influence of the NRA. Since its foundation on November 17, 1871, the NRA has been using its best efforts to promote the rights of citizens to bear arms, which is legally guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The membership of the NRA has grown to 4.5 million as of January 2013, including the newly-joined 250,000 members after the shooting of Sandy Hook Elementary. In other words, the influence of the NRA has grown to the point where nobody can ignore it.

With that as a base of their influence, the officials of the NRA, especially the chief, LaPierre, and the president, David Keene, often give speeches and statements in national broadcasts or on printed media. Under the NRA’s influence, approximately the half of people with guns in their homes, feel that the government is trying to take their guns away, even though Obama did not propose such extreme measures.

“Stand and fight” was the tagline of the television advertisement that the NRA released before Biden’s task-force announcement. The spot calls Obama an “elite hypocrite” and opposes Obama only giving his own daughters armed guards but not other schools. Given the observed tendency that people who vote regarding a candidate’s gun policies are the ones who oppose those policies, the administration has no choice but to take less aggressive approaches, even though they might be less effective.

Another surprising method of NRA to spread influence is to financially support certain con­gress candidates and members. The NRA has a “rating” that determines how much a candidate could fight for the citizens’ rights to bear firearms. A+ is the highest ranking and it is given to those who have “excellent voting record” and “vigorous effort” on gun rights; F meaning those candidates who are “true enemy of gun owners’ rights.” In 2012 alone, there were 261 candidates running for congress got financed by the NRA, 25 being the Democrats, 236 being the Republi­cans. The total amount of the support is 650,000 dollars, which is not a small amount at all.

Not to mention the fact that 80 percent of the NRA-backed candidates ended up winning their House or Senate races. To be more specific, there are about 190 members out of 535 voting members of the congress who have the similar opinions on gun controls, more or less. Therefore, the NRA has substantial influence over Congress which could potentially stop legislations or policies that restricts gun sales in any ways to be passed.

The Proposal

▲ Obama crying in a press conference after Sandy Hook incident.Provided by cdn.theatlantic.com.

“America has changed on this issue,” U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said. “There is a moral price to be paid for inaction.” This indicates that the tragedy has fundamentally altered the administration’s attitude towards gun control. In response, Obama signed 23 executive actions in order to execute his proposals into practice. Although Biden said there is no absolute guarantee that these proposals could completely stop people from dying, “fewer children will die,” at least.

The administration pointed out that most gun owners utilize their legally acquired firearms in a legitimate manner. Yet too often, there are many irresponsible and dangerous individuals who get firearms through several loopholes. Therefore, Obama proposed strengthened background checks on gun purchasers, and this is one of the proposals that grabbed the biggest spotlight.

Even before Obama pointed this out, the law requires legal gun sellers to run background checks on people who want to buy guns. However, it is estimated that about 40 percent of gun sales are done by private sellers who are excluded from this requirement. Also, even though the background checks are executed, there are limited databases that the system can access; in other words, background checks might overlook some dangerous factors that make the gun purchasers potential shooters. Therefore, Obama is doing everything to ensure that all the gun purchases are transacted with thorough background checks, and that the federal agencies and departments share their information with each other.

Obama’s proposal to ban military-type weapons and high-capacity magazine is also a couple of major changes. Although the legislation that bans assault weapons was commenced in the past, it only lasted from 1999 to 2004, because there was little effect. Along with it, Obama also proposed to ban gun clips with capacities of over 10 rounds. What is different from last time is that this time the government has some evidence to rely on. The disturbed shooter who killed six people in the 2011 Tucson shooting was tackled while reloading his guns. In other words, banning high capacity magazines might give police or other first responders time to stop the shooter.

There are also actions taken to address the problem of the “bad guy” that LaPierre pointed out. Obama is trying to make his words realistic: “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Even if this is not for reducing mass violence, mental illness medical care indeed needs to be improved. Although nearly 75 percent of mental illness appears by the age of 24, less than half of the young parents with diagnosable mental health problems receive necessary treatment.

There are some major steps taken by the administration, such as to provide “Mental Health First Aid” training to help teachers and staffs recognize mental illness in young children. Along with it, the Affordable Care Act is the largest step to increase access to mental health services for current generation, providing health coverage for 30 million Americans, including 6 to 10 million people with mental illness.

In the Upcoming Future

The journey that the administration is taking is not an easy one at all. Obama’s proposals are still supported, but not so much as before. While a lot of the U.S. media criticize the NRA for hold­ing an absolutist stance in the wake of the Newtown massacre, there are still a big portion of people who believe the best way to reduce school violence is to have an armed guard in every school, similar to what the NRA suggested.

However, now is not the time Obama should lose his hope and momentum. According to a poll released by Quinnipiac University on February 8, 52 percent of Americans support stricter gun control protocols, including tighter background checks, which was an expected outcome after Sandy Hook. Specifically, 56 percent of people support the nation-wide ban on assault weapons, and the same amount of them advocate a ban of high capacity magazines. Also, 92 percent support requiring background checks for all gun buyers. All of these delight the administration.

With a high support rate, it is likely that the U.S. government should set new policies or change the old ones to match the president’s proposal. Maybe they are not the best way to accomplish some effects on reducing massacres by shootings, but it is clear that they are required decisions. But how long will it take to see some substantial effects? We, as a third party, have to wait and see.