Lone Star College Texas School Shooting Followup

In the wake of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas last week served to keep these types of incidients fresh in the national spotlight. However, unlike Newtown, the tragedy at Lone Star College is being given less attention as more of the facts come to light.

According to investigators two individuals, Jody Neal and Trey Foster, had bumped into each other and an altercation ensued where Trey Foster opened fire resulting in three people being wounded. At this time, all three shooting victims are expected to recover, and Trey Foster was arrested days later in Plano, Texas.

Initial reports indicate that there was a shootout between two gunmen that exchanged fire, with 22 year-old Carlton Berry being one of the shooters. The other shooter, now known to be Trey Foster, fled the scene but again was apprehended days later. As it turns out though, there was only one shooter involved, not two.

On Monday, charges were dropped against Carlton Berry after investigators concluded that he did not participate in the shooting. Initially Berry had been fingered as a shooter by eyewitnesses according to Police, which was enough for an arrest. As it turns out, Berry was shot from behind in the leg/buttocks and was arrested while being treated at the hospital. What is ironic is that some news outlets had also reported that Berry shot himself in the leg.

Further investigation reveals that the sole shooter, Trey Foster, did purchase his gun legally at a local Gander Mountain store, and he did apply for a Texas CHL license to carry his handgun. Foster however to this date has not been approved for his CHL because the background investigation stalled as it found Foster had two misdemeanor arrests (not convictions) on his record, despite completing the required concealed-carry training course. In essence, Foster not only ignored the concealed-carry handgun laws, but he also violated gun-free zone laws for educational institutions.

This incident highlights how quickly our news media, in the rush to report the latest shooting, is not so much concerned with accuracy in reporting, but with grabbing our attention and highlighting an agenda. Was this an example of violence in American society today? Abosultely it is, but was this a shootout between two individuals that highlights a country that has an out of control gun culture? As it turns out, no it isn't.

This situation turned out to be an individual who legally bought a gun, but then decided to break a few laws and shoot someone he didn't like. It just happened to occur near an educational institution. In this author's opinion, the correct course of action is not to enact more gun laws that would serve to punish law abiding citizens, but to hold this criminal (the person who actually broke the law) accountable to the fullest extent possible with the current laws that are already on the books.

Gun Control: Debunking the Assault Weapon

We've all heard the terms in the gun control debate: assault weapon, weapons of war, military style weapons, arsenal, rapid fire killing machines capable of spraying bullets. It's about time we call 'assault weapons' what they actually are; semiautomatic firearms that fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. They are not the same weapons that our military uses nor are they the ones used in war. What we call these firearms does matter if we want to have a healthy discussion about them.

After watching the video below, I felt compelled to write this article. As the presenter in the video points out, labels are a very powerful way to control the debate before the debate even gets started. If you call something an 'assault weapon' or a 'rapid fire killing machine' you've already limited any meaningful discussion of the topic. Surely no one wants anyone to have a rapid fire killing machine!



Consider the difference in impact of these two statements where the first is a quote from President Obama:

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a weapon of war.”

Versus

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a semiautomatic firearm."

Notice the difference?

Even when our politicians reference these firearms as 'military style guns', they are already making that decision for us that these should not belong to the ordinary citizen because they only have military uses, when in fact that is not true. When Obama calls these firearms 'weapons of war' he is already planting the seed in our minds that these firearms are meant only for 'war' when in fact they are used for other purposes.

Furthermore, labels can also be used to illicit emotions like fear, insecurity, and disdain. When gun control advocates call these guns 'weapons of war' or 'military style assault weapon', they are already assigning a negative connotation to these guns. Our politicians in turn can use these negative emotions to garner support for legislation that they say will make us safer.

 Instead of calling the new gun control legislation an 'assault weapons ban' maybe we should call it a 'scary semiautomatic firearms ban.' What we name this new legislation matters *cough* PATRIOT Act *cough*.

These labels are used to control what we think about certain things even before the discussion starts. They can also be used to control people's emotions and thoughts on a particular subject. In that sense, the language of labeling becomes more powerful than any gun can ever be, especially in the hands of a politician.

US Murder Rate at an All Time Low - So Why Are We Talking About More Gun Control

While the gun control debate rages on, we hear claims that U.S. gun violence is out of control. Pundits and politicians will make claims about our violent culture by pointing our attention to violent movies, violent video games, and maybe even the lack of religion. But the fact of the matter is this: despite the narrative being offered by media pundits and politicians, the numbers show that the U.S. is actually becoming less violent. 

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in 1991 the U.S. murder rate was 9.8 per 100,000 people. In 2011, that number dropped to 4.7, which is almost a 54% drop in our murder rate. During that same period the U.S. violent crime rate dropped from 758.2 per 100,000 to 386.3 (a reduction of almost 50%). 

Also according to the UCR, firearm murders have declined every year since 2006 from 10,177 murders to 8,583 in 2011 despite the population increasing in the United States. Nonfatal firearm crimes are dramatically decreasing as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistic shows that the crime rate for nonfatal violent crimes involving firearms dropped from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 in 2009 (over a 66% decrease). All of this is occuring despite the fact that there are more guns in America than ever before.

One might ask, if the U.S. is actually a less violent society now than it was two decades ago, and guns are much less of a problem now than they were before, why doesn't it feel that way? At this point, we could focus our attention towards two culprits, the media and our politicians. With the advent of the twenty four hour news cycle and the priority of news outlets to bring forth breaking news, our news media is constantly on the search for the next big story.

Take for example the Empire State Building shooting that occurred in late August of 2012. Some media outlets like Reuters were quick to label it as a mass shooting, and even Fox News went so far as to label it as terrorism. There is no question that media outlets are all competing for our attention because that is how they make money. Also, there is no doubt that horrific events such as shootings and violence grabs our attention. Maybe that's also why we have video games and movies that are more violent and realistic than they ever were before.

Invariably though, the media pushes the narrative to gun control and we look towards our politicians for answers. However, is it wise to let our sensationalist media and news outlets determine where our attention should go when discussing public policy?

The same could be said of politicians. Politicians much like our media outlets thrive on our attention. Dianne Feinstein is the exemplar of this as it only took her two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to get in front of a camera to push her new legislation, which I must reiterate is not only ridiculous, but would be ineffective at addressing mass shootings.

Whenever a tragic event occurs, our media and politicians will always push the idea that we have to do something. The Obama administration is looking to pass gun control legislation as quickly as possible, while the emotions following the Sandy Hook incident remain high, regardless of whether it would prevent the next mass shooting incident from happening. Much like how we witnessed the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of Septmber 11th, our politicians are doing exactly the same thing today. Are we once again willing to trade our civil liberties for a false sense of security (and yes, gun ownership is a civil liberty)?

Tragedies occur every day, and they will continue to occur. Admittedly, some of these will involve guns. But despite what the media, politicians, and gun control advocates would have us believe, going by the statistics, violent crime and gun violence is not out of control. We know politicians and gun control advocates can't pass gun control legislation if they actually recognized that our society is actually becoming dramatically less violent. So we must ask ourselves, after these tragic instances, why is there not the same fervor to help the mentally ill, and why are we so focused on passing more gun control laws?