Thoughts from the Middle

GUN VIOLENCE AND THE OVERUSE OF FORCE BY POLICE AGENCIES

by Robert James Fischer

Introduction

Over the past two years I have written about reforming policing as well as gun regulation.  In those pieces I discussed a number of issues.  Both focused on changes in our American culture that occurred throughout the sixties and seventies.  The following article will discuss the relationship between growth in gun ownership and the changing police culture.  Both issues relate to Americans’ views of their Constitutional rights.  In the opinion of many Americans, the Second Amendment means the unrestricted right to own guns.  Regarding the issue of police use of force, many believe that “I know my rights!” trumps the need to comply with a police officer’s requests.

In 2020, mass shootings (defined as shootings where four or more people, excluding the shooter, are killed or injured) occurred, over 600 times, up from 417 in 2019. As of April 16, 2021 there have already been 147 mass shootings as of April 16. (David Victor and Derrick Bryson Taylor, “A Partial List of Mass Shootings in the United States in 2021, The New York Times, April 16, 2021)  As I write this piece, there have been three more shootings occurring near Kenosha, Wisconsin; in Austin, Texas, and in  Long Island, New York.

The Second Amendment

In order to understand the battle for the “right to bear arms,” as debated by the American Rifle Association and by the liberal left, it is important to know what the Second Amendment actually says. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Given that the colonies had just fought a war of independence with the British and did not have a standing army, it is no surprise that our founding fathers chose to make it clear that citizens would have the right to bear arms under the guidance of a well-regulated Militia.  In other word, the right to keep firearms was the Founding Fathers’ way of making sure that the lack of a strong standing army would not allow European countries to attack the new nation.

Today, it is legal to own semi-automatic rifles and pistols.  However, our government has decided to control the sales of fully automatic weapons and other types of military hardware.  Efforts to further regulate gun ownership and associated tools are strongly opposed by the NRA and its allies.  Lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, as well as the NRA, have been able to stop much of the legislation aimed at further controlling gun ownership.  Of all the countries in the world, no nation has more gun violence than the United States.  Our citizens own more guns than any other country’s citizens.  Why?  The answer that is commonly given is that it is our heritage. 

The NRA’s View

The NRA was originally founded to promote gun safety and sport shooting.  The organization supported the National Firearms Act, and later, the 1968 Gun Control Act.  These two pieces of legislation called for restrictions on certain categories and classes of weapons and associated tools.  However, by the mid-1970s, the organization began to promote the 2^nd Amendment theme.  They were successful in their campaign to convince many Americans that the government was planning to take away their guns.  Any efforts by the government to regulate gun ownership and associated tools were strongly opposed by the NRA and their lobbyist. 

The 21^st Century Gun Problem

As the NRA changed its focus from gun safety to 2^nd Amendment rights, Congress has failed, and is currently failing, to consider flaws in current legislation.  For example, loopholes in gun sales laws allow guns to be purchased by persons who might not pass scrutiny of a thorough background check.  Between the lack of legislative initiates to fix the background check problems and a failure to pass legislation limiting access to various weapons and ammunition clips, it appears that Congress has little interest in dealing with the proliferation of guns in America.  In addition, when legislation is suggested, it is often sidetracked by the NRA lobbyists. A common theme, perpetuated by the NRA, suggests that the government legislation regarding firearms is a “slippery slope” designed to eventually take guns away from Americans.  The reality is that even if Congress has the courage to begin to limit certain firearm purchases, there are currently approximately three guns for every American!  Thus, it would take years to bring this number of firearms down.

Law Enforcement

While no one factor can explain what has happened to erode the “Serve and Protect” community policing culture, the impact of the proliferation of guns has contributed to much of the change.  During my career I had the opportunity, over a twenty year period, to serve on and head evaluation teams studying all of the police academies in Illinois. I observed a change from the service culture of the 1980s to the “us versus them” culture that had developed by 2000.  Academies have always stressed vigilance in dealing with law enforcement issues, whether traffic stops or the arrest of a violent felon.  However, with the prevalence of guns that offered more “fire power” than that carried by a police officer, the level of vigilance became more important than service.

            As a police officer in the early 1970s, I carried a Smith and Wesson .357.  The persons that I encountered in my work in Oklahoma, where open carry was allowed, might have had  a rifle or shotgun in a truck mounted rack, or a .38 in a holster on their hip.  However, today’s officers often face persons carrying semi and fully automatic rifles and pistols with munition clips of 30 rounds!  The availability of these types of weapons is a problem created by marketing on the part the gun manufacturers.  This includes the NRA and groups which focus on a “fear factor” –that somehow our government will want to confiscate our weapons.

Action

There are many individuals entering the police profession who are altruistic and dedicated to their communities.  However it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit officers with these values,  given the social climate and relative danger in recent years.  It is my opinion that in order to solve the police-community conflicts of the 21^st Century, education/training must change.  When I became an officer, most police officers were not college educated, or if they had a degree, it was not in criminal justice.  The focus on education is appropriate, but a criminal justice degree is not essential.  Criminal justice degree programs need to stress the ideal of “serve and protect,” and a diversity of backgrounds is desirable.    Other degree programs in sociology, psychology or history should be acceptable. Training for police recruits needs to expand to include more emphasis on social aspects of the job.  It is a national embarrassment that our police training hours are so few.  On the average, a police officer still receives less training than a hair dresser!! 

In addition, Congress must control firearms!  The proliferation of guns, and the deadly violence that accompanies their prevalence, must be eliminated.  The firearms lobby, led by the NRA, needs to be “broken.”  Congress needs to stop taking money from this group!  Strong laws which limit the types of firearms that can be purchased must be enacted.  If a state can pass legislation limiting the types of firearms used for hunting (as well as the type of ammunition), surely the federal government should be able to do the same!  The 2^nd Amendment is about a “well-regulated militia,” not about an absolute right to own all type of firearms.

Until these underlying issues are addressed, the measures in the George Floyd Crime Bill HR 1280, while appropriate, will not change the dynamics of community/police interactions.  In addition to the current legislation, it is time to dust off the Police Corps legislation of the mid-1990s, the Kerner Commission’s 1968 recommendations, and President Obama’s 214 Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

Police training must focus on both  community/police interactions and the threat of violence that officers in certain communities see daily.  Gun violence must stop.  But that will only happen when the number of weapons is reduced and appropriate legislation is passed.  It is time for NRA members to re-evaluate their goals.  The organization should return to its founding objective—promoting gun safety!